Tim Pool and guests dissect a Supreme Court ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act, which they argue could grant Republicans 30 to 40 new congressional seats by dismantling race-based districts. The discussion covers alleged left-aligned political violence exceeding right-wing incidents, Elon Musk's Mars colonization deal, and conspiracy theories regarding staged assassination attempts and fake moon missions. They debate whether the deep state pays conservatives to moderate their views, analyze the financial motivations behind media buyouts, and conclude that upcoming elections will prioritize domestic economics over foreign policy narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
The Supreme Court just dropped a political nuclear bomb with their ruling on the Voting Rights Act, a 6 3 conservative ruling saying you cannot have racially gerrymandered congressional districts.
What this means as of right now, it means that two congressional districts that are Democrat based on race in Louisiana are going to have to be redrawn, likely eliminating the Democrat seats in Louisiana, giving Republicans plus two.
The bigger picture.
There are around 30 congressional seats nationwide that are drawn up due to the VRA based on race.
With the ruling from the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional, we could see a cascade with all of these red states now technically being required to redraw their congressional maps, not just gerrymandering, but eliminating long Democrat held seats under the VRA.
This could swing things for the Republicans between 30 and 40 congressional seats.
The big question is will the Republicans actually have the balls to do it?
Well, the good news for Republicans is that it doesn't actually require that much effort from Republican governance because individuals in these states or in these districts specifically can file lawsuits now that the attorneys general of these states would not be able to defend because the Supreme Court already said no.
It's like the end of Roe v. Wade almost.
They didn't overturn the VRA.
They effectively said, you can use this now against these districts.
Meaning, if you live in one of these districts that's gerrymandered based on race, you can sue saying it's racially discriminatory against me to have a district drawn up based on other races.
The Republican Party winning the midterms is now in play if this happens.
So we're going to talk about that, plus a bunch of other fun news.
Apparently, in order for Elon Musk to get his new pay package, he has to put 1 million people on Mars, which I don't know whose idea that was, but there's so many problems with doing that, especially in his lifetime.
I don't know how he actually accomplishes this, but I'd be down to see it.
That would be a lot of fun.
And then we've got more information on this UFO whistleblower and missing scientist conspiracy.
Kash Patel says they are looking into it, and one whistleblower issued a warning shortly before.
Someone disappeared.
So we'll talk about all that.
Before we do, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you.
It is True Gold Republic.
Check out truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim.
Having sound money and financial independence is important.
Hard assets are extremely important.
That's why you should check out True Gold Republic.
Look at the world right now active wars, NATO's under pressure, maybe falling apart.
The dollar is being weaponized, 36 trillion in debt, and no sign that it's going down.
Gold can't be printed, it can't be sanctioned, it can't be devalued by a press release.
Central banks are buying it at record levels.
The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print.
That tells you everything.
Insert True Gold Republic, real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETFs, metal you can hold.
Check out their Independence Bundle, a physical gold starter kit, a one on one with their experts, and bonus precious metals on top.
The chaos isn't coming, it is here, my friends.
Go to TrueGoldRepublic.comslash Tim to claim your Independence Bundle or call 800 628 GOLD.
Or go to truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim.
Do it, but don't forget, join us at timkiss.com.
Become a member of the Discord community where tens of thousands of people hang out every day.
They debate, they argue, they're friends.
Sometimes they even get married.
That's right, there are people who have joined the Discord, met their significant others, they got married.
I think it's like five couples.
I can't guarantee it, but it's like winning the lottery.
Could you imagine?
You join our Discord server to support the work we're doing, and next thing you know, you find the love of your life.
Probably not going to happen, but true story, it actually did.
Smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know, everyone you've ever met.
Joining us tonight to talk about this and literally everything else is Alex Stein.
And I do want to actually say that I know people might think that you're sounding facetious, but I want to give a shout out to Ronnie Sullivan and Abel Garcia, who is a detransitioner who recently got married.
They finally had a wedding in their chat route.
So it actually happened.
So in the Timcast Discord, the Chat Rad Discord, any Discord, you might meet the love of your life.
It's been a very long time since I've been on here, but normally I am doing Pop Culture Crisis Live Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, which is, of course, noon Pacific.
Here's the news from The Guardian U.S. Supreme Court rules Louisiana must redraw its congressional map in landmark case.
The decision effectively guts major section of the Voting Rights Act.
The last remaining provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting.
Let me just set the record straight and give you the quick gist.
The 1965 precedent basically said, hey, look, there's a lot of black people there, systemic racism, so they should have congressional representation.
So they drew up these maps for the purpose of correcting past injustice.
By today's standard, the Supreme Court's basically said that's discriminatory against other races now.
We're well past this.
In fact, Alito made the argument that it seemed like the framers of this law intended for some kind of sunsetting.
That it was to deal with something specific at the time that we are not dealing with today.
So, that being said, they have issued their ruling.
You cannot have congressional districts based on race.
Why does that matter?
Well, my friends, we've got this from the persistence, Scott Pressler.
He says two of Pennsylvania's congressional districts were drawn as a result of the unconstitutional race based Voting Rights Act requirements.
The RNC should not just focus on Southern states.
But must also sue Pennsylvania for its illegal maps.
Sue Pennsylvania.
Where's the thing?
You don't need the RNC to do it.
Anyone who lives in these districts will have legal standing because you are being impacted by this.
And here's where it gets really crazy.
I asked Grok, break it down for me, brother.
Nearly all 20 to 30 of the VRA mandated congressional districts in Republican leaning states are held by Democrats.
That means if we go on the high end, Imagine a Congress with only 180 Democrat votes, 230 or some odd Republican ones.
And I'm going to lay it out there a little bit more.
It's actually upwards of 40, but I will throw a wrench in the spokes for the Democrat or purple states.
The issue here is that if you sue to change, to redraw these racist maps, if the state is held by Democrats, they will take the opportunity to redistrict right now and they will make more Democrat districts.
So they'll say, okay, we won't use race as the basis.
We'll use something else.
And this could result in every single state in the country being redrawn right now in the most insane of ways.
Now, the end result, I think, is because the VRA largely affects Democrat districts in red states.
That was the point.
This is going to put the Republican Party back in play.
Polls be damned.
And the funny thing to me is I'm going to pull up here we got from Kalshi 2026 midterms balance of power has not adjusted for this.
I'm not recommending anybody do anything.
Don't spend the money on that.
Don't listen to me.
I'm just saying.
I am surprised we have only seen a two point jump in Republican control of the House and Senate.
Poll wise, Republicans are set to win the Senate.
Poll wise, it is leaning Democrat.
So right now, we don't know for sure if it's going to be a Democrat House and Senate or a Democrat House with a Republican Senate.
But I actually believe, based on this move from the Supreme Court, if these lawsuits get filed across the board in every one of these districts, these states have no choice.
The Supreme Court has already said it is unconstitutional.
How would they not take this action?
What's their argument?
What could they possibly do?
Delay?
Maybe.
But six months is a long time.
And then, if they don't respond, this could call the election itself into question.
If they move forward with elections in what has been determined to be unconstitutional congressional districts, then you're going to have way more lawsuits.
And I don't know how that ends up, but this is going to be a wacky and wild midterm.
So all I can say is typically, Well, I'll put it this way.
This is particularly esoteric, right?
When you're reading the news and someone says something like, you know, Trump announces this guy will head the Fed, everybody runs to buy in the prediction market to try and get it in before it flips 99% and they can make a profit.
I don't think people who normally buy understand the ramifications of this SCOTUS ruling and how it is the domino being knocked over that will result in Republicans having a much, much better chance of winning.
Not to mention, guys, The latest poll from Harvard Harris X is that Republicans are tied with Democrats.
We know that every congressional district is probably race based.
So I don't know what Pandora's box is open from this.
But I would say also at the same exact time, you know, if we want to win elections, it's always the left that uses all these redistricting and gerrymandering.
I feel like that's kind of what they're an expert in.
And if we want to win, we got to win because we are the more popular opinion.
We're the populist movement.
Like we don't need to worry about.
Gerrymandering, and we just have to overcome it.
I know that sounds whatever cliche or too anecdotal.
I just don't think this is as big a deal for some reason because I feel like the district's already gerrymandered anyway.
And I just don't know if they change that much if we lose how many different seats.
Well, no, because the VRA, the red states, have weird race based gerrymandered districts.
Look at Illinois 13.
They intentionally created a strip.
Could you imagine you live in like some rural middle of Illinois town, but they just have this line of fire going over your house to put you in a Democrat district?
Look at this Rockford and Bloomington and Peoria.
They create this weird strip that wraps around so they can get these Democrat districts and make a fake congressional district.
Let me show you what Louisiana looks like.
This is what ultimately lost.
Look at the sixth and the second district.
Is that not the dumbest district you've ever seen?
He has kind of the counter opinion about protecting minorities and making sure they still have a voice in the Republic.
Because back in the day, I think that a lot of this stems from back when they would block bust and all the rich white dudes, because they came from money in the 1890s or whatever, and the black people had been mostly descended of slavery, so they didn't have as much money.
The white rich dudes would get together and be like, No one can move in.
We're not, it's technically, we're not doing it on purpose, but we'll just say no to any black people that want to move in.
So they would make them all, it's called blockbusting.
They make them all move out.
So then the district is this 15 block radius of rich white dudes controlling.
And so they had to like carve out, or they felt like they had to empower the people that lived in the dregs on the outskirts.
But it's been, it's like the balloon's been inflated and bubbled so many times that it just popped.
Like that, the insanity is observant at this point.
So if you live in a racially gerrymandered district, you have standing.
You are aggrieved now under this unconstitutional action.
It still will come down to how the state responds.
The attorneys general are going to be presented with an interesting conundrum.
So for those who are not familiar how this works, If you go to a state, or if you live in a state that you have a problem with, let's say you have a problem with your state, and you're like, I'm going to sue the state.
The lawsuit goes to the attorney general of that state, who then determines whether or not he's going to defend the state from the action.
There are many instances where the attorney general might say, you know what?
I actually can't win this case.
And so let's say you sue your state's power agency or whatever, and you've got something like, hey, the fees that they've put forward on electric.
Or regulatory fees they've added to electric bills from these private companies.
They're unconstitutional.
The attorney general reads it and goes, Okay.
He then goes to the regulatory agency and says, I will lose if I try to defend you on this one.
I can try to defend you on it, but I'm going to tell you, we will just waste money and it's not going to happen.
More importantly, if the governor tells the attorney general not to defend it, it's just done.
So if various political action groups or individuals file lawsuits in these districts saying they are known racially gerrymandered VRA districts, there is still the prove it.
What is the grounds by which these are determined to be?
And they may try to make that argument in court.
Okay, you got to prove it in court.
This district came about because of this.
May actually be very easy to prove, considering Democrats' attempts to defend them have already created this pretext where they've said, We did it for this reason.
Obama's quote right now about how this is about fighting back against Jim Crow.
Okay, agreed.
Now you got to get rid of him.
If the governors, the state legislatures just say, You're right, they tell the attorney general, We're not going to defend it.
More importantly, The state could just do it.
The state could then, the governor could say, look, we just heard what the Supreme Court said.
We have no choice.
We're redrawing these maps.
So, I do think that this is more likely to happen because private individuals now have standing to take action.
Whether or not it'll happen fast enough, I don't know, but I kind of think the reason this is happening is intentional in the Republican playbook.
They went after the VRA intentionally because they want to win the midterms based on redrawing maps.
That's why Trump told Texas to redraw.
Democrats are responding.
The issue for Democrats is many of The blue states are already gerrymandered to oblivion, like I showed you with Illinois.
So they won't be able to gain as much as Republicans can in this war if Republicans go all the way.
I think they chose now for the specific reason that there is very little time to reverse any decision.
You've got six months, meaning it's a rush job to flip these states and go plus 12.
By the time this is resolved, the election will be right in front of us.
I do think we have an interesting conundrum in what happens if someone files a suit right now, it is not resolved by the time the election happens, and then after the election, a court issues a ruling that it was an unconstitutional district and must be redrawn.
They'll have to have special elections.
So, hypothetically, there's a scenario where in February of next year, we're having another series of 20 or 30 congressional races due to the resolution coming after the election.
I mean, maybe I'm just jaded, but that's, I'm just, you know, I'm not a nothing ever happens person.
I'm a nothing ever changes person.
And I understand that, like, For a lot of time, when you're jaded about this type of stuff, I'm like, it just doesn't seem like we're going to see plus 12.
These are these states are all one third to one half Republican with no congressional seats.
So California is able to squeeze a few out.
Virginia, of course, is trying to put five congressional districts in Fairfax County, which would eliminate the state's going to eliminate four Republican seats.
There was just something always so depressing to me about being like the Republicans in California and they're like, We're going to squeeze a few more seats out of you as if they haven't already been beaten down enough out there.
They're not only reversing it and undoing it, they're like turning it around and forcing a different direction, I think.
We used to call affirmative action in like high school.
This is like in the mid 90s.
We'd be like, isn't that reverse racism?
That if a guy who's not as qualified as me, but as a black guy, gets the job instead of me, who is better, isn't that?
And they're like, no, no, no.
It's not reverse racism, bro.
It's racism.
And like, I do understand like lifting up people that didn't have.
Much growing coming up, but like you want to help out marginalized communities, but to a point, like I'm not going to stomp on my own foot to make my other foot, you know, run faster.
That was the beginning, at which point mass adoption skyrocketed.
In one year, it's a jump of double digit percentage year over year.
And over the course of 15 years, I mean, going to 2008, you have the course of about 15 years of people slowly adopting the internet and arguments being made it will not take over.
To then, within the span of two years, everybody has it.
No, but when it does and it makes a drastic decision that changes society, I think if you have a grievance with that, you're okay to investigate that grievance.
I bet as soon as the news broke, there were a bunch of NGOs that already had the lawsuits drafted and ready to go because this is a very obvious GOP play to win the midterms.
Like the strategy is obvious.
We want to get rid of the VRA.
Now, it's funny as Republicans are cheering for SCOTUS not getting rid of the VRA because under this opinion, it's narrow.
What's being argued is now the Republicans can actually use the VRA to get rid of any districts that they feel is racially gerrymandered.
So if they got rid of it, then it's okay, well, just don't do it again.
But with it still intact, you can now have some middle aged, you know, fat white guy who makes $30,000 a year say he can go to a nonprofit and be like, yeah, sue on behalf of me because they're discriminating against me for being white.
Can we just pause real quick and just think about the degree of absurdity that at some point in this country they said we should have members of Congress whose standing in Congress is based just on their skin color?
Yeah, so the big controversy with the initial birthright citizenship suit to the Supreme Court, Trump's administration argued not on the citizenship question.
But on the universal injunction question, because for a long time, judges in this country had insane authority.
You could be a lower court federal judge who handles specifically the Washington area.
And what actually happened is that the Trump administration said no more transgenders in the military.
They get sued by three transgender individuals in different jurisdictions.
The result is they get an injunction.
So there's an injunction issued saying, Trump, you can't bar transgenders.
So, your executive order no longer applies.
Trump then appeals the higher court, the appellate court says, No, Trump has final say on who can.
His ban on transgenders will stand.
Instantly, another judge in a lower court issued another injunction, at which case, now you've got two separate injunctions one appeal staying that injunction, but another judge being active.
And the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court, How can we have 400 plus lower court judges?
All issuing injunctions on literally every single person in the class without establishing class.
And the Supreme Court said, correct, they cannot.
This means that if you sue, and this is actually a nuclear bomb as well, if you sue because Trump says no long haired freaky people in the military, and then Ian goes, well, I'm a long haired freaky person, so I'm suing.
Remedy can only apply to you.
They can no longer issue injunctions for anyone who's like you.
The issue right now is if you live in a district that is known to have been protected, Created specifically under the VRA, you have legal standing to sue because it's violating your constitutional rights.
But the original Animal Farm, it's really interesting.
The reason Orwell chose the pigs to be the leaders is that pigs are smart.
The reason he chose the dogs to be the guards is because dogs are not as smart, but smart.
And then the pack animals are hard workers, but not very smart.
The point he was making was that in a communist takeover, the smarter people steal power to manipulate the stupid.
And he brought up the point of Boxer, the horse representing the industrious working class who truly believes in the revolution and just does whatever they're told.
Then the moment they are no longer useful, instead of getting their just desserts, they're sold off to a glue factory.
Well, Machiavelli, he said it best, is that most people are good, but the people in power, most of the time, are not good because they had to do something to get in power.
Like they had to do something, cut throat, or something bad.
The crazy thing is, if you were 12 and your dad died and all his buddies come with you, you're like, your uncle's going to kill you if you don't have him killed right now.
At first, the Bolsheviks lock them up and they're like, listen, we're taking over.
We don't want to kill you or hurt you.
So just chill here.
We're in charge now.
And then it was some time later, they shut up and said, the people are worried that if you're still alive and your kids are alive, they may try to make a claim for rightful governance.
So bang, bang, kill this kid, kill this whole family.
They will infiltrate your institutions, they will twist them and burn them down.
They will do things like they will reimagine your traditional art in ways that is shockingly offensive and then infiltrate your conservative institutions to push that pro communist message upon you.
And they'll pay your own friends to promote it, and your friends will do it with a smile on their face.
The principal difference between these groups, and I don't mean any specific fascistic political organization with an ethos or a mandate.
I'm saying the general idea is progressivism versus traditionalism.
They're both authoritarian groups that generally believe you must eliminate the undesirables.
The question is the structure of culture.
So the communists want to eliminate tradition and blank slate everything, and the fascists want to uphold tradition and have, you know, like traditional human.
My question then to Ian, because I don't think you'd understand it, is Ian, when the Lich King stands atop the mountain, you can point to him and say, that is the Lich King, correct?
This story is in light of a recent report from the Wall Street Journal that claimed left wing violence only slightly.
Outpaced right wing violence.
Batya Unger Sargon addressed this in a long post as well as on News Nation, pointing out that these studies, like CSAS, Cato, and others, will claim that, let's say, like a white supremacist in his trailer in Arkansas gets up one day and goes to his next door neighbor to buy meth, and then a fight breaks out and he shoots him.
They call that right wing violence.
It's not.
They will claim, they did claim, that a white supremacist who punched his wife and was arrested for domestic abuse was right wing violence.
Well, I don't care about that because it's not meaningful to me.
That does not explain to me what is going on politically in this country.
So here's what I did.
Using Grok, ChatGPT, and Google, I searched for, and I did this over a couple of hours, all instances of political violence in the past 10 years where the motivations are known, clear, and commonly held political beliefs.
Boy, let me tell you, ChatGPT basically insulted me, attacked me, and refused to cooperate.
It kept saying things like, but Nazis are.
It was like, so the first thing it does is.
It's like, here's a list of politically motivated attacks, and it lists a bunch of neo Nazi violence, things that were not even well known or in the press.
And then I just simply asked, is neo Nazism a commonly held political belief?
And it went, no, it is not.
And then I said, okay, then we shouldn't include that in a graph talking about commonly held political beliefs that motivated people towards violence.
And it goes, right.
But if you do that, there is no right wing violence, literally what it told me.
And I said, well, I guess that's the case then.
So, I went through a huge list.
I had both Grok and ChatGPT pull up.
I personally fact checked.
I had some removed where I thought it was ambiguous on the left.
There are some instances of left wing violence where I don't know the motivation was clearly cut in a mainstream way.
However, as you all know, overwhelmingly, it's going to be the right wing attacks they claim that get removed.
In response to this, leftists have said, Why aren't you including neo Nazis?
To which I responded, No mainstream political personality or politician endorses those views and advocates for them.
So I don't care about the fringes that we've already condemned.
So we pulled up a list, and what do you get?
In the past 10 years, there have been 460 plus commonly held left aligned politically motivated attacks, and only one right wing aligned politically motivated attack.
Some people on the left say, What about that guy in Minnesota who killed those Democrats?
The motivation was not political.
It was interpersonal.
And even then, there is no clear cut, commonly held political belief that motivated him to do it.
The argument from the left is but he had some of those views.
That's great.
Did those views lead to the attack?
Some have mentioned the attack on Paul Pelosi.
DePap was not motivated by commonly held political views.
If a lunatic commits an act of violence, I don't care.
I didn't include in the left the killing of Irina Zarutska, but I could have.
It was a black guy who said, I got that, white bitch.
That would qualify the same as the neo Nazi attack.
I did not include those.
This is specifically, is the motivation something a Democrat or mainstream liberal pundit has said?
When the attack happened, was that their motivation?
Okay, well, then we include it in the list.
This means things like the George Floyd riots.
This means the killing of Charlie Kirk.
This means the ICE attacks.
This means the attack on the ICE facility in the Tacoma ICE facility where the guy yelled, I am Antifa.
So long as mainstream Democrats Defend Antifa and say they're just peaceful protesters or mostly peaceful protests, it's in the list.
Key takeaway from 2017 to 2026, verified politically motivated violence is overwhelmingly driven by left aligned extremist activity.
Right aligned violence is limited to a single major incident in the entire period.
I suppose the big problem would be that the people on the left that don't really understand the way people on the right think because they see them as caricatures would assume that the people on the right do see neo Nazis as a Typical part of the political.
This list is because I am sick and tired of conservatives arguing with liberals, and I hear the liberal go, the right wing's responsible for way more political violence.
And then the conservative goes, but that changed recently.
No, it didn't.
You can't take Cato's data and claim a meth head with no teeth, who no one's ever heard of, getting into a fight over meth is right wing violence.
More importantly, Charlie Kirk famously kicked white nationalists out of his events, all on camera saying, you are not welcome here.
So when they say right wing violence, what they Imagine there's a guy who believes that the moon is made of cheese and that NASA is importing all the cheese.
That's retarded, right?
Now imagine if he went to a school and kidnapped the principal and said he secretly works for NASA administering the cheese distribution from the moon and kills him.
Then Cato goes right wing violence.
That is not meaningful to me in any way to solve these problems.
The issue is conservatives keep using that as the basis for yes, the right.
In their response, apparently they said that their F 9, that's what they're calling the person, their source informant, has flipped and is now an informant for the DOJ.
Indicating the criminal case is predicated upon a neo Nazi telling the feds they were actually getting me to do these crimes.
So, when they say, and all the Democrats are like, no, no, it's just an informant.
Actually, the informant told the DOJ apparently that they were paying him to commit the crimes and to do the hate.
I think the Democrats realized they couldn't get their left wing Joe Rogan.
And we had predicted this back in 2024 that they were going to be dumping tens of millions of dollars.
Like they pulled the contract from Rachel Maddow.
These powerful interests have billions of dollars to spend.
George Soros has billions of dollars.
They're not going to sit there and be like, we lose the media game.
But you're not going to get a left wing Joe Rogan because they want authenticity.
So, what happens?
The interesting thing that I've brought up time and time again is that the RPMs on the search term Erica Kirk is comparable to finance, indicating there's either an algorithmic push or someone has put a ton of money on Google.
To pay people indirectly to make content about Erica Kirk.
Well, to be fair, there are a lot of people that are newish content creators that are getting tons of views just talking about Erica every day because there's money behind it.
So what happened is tons of people started making mesothelioma blogs and they would compete for the top search engine spot.
If someone searched mesothelioma and you were number three on the list, you were probably making a million bucks a month.
All your website was, was one page saying, here's what mesothelioma is, here's a list of people, and then Google Ads would appear and people could click to find a lawyer.
The lawyers were paying insane amounts of money to find these clients.
The point is, economically, when it comes to ads, the money comes from somewhere.
So finance has a high RPM because there's a limited content space, but the people who purchase financial services tend to be wealthy.
Poor people ain't buying wealth management for the most part.
This means that a banker can spend $100,000 on an ad because one client might net him over three years half a million dollars.
If you are selling politics, for instance, right now, RPMs are between $5 and $8.
There is no politics behind it other than to destroy Turning Point pre midterms, indicative of a political play to prop up content that will burn Turning Point down because they're rallying young people to vote for Trump.
Well, I think that was actually a couple months before.
But yeah, that video actually blew up where he had the Turning Point students kind of talk about the elephant in the room, you know, Israel's influence, which you don't think they have any.
This is what I. I'm going to say this about the Israel people.
I have a couple of dollars in my pocket.
So the problem that we have right now in this country is, you know, I told this to Myron Gaines.
Like, I'm like, bro, when you post happy merchants, you lose any goodwill you might have to convince people.
And so, if you look at like Dan Bilzerian's fans, if I say something on the show, like if I tweet right now, the U.S. should stop funding Israel, they will just attack me like crazy and then make videos insulting me and calling me a Zio shell, even if I agree with them.
Now, the question I have is, what is the function of that?
Do they want me to agree with them or to disagree?
Most people, when attacked, take the inverse position.
So, the Right.
As I explain with persuasion, social engineering, the first thing you have to do to convince someone is build rapport.
Rapport, extreme turn.
The first thing you do is you go to somebody, let's say you find a lib, you want to try and change their mind.
You have to agree with them and say, I hate Trump, you know, Kamala Harris all the way, right?
Actually, Bill Maher inadvertently does this on Club Random all the time.
You then present an extreme circumstance they can't agree with.
And in fact, Bill Maher does this inadvertently all the time.
And then it forces the other person to change their mind.
So, you know, good examples are when Seth Green was on Bill Maher's show and He's like, I'm a lib, I hate Trump.
Seth Green goes, Okay, cool, we're friends.
Then Seth Green goes, Trump made me think about thought crime and like how we're getting there.
And then Bill Maher says, Hate speech laws are a thought crime.
He creates a circumstance where he's like, Actually, look at this extreme position.
And it's not that heavy, but because it's inadvertent.
And therein lies the issue that they find one morsel to connect the threads, even though the issue of opiates in West Virginia is more closely tied to China if you want to make a political argument.
Clint Russell then makes a video called Israel.
Israel Derangement Syndrome debunked with a picture of me in the thumbnail yelling at the camera where he criticizes me for things I never said.
So, what is the function of that?
Is that to convince me that I'm wrong or is that to just lie for views on the internet to pander to people who don't care one way or the other?
I think it's more of the lies just trying to make money, just trying to critique you because people do, you know, Tim, you are very popular, but the more popular you get, the more haters you get.
You know that.
So, people are just going to try to, I guess, clout chase or try to make money off that.
So, I mean, I think that's more of it than it is like them trying to convince you or make you feel guilty for not being.
The interesting thing, though, is the end result of, like, in response to having Randy Fine on the show, the end result of this is massive support for Israel.
Laura Loomer is not Mark Levin level, in my opinion.
Laura Loomer is pro Trump.
She takes the Trump thing on everything.
Mark Levin is the Israel thing, and he is insufferable.
But my point is the response that I've gotten from normies after having Randy Fine on is why are they so crazy about Israel?
Oh, my God, dude.
So I go play poker all the time.
Randy Fine comes on the show.
I talk to some random guy who's not big in politics.
He sees the Twitter posts, he sees the comments, and he's like, what the fuck? Is wrong with those people.
The visceral psychotic reaction to me having a conversation with a guy they don't like resulted in regular, uninitiated people being like, wow, the anti Israel people are insane lunatics.
So, this is my point.
So, I told Myron Gaines this.
I'm like, bro, if you have an argument about Israeli government policies, military action, US involvement, AIPAC, and all that stuff, posting a happy merchant creates a repulsion.
What I mean is, if you walk up to two people and they were both, and one guy had his hands up being, please, dude, just stop, just stop, and the other guy punched him, you would say, the guy swinging is the bad guy.
And you would rush to the fence of the guy who got hit.
What if it turned out the guy who got hit was a pedophile who had just been caught with a child?
This actually happened with Luke Rikowski's friend who there was a shooting in a mall.
His friend, Came in to stop the shooter and drew his weapon.
When the police came in, they saw him with the gun and shot and killed him.
Oh, wow.
The point is when it comes to issues of persuasion, if you really do have a legitimate criticism of Israeli influence because they've done something wrong, but you were online saying fat Jews, you piece of trash, regular people walk up and see you being crazy and take the side of the person who's being attacked.
There were a handful of paid Animal Farm promos from prominent right personalities, and they deleted them because they started getting attacked for it.
I don't think Riley Gaines deleted hers.
But hers looked like a copy and paste.
And I got to tell you, Alex, it is fairly demoralizing to see all these right wingers promote welfare soda, India, gambling websites, and a pro communist movie for money.
And I mean, to be fair, you know, everybody gets attacked and accused of being a grifter.
And sure, we got to pay our bills.
We got to sell a t shirt here and there, sell a little coffee.
But when it comes to paid advertising ads like that, people are just trying to make ends meet and they're going to go, they don't care about the movie.
But this is indicative of the rest of their opinions.
Typically, these people, when they're not selling, they want clicks because they want engagement, they want ad dollars or otherwise.
So I can only presume any one of these individuals who is willing to take money to promote welfare soda, India, gambling, specifically fly by night foreign gambling, and, uh, uh, uh, Pro communism films wearing our traditions like skin suits, they're probably lying about all of their opinions because they're saying the things they think will get them clicks.
Well, we're going to find out very soon when MAGA is over and we're going to see if JD Vance or Rubio can just take the MAGA coalition and carry it.
I don't think either of them necessarily can.
I mean, if Hillary Clinton couldn't do it with Obama, then I don't think they're going to be able to do it.
But that's where we'll know who's going to be clicking and who's going to be on the side of politicians that aren't popular because people are going to have to go to Ted Cruz or they're going to have to go.
Thomas Massey, and I think that's going to cause a lot of.
I think if Massey leaves, his gravitas is tremendous and he can have way more persuasive power in the political space as a free agent as opposed to being in Congress.
When you are massively underwritten like Fox News with carriage fees and you're getting 80 to 100 million per year, no matter what, you can withstand an off year where no one is talking.
I mean, you turn on Fox News right now and what are they talking about?
And so what happens is after a presidential victory, you have the first hundred days.
Viewership declines a bit for the season, but people kind of stick around to see what the president is going to do, and there's a lot of attention around it.
But into the next holidays, Before the midterm spending cycle and after a presidential election, no one is following politics anymore.
Right now, with the culture war, Democrats are glued to it because Republicans control everything.
Republicans don't pay attention because they control everything.
So there's very little to say.
Trump secured the border, he got the domestic issues.
There are still the diehards paying attention.
But if you were a guy who was making 70K a year, posting X on X and making videos and doing memes, you're not getting those anymore.
So what are we seeing?
Right wing meme accounts are now posting generic viral videos.
Or they're anti Trump now.
Because you go anti Trump, you get clicks.
You go Erica Kirk, you go Israel, you get clicks.
This trend is going to be interesting as we get into the midterms.
Like with the DeSantis cycle, we might see many of these people come back together.
I'm arguing Brett Baer and America's Newsroom general news coverage is news.
You turn on CNN, you don't get it.
You turn on MSNI, you don't get it.
So, my point is what we're seeing now when we get back into the political cycle, I'm looking at all these people that have turned themselves into Israel channels.
Like my dude, that is a small market share.
It may be bigger right now than politics because politics is the offseason.
But if you just decide to be an Israel poster and you abandon your base, what are you going to be when politics is mainstream and $10 billion is spent in the cycle?
And regular people look at you like you're retarded.
My point is that you're not going to have your audience back.
They may make money off Pakistan and Indonesia or Malaysia or something.
But in two years, when we're in the full throes of the presidential cycle and $7 billion is likely, I think the projection is what, $8 billion for 2028 expected to be spent?
I think Obama was the first billion, and now it's expected to be exponential.
You are going to have every facet of mainstream American culture focused on this upcoming election.
We have a dual primary for the first time in what, 10 years?
So we had the Republican Democrat primary in 2016.
But then with 2020, we only had a Democrat one.
And technically in 2024, we didn't have any primary at all.
Because although there was technically a Republican one, or I'm sorry, in 2023, it didn't really matter because everyone knew it was going to be Trump.
For the first time, we're going to have Democrats and Republicans in a primary season dumping billions of dollars.
That amount of money is going to be focused on economics.
Israel is not going to matter to your run of the mill plumber or teacher when it comes to how they're paying their health care bills.
By all means, the Israel posters, the channels are dedicated to nothing but Israel content, may still get Malaysian viewers or a certain sect of American viewers, but it's small market share.
My point is this.
If you were a political channel that received a general political audience, you have growth potential.
But the focus on Israel is limited domestic potential.
By all means, you can do what Jackson Hinkle did, move to Russia or whatever.
People right now are like, look, there's no elections.
I don't care.
No money's being spent.
No one's focused on it.
In the next couple of months, we're going to start getting all of this crazy primary action.
Congressional primaries don't matter all that much, but about a month or two before the election, they're going to be spending billions of dollars on ads, and that's going to mandate that media shift.
Put it this way let's say CNN.
Advertiser comes to them and says, I want to run a commercial in my district on CNN saying, vote for me.
But you guys only talk about sports, so I'm not going to buy from you.
CNN goes, no, we're doing special election coverage.
Okay, I'll buy from you now.
These guys.
Who do these ad buys are going to put a decent chunk onto ESPN.
You will see political ads in every space possible, but the biggest chunk of ad spending appears in political spaces.
Notably, when Bloomberg bought his half a billion in ads, it appeared on political channels because he's trying to capture the people who are folks in politics.
He wants that name recognition.
More importantly, he was targeting opposition.
So my channel had an insane amount of Bloomberg ads on it.
Like that dude basically funded my entire, what, 2018, 2019?
Well, and also, you know, there was this unfavorable news clip from CBS, it was 60 Minutes specifically, where they talked about, you know, Gaza and said how it was bad.
And they also covered the pager bombing and kind of showed a not super pro Israel side of the pager bombing.
So ultimately, I think Arn McIntyre said if your political elites aren't willing to drop billions of dollars to buy a media organization to support their cause, then what are you actually even doing?
There is a guy who woke up this morning and he threw some melon into a blender with some yogurt and then he put a little almond milk in it and drank that.
He opened up his sports betting app and then he was looking at the games that were going on and he turned on the news and then he heard something about a shooting with the White House and he's like, wow.
Well, but what I think is the more likely scenario is it's not that Trump is like playing 5D chess and telling Cash Vertel, hey, do this, but it's that they have these like sleeper cell people that are mentally ill that they've radicalized with the internet.
And at some point, they could just do something that activates him.
There's security footage of him kind of running, but you just think we'd have him shooting the gun.
All I know is it's probably real, but now we've lost so much trust in the government that I'm not surprised at everybody on the internet saying it's fake.
Actually, I think this is a really good example of how the left is organizing to win politics.
So, like the example that I like to use is Rumble, for instance.
The narrative early on when Rumble launched was that the views were fake.
And this was pushed by libs who wanted to censor people on YouTube primarily.
And it's pushed today by people who don't like, primarily, Dan Bongino.
The only issue is, like, for us, all I can say is, like, I track the analytics and it's the same analytics we've always had.
We've seen minor growth.
Our viewership, same.
In fact, we've had the best sales numbers we've ever had in terms of ad sales in a political offseason because our viewership has been increasing with Rumble and we sell ads to that audience.
So, where is this narrative that people put out that Rumble views are not real?
It's intended to say, stay on YouTube, stay on YouTube where we can ban you.
And then when you go to a platform that's saying, we won't ban you, the narrative emerges, your views aren't real, and the advertisers pull out.
Well, guess what?
We've sold more in ads in the past two months than we ever have on Rumble.
The narrative around the White House shooting being fake is all part of, in my opinion, either it could be emergent, but the libs, the left, the Democrats have been desperately trying to figure out how to shatter the right.
So, what do you do?
There's a handful of things you can do lie, cheat, and steal.
Put money into Google for content that is anti Trump and anti Erica Kirk, destroy Turning Print USA, kill Charlie Kirk, spread lies about your political enemies, and ban them off YouTube.
When it happened, I'm at a bar and everyone walks over to the TV and they stare at the screen as Trump was giving a dress and they show the security footage and the guy subdued and they're just going, wow.
From the New York Post Elon Musk set for major SpaceX payday if he settles 1 million people on Mars.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It got approval in January.
He would get 200 million super voting restricted shares of stock as long as the colony is permanent, has at least 1 million residents, and SpaceX has hit a market valuation of $7.5 trillion.
Yeah, so there's a bunch of images where they actually took a real picture of Devon Island and they took images of quote unquote Mars, and it's exactly the same.
So, all I'm saying, just type in Devon Island exposed.
It's just, I don't believe that something's on Mars right now, and then they make all these stories.
Oh, Elon's going to put a million people there and get $7.5 trillion.
Well, it's not that it's hollow earth, but he did say this is one of the first generals in American history to go explore Antarctica, said that it was so big and that it wasn't just ice.
There's actually tropical areas.
You can type in General Admiral Byrd talking about how.
Antarctica was not exactly how people thought, and that there's enough resources in just Antarctica enough to supply the land.
But then, if you actually look at the storyline of Back to the Future, it actually coincides exactly with Donald Trump because you have Biff has the big casino.
And then you look at the connection of his uncle was the guy that went through Tesla's, you know, when Tesla died, it was actually his uncle that supposedly went through his safe.
So I know it's highly unlikely that he is a time traveler, but then also if you look at a thing called Mandela effects, where we remember things wrong, like Chick fil A or Shazam.
And it's got a bunch of meat and veggies, and it's a flute making the cornucopia, which many people said was meant to be a play on Fruit of the Loom in 1973.
And so people are like, how did a guy satirize Fruit of the Loom with Fruit of the Loom if it never had a cornucopia?
Well, when they took out, excuse me, when they found the guy that the pilot that crashed in Iran.
They even said that they ran a disinformation campaign on the citizens there so they wouldn't know where the guy was.
Like, they actually put out fake media hits as if, oh, he's in this area and he wasn't.
So, if they're running disinformation campaigns at the snap of their fingers in foreign countries, you don't think they're running one right now, though, Tim?
You don't think the CIA is probably cooking the books and trying to influence us to think a certain way?
What Trump is doing right now, it appears, surface level, low probability, but decent probability.
Choking off the Strait of Hormuz is shutting down OPEC and shifting oil production and oil controls directly to the United States, which disrupts the liberal economic order.
Well, they do own a bunch of the old movies and stuff.
But listen.
Is Tucker being paid by Qatar?
I don't know if there's any evidence for that, but I do think that Tucker realizes that young people, Tim, whether you want to admit it or not, whether you think it's like this, you know, things that's just going to change after the midterms, young people are very disenfranchised with the support of Israel and just blindly supporting it.
So I think that the tide is kind of turning and there's probably going to be an attention economy dedicated to anti Israel content that is probably going to get bigger, I would argue.
So if Israel said, let's put 10 billion on Google ads and put it onto content that is favorable towards Israel, the algorithm would put it on the front page.
When the Covington kids, when the video went viral, the Covington kids on the Lincoln stairs, and everybody said this kid got in the Indian's face, the Native American's face, conservatives were condemning him.
Philip DeFranco condemned him.
And then I got sent this video and I said, What is it?
And they said, Look what the kid is doing.
I said, I don't know what he's doing.
And they're like, He's in the face of that Indian guy.
And I'm like, I just see two people standing in front of each other.
Turns out.
I did some digging with some help from the audience.
The Native American got in his face.
So my video was like, you are all wrong.
This guy got in his face.
Why are people attacking him?
And then the narrative flipped because people realized, oh crap, we were wrong.
All I do all day is watch videos, research, and fact check stories.
And for the life of me, there is no coherent argument that Erica Kirk is influential.
I don't mean that to be disrespectful to her.
She's obviously a well known person, but she is only well known externally, meaning.
What's a, well, I mean, I don't know if because part of their company is a non profit, right?
So I don't know if they're really competing on a for profit company, but I know they have Turning Point Action, which is a non profit company, but 95% of Of Erica Kirk appearances are external, not her.
But the point is that Hollywood is one of those capitalist industries in the world.
And one of the reasons they'll make movies like this, even though they'll change the story completely, Is they're not willing to let Andy Serkis write a movie.
Well, because I was trying to go with like the old Joe Plummer slant, where the guy's just kind of an everyday American, not worried about who's in power, just trying to pay his bills.
What I was going to say is, I'm actually excited for the cycle because the retards that have shifted away from politics and into Erica Kirk conspiracy, they're going to lose that audience.
When people start tuning back into politics, we're going to capture that audience.
I try to be cautious on that because there was this period where people were using bot or not trackers on people's accounts.
They'd take your account, load it into an AI that would be like, it's 20% real and 80% bots.
The only problem was they kept saying celebrities had bot followers.
When in reality, celebrities had suggested user list followers, meaning there are a lot of accounts of people who never post.
They just log on to Twitter and read the feed and then close it out.
And these programs were calling those bots because they were inactive users that were following somebody.
So for Barstool, if you have a guy who signs up to read sports threads but doesn't post himself, they're going to be like, how come there's so many likes?
Well, these people are not active Twitter users, they're just followers of Barstool Sports.
Additionally, if they embed tweets on the website and people just hit like, Yeah, I know there are ways where it can kind of look funny and it's not artificial.
It is a little gay for pay, but at the same exact time, Angel Studios, would you agree, and maybe you don't, that a lot of their past projects did have the right messaging, and maybe they've earned enough goodwill with the people that they pay, the influencers that they pay, that even though this might not ideologically align with what they're posting, because they've been.
Because they know the moment they sit down in the chair and I say, here's a quote from Andy Serkis, he wanted to be about capitalism, they're going to go, oh.
Five figures, I'm not gonna get into hard numbers, but it was much, much more than that.
And I said, no, I am not gonna take money to promote a film that besmirches Animal Farm, wears our traditions like a skin suit, and promotes communism.
During Occupy Wall Street, when I was broke and sleeping in a tent, they said, You're the perfect example of why capitalism has failed.
You're smart, you're hardworking, why don't you have money?
And then two months later, when I was featured in Time magazine, they started coming out saying Tim Poole was born rich and had a silver spoon up his ass.
They just flip because they're fucking scumbags.
There is nothing that would ever get me to take money to promote communism.
Yeah, well, we're in a space where I'm expected to take shit from Merrick Garland being accused of being a Russian, where I get shit on by these fucking Israel lunatics, where these people drive by my house shooting at me for these.
Fucking scumbags who took a paycheck to promote a communist film.
I'm just sitting here saying, Why would I stick my neck out for these pieces of shit?
No, the problem is, it is influencer economy, and you're being sold on somebody believing what they're saying.
So, if the idea here is that every other viewpoint that they have is anti communist and they share this movie, and to be fair, it could be subjective and maybe they don't see it in that movie, and that's fine.
But people aren't willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it looks like they're reading from a script.
So, the problem is, if your word is everything because people are following you because they believe that you're saying what you believe, then paid advertisement is always risky.
Yeah, I mean, that's why they put the laws in where they have to say on Twitter whether it's a paid ad.
But I think people now are hip enough to know that if anybody's promoting something and doing an ad for it, it doesn't really mean that the people give a shit about the product that they're promoting.
And he tells all the animals, you shouldn't tolerate this.
Farmer Jones was Tsar Nicholas.
They rebel against him, take over, and then the pigs, Napoleon is a fucking evil psychopath.
In the old movie in the 50s, he's like, all nasty looking.
In Animal Farm, the new movie, he's comic relief.
Who is tricked by the corporatist into getting credit card debt?
And then he gets mad, like, how am I supposed to give him magic paper every month for this stupid card?
And then she goes, well, if you sell the farm to me, then you'll have more than enough magic paper forever to pay off, to give the magic paper for the card.
And then they list all the animals they're going to sell off.
And the animals in Act Three is the first time there's a revolution.
Revolution is supposed to happen in the first page.
The other thing about it, the point I was making earlier, is Hollywood is a very capitalist industry.
They do screw up and they do, but I would argue that the fact that Disney has paid lip service now to actually wanting to make changes and walking back a lot of the stuff that they were doing means that they are for profit entities and that's what they want.
But the thing is, this movie doesn't get made or it doesn't get the amount of attention it's getting if it doesn't have the name Animal Farm.
If they truly, if they were truly anti capitalist, they would make it under some other name.
They'd call it Pig Pen and let the chips fall when they met.
It's the most cynical form of capitalism to sell the anti capitalist movie in a way that could only be done because they had to wear the skin suit of a much more important property.
If this was like a live action thing where it's more adult oriented, maybe, but it's like they do want to indoctrinate young people by them watching a cartoon that is anti capitalist.
If any of these individuals ever come on my show or a show like it, the first question I have for them is how much did you get paid to promote an anti capitalist film?
All they had to do was pay Ed Krasenstein some money to say it was a great movie or to say that it was a bad movie, and then all the conservatives loved it.
Well, the funny thing is, what I'm hearing now is that they're selling, they're buying the promo spots, but not giving screeners.
So I don't know how true this is because I've only heard a little bit in the background.
Typically, what they do with it for us is they sent us a script, they committed to a large sum of money, and then sent us a screener to watch the movie.
The script they sent to me, they wanted me to explicitly state I was wrong about my opinion on the film, and that after watching it, I realized it was actually anti communist and good.
So I just want to point out I mean, while it all kicked off because of that, you know, being dismissed by the Trump administration, hey, happy days, you know, we can't put this disinformation out there.
We can't let, especially from creators like yourself who have a large voice, be allowing that narrative to be put there.
And that's my main pushback.
You know, I realize there's a distinction without it.
Difference, but it's important to say what the real discussion actually is.
Like I said, I wanted to make sure you were aware because, again, misinformation is just as bad as disinformation and the facts need to be what they are.
Legally, I owe money, I'm in debt, I've done uh, less than that.
So, I'll just put it this way I do want to have kids, I do need to be in a hurry, Tim, to have kids.
But there is kind of that side of me, an idiocracy, where at the beginning of the movie, where like the rich white family are like, Oh, we're not ready to have kids, we're not ready to have kids, and all of a sudden, the guy's sperm stops working because he's gotten so no, he dies.
Cult, yeah, that crew where they'll get young people to.
And because I was on AOL, I typed age sex location when I was young, you know, when I was uh first getting on it.
But my point is, we should have kids, but the internet has created such a dark world, I'm worried about them becoming a you know victim to some sort of tragedy.
But I need to have kids, I need to knock somebody out.
So the story is it's so it's, you know, me to Mrs., Alex to Mrs., and he goes to this dumb machine and he puts in a couple hundred bucks and loses it all.
Well, you do the predictive market, and I know there's people that are coming out with shows.
Based on just the prediction markets, which I think is an interesting idea where like they'll just cover on whatever trending prediction market they're you know is popular, but I don't want to encourage gambling.
But at the same time, gambling is so fun.
Well, poker's not, I'm saying it's well, I'm just saying like a slot machine video, it's actually fun though to watch other people gamble because then you don't lose any money.
So we do have a caller side of it, he was trying to ask a question.
What's going on, brother?
unidentified
Not all bad.
Oh, Tim, that was great.
Um, so I'm getting on to the gerrymandering thing with Massachusetts because I think you kind of missed out some part of it earlier.
Internet Tribalism and Radicalization00:06:07
unidentified
When you were talking about Massachusetts, if you take a look at the map, if you could pull it up, I don't know if you could pull it from the Collins section or you just have to pull up the voting map versus the 2024 election map.
You can see how they fishtailed Brighton, which is the most Libbyist place on the planet, straight down into all of the red section.
Then they cut out the central part, which is Springfield, all the way up the Merrimack Valley and gerrymandered those into Worcester and stuff.
It's like, These entire areas are pushed in.
You get an area, the red area is cut in half.
It gets swallowed up by Boston and brought in.
So if you look at Area 4 right there, you'll see that it fishtails up, and then there's that little teeny oval section right next to Cambridge.
Yeah.
It's just, it's everything from the 4 over on that map is all deep red, and they split it.
50 50 and bring it up into Boston and down through Brockton just to cut people out.
They take District 1 and gerrymander it so that 90% of Springfield is cut off.
Then Worcester, the other Democrat stronghold, takes the other half of the Republicans.
And then when you get up into the Lowell area, you wipe out the last little bit of conservatives in Massachusetts and you take a 40% voting block and turn it into a zero block.
The result is people who are right lean are going to leave these states and go to red states where they find sanctuary because it's going to get crazier.
When they ice out conservatives and get a supermajority, they're going to cut off kids' balls, they're going to seize your property.
It's going to go commie.
Republicans will leave.
Yeah, mass abortions.
Republicans are going to leave.
Then it's going to hyper polarize geographically, and everyone's going to shoot each other.
I know, Tim, and you've talked, obviously, you're one of the biggest proponents, the Civil War is almost inevitable.
But I would think that the only way that people actually start shooting each other, and I know that you could argue like January 6th was the start of it, but is if they turn off the Internet.
Well, I'm saying, I think that if they really wanted people to start shooting each other, it's like how during the pandemic people were fighting over toilet paper.
Yeah, and I'm not trying to be like, you know, in the room, all you young kids don't want to have phone calls, but it does that is like a real thing where young kids would rather.
Well, I don't know the plot, but it's a great movie.
My point is 30 years ago.
I was like a villain.
I don't know if I would be.
I'm not even saying Elon Musk is 100% a villain.
I don't know if I'd want to buy Twitter, but I would like to do something illegal and crazy like blow up all the credit card companies and try to get rid of the debt.
Like, I'm saying there is something evil you could do that would benefit society.
Like, The reason why I'm unimpressed with the deep state is because my presumption is either they're very, very smart and this is the intended condition or they're really bad at what they're doing and they're fucking it up.
The reason why I don't think the White House shooting was a false flag is because if I was going to do a false flag, I'd have done it way better.
I think the deep state is paying prominent conservatives to not be conservative anymore, and it's lucrative and there's easy money.
Well, like, what would you do?
Like, Alex, what would you do if, like, a wet works guy working for the machine came to you and said, You're going to turn on Trump or we're going to kill you.
Well, and I think there are fair criticisms of Trump and his administration, but at the same time, Trump is always going to be on the side of trying to save babies in the womb.
Trump is always going to be against immigration.
So even if he's not perfect and he's not as far right as people want, he's always going to be the lesser of two evils.
And I know that that's not always the best option, but I think that that is where we really need to kind of have this debate where now you see the right is totally divided and they're kind of anti Trump.
It's like, if you're anti Trump, does that mean you're pro Kamala?
I have shown to be obstinate and willing to reject money to go against my values.
There is no safe way a deep state person could come to me and make me a deal without exposing themselves or having me go on my show and say, These motherfuckers tried to pay me off.
And when I said, oh, hey, FCC regulations, we got to have Dan Blazarian on now, that fucking commenter that aggravated you and me didn't get that I was being sarcastic.
If Hillary Clinton personally came to your house, and then like in the dead of night in secret, you like wake up and she's standing in your living room, and there's like two guards, and then you like you hear the noise, you come out, and you're like in your boxers, and your wife beat her, and you're like, What's going on?
Oh my god, Hillary Clinton!
And they go, Alex, calm down.
So you need to sit down, we need to talk to you, and you're like, What the is going on?
She sits you down, she pulls out a laptop, and she shows you a whole bunch of information proving she is right the whole time about everything.
Real convincing, top secret stuff about Iran, showing Trump, like real evidence that Trump is working with Putin and trying to burn down the United States.
If she showed you all the proof and then said, we need you on our side, would you do it?
If they came in and they were like, this is proof that actually Trump is bad and here's what's really going on, I'd be like, oh, wow, I was wrong about all that.
Well, and people think, you know, I obviously am an open conspiracy theorist, but if there's new evidence that ever comes up, I'm always willing to change my position and change my opinion.
And I think that's the problem is people are just.
It's actually probably the least time you'd actually take their evidence because they're like, what are they showing you a laptop that could be 110% fake with entirely fake documents?
So, with the Section 702 surveillance up for renewal, do you think the government can realistically protect national security without violating Americans' privacy?
Here's a secret if we do a show in this studio and the stream goes down and the computer goes down, the whole show is still recorded on the other camera.
We have backups upon backups.
There's a camera in this room recording video and audio 24 7.
In the show Person of Interest, which is about the creation of an AI, it literally the creator of the program creates social media to get information to gather on citizens.
But you did see where Elon, they're kind of accusing him, and it's not necessarily a scam, but whatever the parent company of Grok is, that is actually the company that owns Twitter.