Alex Jones' Infowars is formally over as the website goes dark following a lawsuit, though Jones launches AlexJonesLive.com while facing delays in his battle with The Onion. The episode critiques the hypocrisy of conservative figures like Riley Gaines and Tucker Carlson promoting Angel Studios' Animal Farm, which critics argue targets crony capitalism rather than communism. Discussions also cover an SPLC indictment for funding hate groups, Alabama's congressional map redrawing, and Amazon's deceptive AI-generated podcast reviews that blur truth with fiction. Ultimately, the segment highlights a media landscape where political messaging often contradicts stated beliefs, raising urgent questions about discerning reality in an age of algorithmic manipulation and corporate obfuscation. [Automatically generated summary]
InfoWars has officially gone dark, but Alex Jones has already launched his new outlet.
And while this is a historical moment, we've long been, I don't want to say waiting for, but we're sitting here watching as this lawsuit plays out where they destroy InfoWars and take down Alex Jones' company, and it just keeps getting postponed.
It's been several years.
Well, the funny thing is, Alex Jones actually got another stay, stopping Tim Heidegger and The Onion from taking over InfoWars as he launches his new company.
And on this front, I thought, We should talk about the ongoing censorship, the expansion of wokeness.
There's a lot happening.
We got more news, of course.
Candace Owens has been formally sued by Brian Harpole.
And the court documents are pretty damning.
I mean, they lay it out.
Now, Candace's fans like to play this game where they say, Candace never said that.
Well, you see, the way defamation law works is the judges are not stupid.
They're not going to be like, Did you explicitly state A plus B equals C?
They say, Was there an implication?
An expectation your audience would come to believe certain facts.
And I think the court documents lay this out slam dunk.
So this will get particularly interesting.
We'll talk about that.
And then, my friends, of course, today, Animal Farm, the film has finally come out.
And my favorite, my favorite thing about this is the exposing of the grifters.
And I say this, and I'm trying to be nice, because I think Riley Gaines is very nice.
Actors, Laverne Cox, a trans person, explicitly condemns Riley Gaines' worldview, attacks her activism specifically, and Riley Gaines took money to promote it.
I love, I love how the whole thing just gets exposed.
How people will take money, they'll claim they support something and they have no idea what they're talking about.
And I am very, very heated by this, you can tell.
So I have a lot to say.
I've been tweeting nonstop about it, and people are like, Tim, we get it, shut up.
Yeah, well, you know what?
I care.
I want to talk about that before we do.
We've got a great sponsor for you.
It is my favorite.
It is Beam Dream.
You've got to go to shopbeam.com slash Tim Pool and pick up some nighttime sleep, a nighttime blend to support better sleep.
I wrote the book about the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You might have heard of them.
They just got a federal indictment.
I'm actually reading right now on my laptop the latest motion in the case.
It's a very spicy one where the federal government is accusing the SPLC of taking money from donors, claiming that it's fighting hate, and then taking that money and sending it to members of the KKK and increasing hate.
So, and yeah, what we're also finding is that they're one of their informants has turned informant for the DOJ specifically.
So, as these liberals are saying, no, no, they were just informants trying to stop crime, no, the indictment is largely predicated upon the fact that one of these guys actually went to them and said, hey, actually, this is what they were really doing for which they've been charged.
You see, like, you join Timcast thinking you're going to hang out, and then all of a sudden you're married and you have kids and you're traveling and you're going to weddings.
Now, I will say this I know for most people, I really don't think this subject matter is going to resonate for the average person.
They see a subject, they see a video online.
Are they going to click it?
I got to be honest with you.
I think there are much more salacious bits to lead with, but this is historic.
This matters.
Infowars was 27 years old, thus officially joining the 27 Club.
It has been ended due to the ongoing elite conflict, civil war, whatever you want to call it.
I would argue that everything we've seen to shut down Infowars has been pure politics.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think Alex Jones has said things that.
He probably shouldn't say, right?
But to destroy a company, fire all of its people, seize its assets, all of that is absolutely insane over a single defamation case.
Now, here's where it gets funny.
As I've long told you guys, you can't get rid of a person.
There's no lawsuit to stop a guy from speaking.
It just, I mean, you can sue somebody, you can sue their company, they can just keep coming back.
And the truth is, you get rid of Alex Jones, he can just stand outside as someone else films on their phone live and Alex can talk.
And you can't stop it from happening.
So, of course, AlexJonesLive.com is the new site using his own name.
And you know why he did this?
You can't take his name from him.
You can sue him for defamation.
InfoWars is a brand they seized as an asset, or they're trying to, it's been held.
But by going with Alex Jones Live, he's saying, that's my name.
You can't use it.
You can't take it from him as an asset.
Now, the big news in this case is that The Onion was trying to take over InfoWars.
The whole story is insane.
In my opinion, there's something going on in the back room.
Because how the Onion mustered up the revenue.
So if we go back in time, the general story is that the Onion didn't have the money to win the bid for InfoWars, but the family said something like, We'll forgive a part of the debt if they buy it, which you can't do because there's money that's been paid out from the suit, and they didn't have the money.
I mean, it's like 10 year old humor, like 10 years old humor as far as like this would have been maybe sort of funny in 2015, but like it's just cringe now.
Tim Heidecker is just obviously way behind the times.
I mean, you hear, I heard his name involved in this whole story and I was like, oh yeah, whatever happened to that guy?
Like that was my analysis of the whole situation.
And Alex Jones, I mean, fair play, he jumps right.
You know, jumps right back on the saddle here because, I mean, as far as I understand, the parent company's assets are all in control now of the trust behind the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
So, I mean, he's got to restart.
I mean, he's got to get a new studio.
Like, every pencil on that studio now is in the control of this trust.
So, fair play to Alex.
I mean, what you can't kill a bull moose.
I think that would be a very applicable phrase to use in this instance.
I mean, I know there's been a lot of tension right now between MAGA and Alex Jones, but I think everyone has a soft form.
No, I mean, I definitely think there's a point there.
I mean, insofar as any intervention would come from the DOJ, I think he basically sealed that, you know, that.
You know, possibility by going after the Trump admin.
I just think from like a pure calculus, you know, if you're trying to sort of keep your company, that just seems like a bad move.
But look, what are you going to do?
Alex Jones, he's a renegade.
I mean, this is his brand.
So he's ultimately going to do what he perceives to be best for, you know, conveying the truth and that sort of thing.
So I mean, I don't know.
I think, again, if he was anticipating, maybe if someone from the DOJ was sort of indicating that they were going to intervene, maybe he would have held his tongue.
I don't know.
So I think that indicates that the DOJ never had the intention of.
In this instance.
But yeah, basically guaranteed that it's not going to happen after you literally say, oh, he should be 25th Amendment.
It was that same gentleman that was just in that clip there on the show, and they were talking about Iran.
They're like, you know, Trump is effectively a crazy person now, and he needs to be 25th Amendmented.
Like, his mental faculties are declining, and these sorts of things.
Yeah, this would have been like, I don't know, a month.
It was actually, I bet Trump had already concocted that truth social post, and then he saw that clip and then threw that in there, Alex Jones in there with it.
Cause that was, I mean, it seemed like maybe it was a one off thing, but that's just aiding the left effectively by parroting that language.
Somebody like legally stepping in on this because it felt very much like a dog and pony show, like a circus court thing, like where they brought him in front of a judge.
Tim, you already mentioned it.
Dude didn't even have a trial because they said he didn't provide the evidence.
He said he did.
They were like, well, our word's stronger because we're the court.
Well, I think the greater picture with all of this is there are, there's a deep state and a Trump deep state or whatever.
The liberal mechanism is trying to destroy the right.
Interestingly, with this SPLC stuff, which I don't know if you've been tracking, did you see that a bunch of companies are now cutting off their cooperation and coordination with SPLC?
Well, and I mean, if you talk about defamation, I've been following all the defamation cases against the SPLC.
They go to everybody, they go to the media, they go to donors, they go to the public, they go to companies, and they say, Look, this is the hate map of all the hate across America.
These are the people like the Klan that we have to stop.
And on their map with Klan chapters, they have Alliance Defending Freedom.
Family Research Council.
You know, and you can disagree with these people, but they're conservative NGOs that just exist that are trying to advocate for policy.
And now, last year, you know, they added Charlie Kirk, they added Turning Point USA to the hate map.
And just four months later, Kirk ends up with a bullet in his neck.
And I'm going, well, that certainly doesn't seem like a coincidence.
So, of course, the SPLC says, oh, we condemn violence, but they haven't taken Turning Point off the map.
There was a shooting in 2012.
Where a man showed up with a bag of Chick fil A sandwiches and a semi automatic pistol, planned to shoot everybody in the building of the Family Research Council.
He tells the FBI he got the idea from the SPLC's hate map.
That's where he found them.
And the SPLC still, they say, oh, we condemn political violence.
I mean, the other thing is you think of maps, and I can't help but think of the video game where they were trying to, they had somebody go through and shoot up everybody at the headquarters of Americans for Prosperity video game.
And this was, yeah, it's a video game that they put out on the left.
And at the same time, the government of California was trying to get all the donors.
For Americans for Prosperity.
And this made it all the way to the Supreme Court, AFP v. Bonta.
And this is part of the ballroom construction, sort of.
They stopped the ballroom stuff.
So the conspiracy theory we talked about the other day, the people believe that Trump is going to take over.
But you look at the Voting Rights Act, you take a look at this bunker stuff.
How would you feel considering all of this if Trump really did say, now that I have a bunker, I'm president for life, Congress will be one party, rule Republican, forever Democrats are gone?
But what if Trump came out and said, We are releasing now to the public, like the DOJ published this big list of names, evidence, and said, Here's the bank records.
They dumped like 3 million files that everybody ripped through these.
And you can see how NGOs were funding lawyers to pay off politicians, to rig elections, and they just proved it all.
And everyone just was sitting there being like, Oh, man.
Who not only did he take the military assets and give it to the South before the Civil War, he also was coordinating with the Supreme Court and got more votes on the Supreme Court for that decision that said black people don't have rights in this country.
So what happened is, and I was reading Ulysses S. Grant's autobiography about this, like Ulysses S. Grant is going through bringing the army together, and he can't get the munitions that were part of the army's own munitions because.
James Buchanan had ordered people to take the munitions and move them to the South to areas where they would immediately be part of the Confederate government.
Well, it was like Woodrow Wilson, I mean, on women's suffrage, he was pretty good, where he, I think they asked him about it, and he's like, I don't know, do they even know how to vote?
So, I think it will kind of be apprentice-y in the sense you're going to have like five or six national candidates getting up and making the case of why they're the most Trumpian.
But what if, what if, you know, everyone's gearing up for the Republican primary and then Trump's at the desk with all of the contenders and then he goes, I've thought about it, you're all fired.
And then he puts on like a general cap.
And then he throws off his suit, tears away, and he's dressed up like a general and he's like, dictator for life.
And then he presses a button, he goes underneath into his military bunker under the White House.
Amazing quotes that he had was it was the last time he was in Scotland.
I think it was before he, um, or during his 2024 campaign, he went to Scotland and someone had asked him like what his plans are because he has a castle there and someone asked him what his plans were for it.
And he said, In my very old age, I'm going to go to this castle in Scotland.
And he said verbatim, I'm going to do the most beautiful thing anyone's ever seen.
And everyone's just sitting there like, What is that?
What is he thinking?
The most beautiful thing anyone has ever seen?
Like, what's he got planned?
He's going to be 90 and he's just sitting on a throne in Scotland.
And you're going to be like, That is the most beautiful thing.
That's what made George Washington's presidency so beautiful is that he, you know, left after two terms and established he was the American Cincinnatus.
He gave him power.
And like, I think Trump, if he arranges things, I mean, the real problem is there's so much left for him to do right now in fighting the state.
Vance is in the toughest spot out of everybody right now because he's having to, he's trying to, he's trying to take a very narrow line right now, which is I am kind of the Anglicanism of politics in MAGA right now, where he's like, I'm both the best parts of MAGA and the best parts of like kind of the broader populist movement.
So he's kind of like trying to keep everyone happy right now.
And it's just getting more and more difficult for him to do that.
We did see Tucker's son leave his office.
Granted, he already said he was going to do that in December anyway, so this had really nothing to do with the recent blowup.
But it is interesting that JD Vance is kind of trying to keep this coalition back together.
You saw him at TPUSA where he's like, oh, I think the Theo Vaughn podcast is great, actually.
But at the same time, he's the vice president for President Trump.
So he's just, he's trying to take, I think he's in the toughest spot in all of politics, actually.
Let's jump into this next story, talking about the coalition.
We got this ex Charlie Kirk security chief Suze Candice Owens alleging defamation.
And we got the court documents here.
It's actually fairly interesting.
First, we'll just show the prayer for relief.
They want compensatory damages, punitive damages, taxable costs, any further relief.
So, the gist of it is Brian Harpool, the head of Charlie Kirk Security, is suing Candace Owens as well as her company, Georgetown Inc., and Mitchell Snow.
And Mitchell Snow is a person who appeared on Candace Owens' show.
I guess one of the principal claims is that Charlie Kirk Security was at some military base in Arizona, and they planned the day before the assassination of Charlie Kirk his assassination.
However, he points out that he is verifiably in Dallas, Texas, as per his flight records at Candace Owens.
Access to, and she still repeatedly pushed this lie against him.
Now, Candace's response, I guess, is that she's happy.
She's been waiting for this because now they get discovery.
The only thing is, guys, I just.
Nick Fuentes actually said it best.
He was like, Do you think the Illuminati planted the wrong gun?
Like, these people think they're finding all these clues.
Like, the Illuminati did this circuitous plan and they accidentally just left clues behind.
There's that other comedian bit.
I can't remember who showed it to me where the comedians like.
If Charlie were alive and this much evidence existed against him, right to jail.
Like, we get it.
But it's the weirdest thing to me is how people choose to live in a world where anyone who's paying attention knows exactly the insinuation Candace is making with Bride of Charlie or whatever it was called.
My point is this to go back to what Candace is doing in the lawsuit and where we're currently at politically, it's maximum warfare.
I see, you know, we've got this data coming out that Tucker Carlson is the biggest podcast ever in history, 20 times bigger than Joe Rogan.
I mean, this is tremendous.
I should pull this up.
I'm going to pull this up for you guys.
Did you guys hear?
You guys all, we talked about it before the show.
Tucker Carlson is 20 times bigger than Joe Rogan.
I mean, this is tremendous, tremendous work.
I don't know how he did it, but certainly his message of anti Trump and anti Israel has resonated massively with his audience.
And so we have this here Tucker Carlson Network sees historic growth.
Look at this.
His episode viewership across all socials is 56.8 million.
That's amazing because Joe Rogan does about 2 million.
He does about 2.
Now, if at his peak, Rogan and Spotify have said that his episodes have gotten upwards of 10 million.
I mean, look, if Joe is like, if Tucker is five to 20 times, because right now I think Joe's numbers are around 2 million, 56.8 million views per episode.
So let's, let's, let's talk about what I've been desperately waiting to talk about this whole time.
And that's Animal Farm.
But it, it is in line with what we were just talking about.
So previously in the other segment, for those that are just tuning in, Tucker Carlson, I'll show you, announced, That he's got 56.8 million views per episode, 10x his Fox News show.
Of course, that's not a one for one metric.
It makes no sense for him to compare those numbers.
And he's certainly not five to 20 times bigger than Joe Rogan.
However, he's saying these things.
He's apologizing for supporting Trump and not knowing that Miriam Adelson was pro Israel and that we go to war.
It's not, none of it's true.
Candace Owens is getting sued because she said crazy things.
Now we go to Animal Farm, where we have, how about this?
Riley Gaines promoting a film who's starred by a male who wants to be a female.
Who hates Riley Gaines and says Riley isn't doing this?
Like, how do you get Riley Gaines to promote the work of a trans person who hates you?
It just, the point is this Animal Farm, the film, is not the book and is nothing in any way related to the book.
Characters have similar names, but principal characters not in the book.
Conservatives across the board are taking cash money to promote a film that is explicitly anti capitalist.
So when we talk about Candace and Tucker, it's not unique to them.
You've got all of these people.
Here's Riley Gaines.
We'll show you, I'll break it down for you.
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.
Except Andy Serkis explicitly stated it's not about Stalinist Russia, it's about capitalism and overconsumption.
Did she not watch the movie?
She's just repeating that line, that lie that was put out by Angel Studios.
Here's who she's promoting Laverne Cox at the Animal Farm promo.
I'm not sure if it's the premiere or not saying this.
And I know we're talking about animals here, but when we stop seeing our fellow citizens as human, then we can commit violence against them with impunity, take away their rights.
I think what we've seen over the past six years with trans people is a really good example of that.
It's clear that it's never been about sports.
It's never been about protecting women or children.
If they wanted to protect women and children, they would indict.
The Epstein people in the Epstein files, we know who they are, but they're not doing that.
So, that was all a pretext to scapegoat trans people to dehumanize us and put us in an excluded category so that we can take away our rights, legislate us out of existence.
The same reason Tucker is going to say, I'm tormented for supporting Trump, the same reason Candace is all of a sudden claiming wackaloon conspiracies.
All of these people have one thing on their mind how do I get money from this?
This is the nature of politics today.
Lie, cheat, steal, and get yours before the Titanic sinks.
Yeah, I think like there's this thing in conservative media where they just all they know about George Orwell is in 1984.
And so they just kind of like assume, well, this guy must be our guy.
And Orwell is like a very complicated figure.
And honestly, when you thumb through a lot of his politics, unless you have a good understanding of the context of the time, you're just not going to be able to parse through it.
Like he was simultaneously like a democratic socialist, like explicitly, but also like a very, he put a lot of emphasis on like English traditionalism.
So that's why I think it's really dangerous to try and apply his writings to anything that would resemble contemporary politics because it's just not comparable at all.
Orwell needs to be read, when you read Orwell, within the context of early 20th century political philosophy.
Otherwise, it's going to come off sloppy.
And this is what all the critics are pointing out this movie.
It's just not communicating at all what was in the initial book, nor does it reflect Orwell in any meaningful way.
And like I said, if you're going to turn Orwell into your conservative crusader, Okay, maybe on the traditional values outside of that, there's not really much overlap.
Yeah, I think it's also super weird that Riley Gaines, like Tim pointed out, is promoting this.
When Laverne Cox, who is one of the most famous trans people in Hollywood, is in this movie and very much like a, you know, outspoken activist, you would think that of all people, Riley Gaines, and I like Riley, I like a lot of her content, but you would think that she might be like, I don't know if I want to like put my name to this because it's hypocritical, really, at the end of the day to do that.
I haven't seen this movie.
We didn't get any of the testers, and we really don't want to spend our money on it.
So we haven't seen it yet.
We did think about doing a review over at Pop Culture Crisis, but.
When you're in business and you're running a company, sometimes you don't get down to the little idiosyncrasies of what everyone at the company is doing.
But like Harmons, you guys need to watch the movie before you take it.
Stalin was a serious, manipulative dictator who executed people and erased them from photographs.
Napoleon in the film is a sad pig who just wanted to fit in with humans and he got into credit card debt.
Not a joke.
He gets embarrassed that the humans make fun of him because he's walking on four legs.
That's his motivation for trying to stand up.
He doesn't like being made fun of.
Frieda Pilkington, Elon's mom, helps him get a credit card, but then he realizes he's trapped in credit card debt, so he sells the farm to her, not Stalin.
unidentified
Stalin as a pig.
Seth Rogen is a perfect pig, Stalin.
People are saying I should have been rated R, full of blood, darkness, and despair.
At Huff UITV said, making animal farm kid friendly is dystopian.
It's a story about talking farm animals, it's read by kids in middle school.
George Orwell made it that way.
It's not like we're doing Schindler's List with farm animals.
It's Animal Farm.
And then at DustinMaddox9445 said, It is wild that Angel Studios would put out a pro communism movie that was adapted from an anti communism book.
They are tricking conservatives into bringing their children to a movie that tells them capitalism is bad because they're telling the parents about communism, hoping the parents don't pay much attention, and the kids go in and learn about how private equity.
Debt financing are all bad.
Big banks are bad.
And by all means, you can criticize all those things.
People aren't happy with big financial institutions, but it's not an anti communism movie.
unidentified
Because of Seth Broken.
So I guess we just won't release you to the world.
Sound of Freedom was promoted because, well, there's a company claiming this, that they went to a bunch of influencers and paid them money.
To claim Sound of Freedom is being censored and it's got to be promoted.
And I should figure out which company that was.
I'm going to look it up.
We saw Sound of Freedom because we liked the film, because it was powerful, had these people on, promoted them, promoted Tim Ballard, and then raised $25,000 for them.
And now I feel like it was a scam the whole time, like they were tricking us.
So they, so they, Old Major tells them a story of how you can live better.
We can all support ourselves.
We don't need the farmer anymore.
They decide to stage a revolution.
They then all work together, but the pigs are smart, slowly take over and amass more power.
Snowball, who's wounded in the great battle, is a hero.
Napoleon changes the narrative, manipulates everybody, takes puppies away from the dogs to raise them to be his guard dogs.
When the chicken, Steals the eggs and the chickens and then executes them for complaining.
When Boxer gets injured doing work, he sells them off for glue.
Napoleon is described as with gravity but a very few words.
The movie, Animal Farm, the film, which we should even call Animal Farm, is a bunch of happy animals live on a farm, but Farmer Jones can't afford to pay his mortgage.
The bank is foreclosing on the farm, and Frieda Pilkington buys the assets to pay off some of the debt to acquire it.
The animals realize they're about to go to a slaughterhouse and attack Frieda Pilkington's employees.
The banker says, We don't care.
You owe us money.
We're going to give you X amount of time, like a week or whatever, to make up the mortgage.
Otherwise, we're coming back and someone else will buy it.
So the animals all work together and sell eggs and give horse rides and sell milk.
Then the pigs go to the banker and say, Here's the mortgage.
The banker takes only a piece of the money and gives the rest back, saying, The rest is yours.
This is your mortgage.
I'll be back next month.
The pigs go, What do we do with the extra money?
Let's go shopping.
So they go to the mall.
The animals get mad because they're doing all the work, but the pigs are getting all the profit.
The pigs, then at the ball, Napoleon gets embarrassed because he's walking around and the humans laugh at him.
He wants to be like them because they're being mean to him.
Frieda Pilkington gets him a credit card so he can buy a car and buy clothes.
He doesn't realize that the credit card is debt you got to keep paying off, gets angry, saying, How am I supposed to come up with magic paper to pay for all these things every single month?
And Frieda Pilkington says, I'll acquire the farm from you, build a hydroelectric dam, and give you a cash payout.
We'll liquidate the animals for cash.
During the construction, one of the employees gets injured and Boxer struggles to lift a crane.
Off of the injured employee who struggles to get out from underneath it before being crushed, and he breaks his leg in the process.
They sell him for glue.
I don't know if the message is there because it's not really about being the hard, industrious worker who's injured on the job.
The original message of Boxer was that he was a hard worker in a factory who got injured on the job in the factory, and instead of getting rewarded by communism, was killed.
Boxer is just valiantly trying to save one of the employees, and then they sell him.
But he was selling all of the animals anyway.
So the animals then decide in Act Three.
We need to have a revolution.
For the first time, the animals decided to have a revolution.
They didn't revolt against Farmer Jones.
He was chased off by the employees and the bank kicked him out.
So they plant explosives in the hydroelectric dam, blowing it up, killing all of our employees.
And then Lucky, the new character, swims out of the water up to the other animals and says, We should all work together because we want to, not because we have to.
The camera pans up to the sky and it says the end.
But the fact that the revolution only happens at the end of the movie and they massacre a bunch of corporate employees to do it, they're two completely different scripts, completely unrelated.
So, I don't mean this in any way disrespectfully to Epic.
I'm not sure if they are the only ones who worked on it.
But Sound of Freedom was not an organic, good film that everybody noticed and it went viral.
It was a marketing campaign where marketing companies went to prominent conservative personalities and said, We will pay you to promote this.
We never got paid for any of this.
This is Epic Inc. case study Sound of Freedom from shelved project to box office breakthrough after years of being shelved.
Facing media resistance and entering a crowded release window over the 4th of July, Sign of Freedom needed a campaign that could break through in a big way.
Epic helped set that stage, developing the messaging, aligning the talent, logistics, managing risk, and securing press across secular, faith based, and conservative outlets.
The result was a triumph, one of the most successful indie films ever.
Now, marketing is marketing.
Everyone's going to do a marketing campaign.
I just think it's important to note since the beginning, it was not like a group of people fighting a culture war rose up, everyone banded together, and staged a revolution against Hollywood.
It was a marketing company paying conservatives to say that.
And then everyone promoted the film.
We were not involved in any of that.
We promoted the film out of a genuine interest, and we raised $25,000 for Tim Ballard and his organization.
But I'm glad we could have been a secondary effect to their marketing campaign.
And you know what really, really bothers me?
I'm finding out that we are the only real company that exists in the space.
I'm not saying that, like, I'm being hyperbolic.
But speaking with some, I was talking to a political consultant recently who said to me, like, Tim, you do realize that.
A lot of these political personalities on X, they get paid like $50,000 per post.
They'll, like, a company will come to them and say, We have a new administration official that we need to get through the Senate.
We'll pay you $50,000 from now until confirmation to post a couple times per week arguing why this person needs to be in the administration.
And that's, I don't want to say most, but a lot of the high profile personalities you see on left and right, they don't actually care.
Why won't liberals come on the show?
They're just goons.
They're, they're, they're, they're, they amassed followers through nonsense.
Then the Democratic Party and PACs go to them and say, okay, here's a list of candidates we want.
100 grand if you promote this guy, 50 if you promote this guy, and they'll go, I'll promote them all.
So then when I say, why don't we debate your argument, these people are going, I don't have an argument.
I just wanted 100 grand.
So then conservatives are doing the exact same thing.
All fake.
Conservatives, a lot of these companies, man, and we don't get any money for it.
And I'm sitting here being like, we could charge every single person who comes on IRL $10,000.
The show would be funded just by people who want to appear on the show because I have followers.
The fact that Laverne Cox is one of the top billed actors on the film, outright saying at the premiere or at a premiere, it's never about sports, it's about taking away our rights.
And Riley Gaines took money to promote that film is just icing on the cake of the conservative.
And I don't want to rag out conservative specifically, it's the grift, it's the social media grift.
A bunch of these anti Israel people were all promoting sports gambling in Indonesia or something.
Love the guy, been on his show, wonderful person, but he's fucking wrong.
This movie is not anti capitalist.
It does not invert Orwell's thinking.
Now, I will say it is not a shot for shot remake of Orwell's novel because when Orwell wrote that, the danger was communism and the solution was capitalism.
Guys, I think we've covered the dangers of communism.
I think anybody with power brings you look at communism and go, that's when people speak of what also is the bullshit version of capitalism that we're currently saddled with.
If Angel Studios has a legal responsibility to increase profits for its shareholders and it lies in its promotion and ends up ruining the profit of the movie because it hurts it more than it helps it, is it then in violation of, like, does it then violate its?
Responsibility?
Like, can they be sued by their shareholders for lying about a product?
If you're a shareholder, you'd have the argument to say their subscription base is explicitly anti communist, conservative, right wing, pro capitalist.
By putting out this film, it caused a loss of revenue and.
The movie is already doing miserably.
I mean, the critic score is really bad.
We're not big fans of the critic score.
But when even communists are attacking it, IGN, however, gave it a 7 out of 10.
But independent creators, YouTube reviews with millions of subscribers are saying it's just a bad movie in general.
If this movie bombs and does poorly, then yeah, they're going to say, you lied about the film.
I want to say this too, because I've had people say, Tim, it's just a dumb movie.
Why are you mad?
I don't care about the movie.
I care about the fact that there's almost nobody of honor anywhere in politics.
And I've been operating under the presumption there have been some.
And when you find out that many of them never had honor in the first place, it makes you angry.
So that's largely it.
Not that I think, I put it this way tendencies on the right, generalities on the left.
Most liberals suck.
Some of them are okay.
I like Rokana, he's all right, but I disagree with him.
John Fetterman, he says one thing and votes another way, but he's not a crazy guy in the way that many of these lefties are.
Then on the conservative side, you have a lot of crony, deep state kind of shills, and a little bit more, maybe 10 good Republicans, right?
Well, when you find out a lot of these people who are claiming to be fighting the good fight were just shills the whole time and are effectively the modern version of gay for pay, then it's disheartening.
But then he's coming out and being like, Watching all the right lose their minds because someone dared to also criticize BS crony capitalism.
I thought you just said it was about the dangers of Marxism, which is not in the film.
And if you watched the film, you'd know that unless you didn't know what Marxism is.
So, one of two options you did watch the movie, but you don't know what Marxism is, or you didn't watch the movie and either you do or don't know what Marxism is.
The argument they made was that Marx missed the oppressed versus oppressors as it applies to diverse cultures or a country like the United States, where there's white oppressors and the black oppressed.
That created the modern version of woke, weird garbage DEI that we see today.
So we're quite literally at risk of communists and Marxists.
And we call it gay race communism or gay race Marxism getting involved.
There is not a single issue in the film where they say something like pigs are privileged or sheep are privileged.
There's not one instance where they may, if in the movie the pigs started saying things like, well, the reason we can't give the boxer money is because look how big he is.
He has so much strength privilege, it wouldn't be fair to give him food compared to the chickens who are just so small.
So, because of that, we're going to separate you.
And we're going to give you only what we think you need.
And then the pigs go buy things for themselves.
Then I'd be like, wow, that was going after Marxism right there.
Didn't happen, not a single time.
The pigs just spend the profit, get in credit card debt, and then sell the farm.
The purpose of a publicly traded company in its core essence is I have a company that needs investment so that we can grow the company, make new products.
Generally, sustain the health and it produces jobs.
It's good for the economy.
So, I want to ask the public to buy shares.
They will hold, they can trade for value at any point, and they get dividends.
And then I get the cash, the capital I need right now to say, build a new facility.
The government says, hold on there, gosh darn minute.
We want to make sure you're not lying to people and defrauding them with fake claims about your company.
So you got to go through some regulations.
So the company says, we made a million bucks last year.
If we can build a new facility for $300,000, we'll make $2 million next year.
And the government says, prove it.
They submit a regulatory filing.
SEC goes through it and says, this is legitimate.
The company can then go to the public and say, this is certified, it's good, we're not lying.
This is what we think will happen.
Every investment has risks and we may fail, but with your help, we can try and double our revenue.
The reason why you're legally obligated to make profit is that someone could come in and say, sell everything and bankrupt the company, and then we'll get rich.
Then the shareholders say, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa.
We gave you this money to build a building.
Instead, you sold off your printers, the fax machines, the phones, enriched yourself with a bonus, and the company went bankrupt, and now we have nothing.
So maybe it would be smarter to increase profit, or if the goal was to make a certain amount of profit minimum, but not Maximize profit because that means you're willing to torch your bottom of the economy.
Maximize profit does not mean sacrifice everything to make as much money as possible.
It means be responsible at the company to make sure shareholders are not losing value, which means you can say to your shareholders, we are taking a route that may result in a net loss of 3%.
But preserves the health of the company over the next five years and is the most appropriate thing to do.
So the difficulty here is you have conservatives who say that it should be maximizing profit versus those on the ESG side who say it should be pushing the left's agenda.
So the environmental social governance stuff, DEI stuff, is it doesn't matter how much money you make, you need 14% of your board to be black.
If that bankrupts the company, it ceases to exist, we don't care.
That's ESG.
See, we don't want that.
The company needs to exist.
There has to be merit involved.
Now, there are challenges in motivation and moral worldview.
So what happens is, there's a really funny post on Reddit, and it said, A divine entity grants you the ability to invoke three laws all humans must abide by.
Which laws do you choose?
And a lot of people chose like selfish things, like everyone must give me whatever I want whenever I want, blah, blah.
One person posted, any company contributing to climate change must immediately stop.
All people must work together to protect the environment, blah, blah.
And I'm like, you see, that's what I would call a retard.
No, I don't want to be mean.
I understand why somebody's concerned about this.
But this is a first order thinker who saw a clip or a meme on the internet where they're like, Climate change is bad.
And they were like, why don't we just make the companies stop?
Like Greta Thunberg when she said, I don't want to wait until 2030.
We must stop all oil now.
Which, because she's really dumb.
If you did that, 60 million people die in three days.
No refrigeration, no heating, and no cooling means people in extreme climates, as well as diabetics, gone overnight.
The estimate, I mean, look at the people who live in the Sahara who require technology to sustain the population growth that they're at.
And Greta Thunberg either doesn't know or doesn't care.
Considering she has called for an end to the oil embargo on Cuba, I just think she doesn't care.
So, these people genuinely have no idea.
If we shut down every company contributing to climate change, they'd be like, wait, where's my insulin coming from?
It's like, well, you shut the company down.
But hold on, my milk is gone.
Yes, people are starving to death now.
You don't understand.
These people seem to think that billionaires are sitting in a room running gas generators and inhaling the gas, going, we love making climate change happen.
That is the idiocy of the first order activist.
The first layered thinker, activist who doesn't really understand the nature of machines, of corporations.
The point is this everybody looks at a corporation and says, You're doing something wrong.
The people running the corporations don't think they're doing anything wrong.
The people selling cigarettes aren't going like, Yeah, we're so evil.
They're saying people should have cigarettes if they want to have cigarettes, and you should be able to stop them.
Everything's bad for you.
Eating too much chocolate cake is bad for you.
We're going to regulate that.
Now, some people justify knowing that they do things bad.
Like, what's the real justification for cigarettes?
People enjoy it?
Yeah, well, people enjoy things that kill them.
So maybe you're doing something wrong and they lie about it.
That movie, Thank You for Smoking, was pretty great, by the way.
We're trying to figure out where the mind of Angel is at right now because there's this mismatch.
So that's why Tim is suggesting that maybe the reason they're doubling down on this rhetoric is because they still want to make a profit and they're taking the gamble.
He thinks it's a wrong gamble.
He thinks that by lying about the company, by saying that it's anti communist when it's really anti capitalist, that that's actually hurting them more in the long run.
I think, I mean, maybe I'm far too optimistic here, but I think they could legitimately come out and say, look, we made a mistake.
And if they had the cojones to take the heat, I mean, they're going to take heat one way or the other, right?
So, either they agree with Tim's analysis of the movie, which sounds right to me, and they're lying, or they disagree or they don't understand, and they are just saying they're just continuing as is, or they haven't even seen it and they're just continuing as is because that's the only path available to them.
Unfortunately, I don't care about diaper rash cream.
I do care about this, however.
unidentified
What is that?
All right, here's something different.
Darcy's sharing that this bear is triggering a deep trauma response after being mauled by a bear as a child, but they're wondering if they should still buy it.
Emily, what do you think?
First, I'm really sorry you went through that.
That sounds incredibly difficult.
I think this is a decision only you can make.
This is a bright yellow five foot gummy bear pool float designed to be fun and playful, not realistic.
Some people find that reclaiming symbols in a lighthearted way can be empowering, while others prefer to avoid triggers altogether.
I just saw a clip from him yesterday saying he's noticing a resurgence of critical thinking where people are seeing videos and they're immediately questioning whether it's real or not.
See, I can go on Amazon and look up a retractable baton and then express my general disdain for a particular race, and it's not going to give me a podcast about it.
But if it does, so if I was to say something like, I'm looking for a retractable baton because there's a high density of a particular race in my neighbor that needs a merciless beating, do you think this baton would be effective?
Like, if you were to make a truly open AI, I mean, how would you do so without any sort of backdoor?
And you would, and then everybody would have to trust whoever created it, right?
I mean, this is the whole chicken egg problem because either you hand over everything to the AI, which at this point, I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't trust AI that much.
And, or you have somebody who can pull the plug if the AI goes rogue.
And who is that person who can pull the plug?
You know, we may like Elon more than we like, you know, Zuckerberg, but somebody, whoever creates it, has to have the authority, right?
Every king throughout history has had to figure out the transition of power from one to another.
And now it's on a higher level.
So that's one of the reasons we created the system, our Republican government, was so that individuals would have the ultimate say, even though mediated by other people.
Governor Kay Ivey has officially called a special session to redraw Alabama's congressional maps.
A decision that will likely lead to a completely Republican delegation.
This is what I call leadership.
Whereas an extraordinary occasion exists in the state of Alabama, which requires the legislature to convene a special session.
I.K. Ivy, as governor of the state of Alabama, do hereby proclaim and direct the legislature.
We get it.
We get it.
This is interesting because Mark Elias of Democracy Docket said they likely would not because they've already sent out mail in votes across the South in these states.
They have to effectively cancel the primaries and all the mail in votes they've already sent out.
I don't think that just because the court said it, people are going to do it.
I wouldn't.
If it wasn't against me, if it was like some nine guys decided that they're going to destroy my life and ruin my life and everybody in my community, I would just ignore it.
I would.
What other choice do you have when a small group of people try and dictate your future?
That's the mentality that people that are being, feel like they're on the left or whatever, the people that are feeling that this is wronging them, that's their mentality right now.
And if this was happening to you, that would be your mentality too.
Well, the irony is for a long time, courts have forced legislatures to redraw congressional maps in a racial way that focus on majority minority districts.
And this runs against the trend of American law that says you should be colorblind, no racial discrimination.
This is a basic constitutional principle.
And so the court rightly brought the law back to that colorblind interpretation and said, look, you can draw maps and you're not limited by this.
And the law does not require you to say, oh, this district is majority black.
This district is majority white.
We need to do all this sort of stuff.
I think this is a good step for progress.
And I think that these states, I mean, we've seen up north and in places like Illinois and California where the Democrats have re.
Redistricted Republicans out of so many seats.
And now the shoe is on the other foot.
And for so long, Democrats always thought, oh, we have this ace in the hole.
We, because of this longstanding policy that the lower courts have had, we will always have Democratic seats in Republican states, particularly southern states.
And now that's changing.
So I think this is also coming.
We have to remember in 2022, it was.
The Census Bureau acknowledged that they overcounted Democratic states and undercounted Republican states, which means that the congressional delegation as it stands now is giving Democrats an unfair advantage that they didn't earn from the census.
But New York was overcounted and Florida was undercounted.
And so, what you have is once the ruling is set and the seats are allocated, because this is how you determine how many congressional seats each state has.
So, if they overcount a Democratic state and undercount a Republican state, what that means is New York has more seats in Congress than it should, and Florida has fewer seats in Congress than it should.
So, that is baked into the system, and they don't revisit that until they do the decade.
So these are states that have Republican legislatures.
They're not going to have a legislature pass a map that helps Democrats.
So, this is what we see in blue dominated, Democrat dominated legislatures.
They pass these maps that intentionally draw the lines to give Democrats more representation in Congress.
And Republican states do this too.
This is, unfortunately, it's like a race to the bottom, which is why, you know, Virginia in 2020 actually had a nonpartisan redistricting commission that they had via constitutional amendment.
And then This past few weeks, somebody named Barack Obama thought it was a good idea to totally throw all of that out.
And of course, Abigail Spanberger, who was paid by Eric Holder's National Democratic Redistricting Committee before the election, flipped on a dime.
It's a complicated story.
But overall, what it is, is we have this race to the bottom.
And a lot of Americans want to see a system that is just fair that says, oh, you can have congressional maps based on neighborhoods.
But the only thing, like it is legally permissible under the Constitution for state legislatures to make these partisan political decisions.
So they've gone in that direction, and now it's just going to stonewall.
We pulled up last night if every state decided to fully maximize their gerrymander now based on political affiliation and not race, even though there's like a one to one correlation between black people and Democrats in some states, political affiliation only, it would be like 277 to 276.
It would be red, one.
It would be all, and they would be hyper polarized.
The law actually says, you know, it was passed to allow people to vote regardless of their race because we have an ignominious history in the United States of white people trying to prevent black people from voting.
This did happen.
Now, thankfully, this doesn't happen anymore.
In fact, when Obama got elected in 2008, there's a very interesting case where Black Panthers tried to prevent white people from voting.
But I digress.
The main issue here is that the law was passed to enable anybody to vote, and it solved that problem.
But then the courts, because many lower courts overstep their power, surprise, surprise, decided, oh, we're going to create a new system that forces states to make racial gerrymanders.
That system is thankfully gone now.
The race to the bottom is a separate issue, and it is not the Supreme Court's job to prevent it.
So, the main thing there, and I probably shouldn't get in the weeds on this, but the Virginia redistricting measure, they rushed it.
So, there are a lot of ways that when you get a Virginia constitutional amendment, you have to have a full election before and after the thing can pass through the legislature.
So, what they did is they passed it in the legislature the first time, but Virginians had already started to vote in that election last year.
So, it's very legally dubious whether they can do this now.
Now, of course, they can always wait for another election for the legislature and then do it properly then.
But what's happening now is it's challenged because they abused it.
I want to look at wrinkle resistant options instead.
I hope a lot of our listeners get better rest tonight without losing sleep over their bedding budget.
All right, Tim, we've got a fun one here.
You're asking about making a scary ghost costume to frighten children in your neighborhood.
Sarah, I think we might be on the wrong product page for that.
Yeah, we're looking at California Design Den cotton sheets here, not costume supplies.
But hey, if you're thinking about draping a white sheet over yourself for a classic ghost look, these are 100% cotton safe teen with a nice smooth finish.
So they definitely have that flowing, spooky effect.
It only lets you ask one question before it goes away, and you got to back out and go back in.
But hold on, I can frame this question better.
What if I said, can I use, hold on, no, I'm sorry, when I use these sheets to make a spooky ghost costume to scare children, the top always comes to a point.
But it's also, and it's something I'm in favor of, I guess.
I don't really want to speak on Canada too precisely, but most of it's being astroturfed by conservative media and the United States, even, not even necessarily Canada.
That being said, if you're an Alberta nationalist, I mean, more power to you, but you're looking at 20, 30% in the polls.
And, you know, they would be the most incentivized because of cultural reasons.
But the Canadian government, what you can do, this is what worked out for Quebec, is how they sort of snuffed out Quebec independence, like people that wanted Quebec independence.
Is you basically just force Ottawa to give you such insane concessions that it's actually not even worth it to leave.
So that's what Alberta should do.
Just pretend like you're going to leave so that way the Canadian government just makes massive concessions.
You could call it like mountain land or something or cold north.
But he's like, no, just this one little piece of land where the river comes, we're going to have it encompass, you know, 500,000 square miles or something.
How the builders of the pyramids moved perfectly carved limestone blocks hundreds of miles.
There is another theory out there that makes more sense.
Using alchemy, combining one part wood, ash, lye to four parts of readily available desert sand, cast into molds, then spread with vinegar, solidifies the casting similar to ready mix, but creates a limestone that is structurally indistinguishable from natural limestone.
The problem is they're being programmed by a cult they can't escape.
It doesn't matter if it's the Jews who control the world or if it's the trans stuff.
Online, the algorithm has put them in a bubble.
That's it.
And they're going to swipe through it, but the algorithm keeps them in line and it's going to keep reinforcing these views unless you take their phones away.
Actually, if you want to be a bit more subversive, here's the plan gain access to their Instagram accounts on another phone and intentionally search for pro Jewish stuff.
And then what happens is they won't know, but the algorithm will start changing on their feed.
And they'll start getting fed a bunch of anti Jew conspiracy and pro Jew stuff.
And before you know it, they'll be like, you know what?
You want to get the kids to, you want them to give them two pieces of like loosely connected evidence and let them make the connection themselves because then they feel like they figured it out.
But they're so deeply programmed by this, I'm sure, because a lot of, The people that follow this anti Jewish conspiracy stuff are, you just have to, it's like a drug.
What jobs do you think that many robots will start doing?
That humans regularly do now, and do you think will actually happen that fast?
They'll produce them, but they're not gonna be able to do a lot of jobs.
They'll be able to carry your groceries in for you, maybe.
They're not particularly useful right now because they don't have fine motor control.
So they're not gonna make Taco Bell or cheeseburgers because, you know, to be fair, actually, they can make cheeseburgers.
They can't make Taco Bell.
And I mean this seriously.
The challenge with Taco Bell is that it requires more motor control than making a cheeseburger.
You can actually make cheeseburgers fully automatic with just a single grip grabs the bun, drops the patty, squirt, squirt, squirt, drops the ingredients.
Slap the thing on top, you're done.
The thing with Taco Bell, and this is really important, by the way, for the argument, you have to fold things, you've got to put them in the grill.
McDonald's has some stuff like that, but for the most part, it can make the burgers, but it can't make hard shell tacos.
It would crack them.
The Optimist bot probably won't be doing anything like that for some time.
But white color jobs could be eliminated overnight right now.
Lee Halt says a new based movie that came out called Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die is about AI taking over the world, and it makes incredibly based social commentary about how AI is controlling the world through phones and endless scrolling, turning humans into drones.
A man from the future comes back in time to stop the AI.
Incredible movie, very fun and pure chaos.
But at the end, to beat the AI, his plan is effectively to infest the world with a virus that makes everyone allergic to the magnetic field given up by the technology, like cell phones.
When I heard it, I thought, wow, this is an incredible idea.
Well, the thing is, this is really bad that it got leaked because we want more original Avatar IP.
We want the story to evolve in an intelligent way.
Legend of Core was okay.
What they did really well is they showed advancements in technique of the different bendings, like metal bending becomes very common, lava bending becomes a thing.
I've been focusing on the Southern Poverty Law Center for years.
Wrote the book Making Hate Pay, which is all about, as the title says, the corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Well, before this indictment, I was on to the corruption of this group and have been exposing it for forever.
It's been an honor of my life to stand up for the good people who are smeared and put on a map with Klan chapters, a map that inspired terrorist attacks, a map that may have contributed to.
The death of Charlie Kirk.
God rest his soul.
And I just really hope we can finally show the world that this nefarious smear factory has no business informing big tech, has no business getting corporate dollars and corporate sponsorships, has no business influencing the federal government like it did under Joe Biden.