Tim Pool and Brett Weinstein dissect the Supreme Court's ruling allowing Alabama to eliminate black-majority districts, framing it as a correction of past racial gerrymandering while debating Virginia Democrats' "nuclear option" to lower justice retirement ages. They analyze market failures versus social safety nets, question the Hantavirus outbreak on the MV Hondius as potential gain-of-function research or PSYOPs, and critique mRNA vaccine motives like Moderna's stock manipulation. The discussion extends to AGI enforcing conformity via CBDCs, the need for a digital Second Amendment, and concludes with skepticism regarding elite depopulation tactics and media manipulation of alternative medical views. [Automatically generated summary]
In another massive victory for the GOP and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court issued what would be calling a sudden ruling, granting Alabama the right to redistrict, which means one by one the dominoes are falling and Democrats is cooked.
Now, in Virginia, it's really funny.
Instead of just realizing they've lost, they've decided to come up with some nuclear options.
One is to force the retirement age of Supreme Court Justice in the state to 54 years old.
Old enough to eliminate all of their justices, I guess, as a FU.
They're just going down with the ship.
Donald Trump may have some polling issues, but the way this procedural war is going, Republicans are certainly winning.
And then there's the question of Donald Trump's election integrity army that they intend to dispatch across the country.
I'm wondering if it's going to have an impact in the California races as well.
Spencer Pratt is skyrocketing in public notability, and there is this attack ad that I thought was a parody of.
I thought Spencer Pratt made this ad that was a gag meant to act like it was insulting him, but in fact, it's actually an attack ad where it's like, Spencer Pratt doesn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on housing for our unhoused neighbors.
And I was like, huh, very funny, Spencer.
It turns out, no, it's actually a group that doesn't like the guy.
And they just made an ad that accidentally supports him.
So we'll talk about that.
Donald Trump wants to make Venezuela the 51st state.
I guess it's not going to happen, but it's funny anyway.
And then, uh, Hantaviruses here in the United States, I guess, which, eh, we'll talk about it, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not, eh, you know, everybody's freaking out, but eh, we'll see what happens.
We'll talk about that more.
Before we get started, we got a great sponsor for you guys.
It is PocketHose.com.
Pocket Hose is the number one expandable hose in the world.
Super lightweight, easy to manage, easy to store.
Turn the water on and it grows.
Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size.
The Pocket Hose ballistic is reinforced with liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti burst sleeve practically bulletproof.
And that liquid crystal polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel.
Comes with the pocket pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360 rotation.
You move, it follows, and the water flows.
Enhanced with an upgraded UV coating.
So the hose looks new year after year.
Re engineered thicker washers that resist leaks.
Pocket hose carries over 100 patents worldwide.
And now, for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle.
Just text Tim.
To 64,000.
That's Tim to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase.
Text Tim to 64,000.
Message and data rates may apply.
Shout out Pocketos.
Don't forget to also go to timcast.com and join the community.
Tens of thousands of people hang out every single day.
And they need you because people need to stand up, get involved, be active in this space.
It only takes a handful of people to change the world.
And we've got more than that at timcast.com, building new shows, making music, making shorts, whatever.
You want to do, you will find people in there that can assist in some way.
And more importantly, you would be standing up and supporting the work we do and getting involved.
So don't just sit idly by.
Don't let the world pass you by.
Join us at timcast.com.
You'll be supporting this show and everything we do.
Also, don't forget to smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.
We've got this from CNN Supreme Court allows Alabama to eliminate congressional districts held by a black Democrat.
You know what I love about this headline?
Is that when Tennessee eliminated the district held by a white man?
We didn't get that kind of headline.
They didn't say Supreme Court allows Tennessee to eliminate congressional districts held by a white Democrat because we know what they're doing at CNN.
They say Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority black district in a sudden ruling that drew a dissent from the court's three liberal justices.
We have that ruling right here.
Now, I will say, wow, the Supreme Court justices are just ramming these things through.
I got to say, I'm surprised to see it, but it looks like the Supreme Court conservatives have joined the fray and are actually now deciding to stand up for this country.
We've got this ruling right here.
It's relatively short.
The motions to expedite are granted.
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in that case is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District, et cetera, et cetera.
Today, the court vacates a district court order enjoining Alabama's 2023 redistricting plan and remands for reconsideration in light of the court's new interpretation.
I just want to, of Section 2 of the VRA, I just want to really quickly stress these states were trying to redistrict before we got to this point in 2026, and they were blocked by lawsuits and the Biden DOJ.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson joined dissenting.
They say there's no reason to do so.
In addition to holding that Alabama's 2023 districting plan violates Section 2 of the district court, held in one of three cases before this court that Alabama violated the 14th Amendment and intentionally diluting the votes of black voters in Alabama, that constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of and unaffected by any of the legal issues discussed in Calais.
Vecatur is thus inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the election scheduled for next week.
I respectfully dissent.
I think it's plain to see at this point.
They are not playing the decorum game, which in 2020 they very much did and said, we're not going to look over this Texas v. Pennsylvania thing.
It's not going to change the outcome.
We're not going to do it.
Usually, what we see in these lawsuits, they say, well, we don't want to affect an election underway.
So we'll just next time around.
This time, the Supreme Court conservative just like, nah, run it through.
The final paragraph The court today unceremoniously discards the district court's meticulously documented and supported discriminatory intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so, without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue.
And with all vacatures of this kind of the court, the district court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Calais has any bearing on its 14th Amendment analysis of its prior reasoning or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by the decision.
So, wow.
We are in a culture war, and I see us just, I guess, what is it, the exponential momentum towards physical violence and civil war?
Do I think we will actually get to a hot civil war?
I don't know.
We've obviously been in something like a cold civil war.
I must say, as much as I fear the Democrats returning to power, I think they are a diabolical party at this point.
I also think that this is a bit of a tragedy.
That redistricting is not in any way new.
It has always been cheating.
And that it is now escalating and that the judiciary is weighing in on one side is bad for the U.S., it's bad for the Republic.
And so, you know, you can call me naive, but I would like to live in a country where we agree that actually we want to.
Poll the electorate and discover what they want in terms of governance and not go outside and, you know, draw funny lines on a map in order to wield power.
Now, that's not the country we live in, but it should be.
Well, here's Chicago, which I just love in terms of their congressional districts and how they make no sense, but are specifically designed to maximize power in certain ways.
You look at the whole of the state.
Illinois is just one example.
The Pacific, I'm sorry, not the Pacific, but the Northeast, Massachusetts, all of it, a really obvious example of just the political manipulations to steal power.
So I'm actually just, I shrug.
I see, you know, Kyle Kalinske is just throwing up every day all over himself on X, be like, they're fascists, oh God.
And I'm like, well, I guess I just don't care anymore, you know.
Well, that's what Spanberger's new map was trying to do, right?
I mean, it was trying to have like what five districts or something start all in Alexandria, Arlington, so that those rural areas were, you know, lumped in with Democrats.
The thing that you mentioned too about Tennessee and Tennessee's ninth is the person who's representing the incumbent in Tennessee's ninth is Steve Cohen, I think his name is.
And he's a white guy, he's a Democrat.
And Justin Pearson, who's a very outspoken Tennessee state senator who's always going into Nashville and like throwing a fit about something other, whether it's trans or gun control or something else, he is running against Cohen in the ninth district as it was prior to this new redistricting.
And now that it's going to be, you know, it's likely more Republican.
What they don't want you to know is that the person who's going to win that, her name is Charlotte Bergman, and she's a black woman.
She's a black Republican.
So they're talking about how it's Jim Crow because they really wanted Justin Pearson, but instead they're going to get this black woman instead.
I don't think it actually looks like it was a problem that they got rid of, but the reality is you can have the same exact district and say it was just by political affiliation, even if it was originally by race.
So you can lie, and this just gives people the ability to redistrict.
That can't happen based on the arguments of the woke left and their parity, national parity argument.
So if you have a district that has, at this point, greater than 13%, then someone's going to make an argument of black people that are going to make the argument.
That it's either over or under representing a certain race.
It sounds like the Supreme Court's just tying up some loose ends as we transition to the New World Order, and then they're going to be like, okay, okay, you can redistrict back to, you can have whatever races you want.
No, no, the argument literally was we don't need this policy anymore.
Alito literally stated back then it made sense based on the structure and the nature of our society and culture, but the framers of this law intended for there to be some kind of sunsetting.
And at this point, we don't need to have districts based on race.
In fact, the only guarantee a person should have is that they will not have their district gerrymandered based on their race.
And the argument is that illegal immigrants padding the electoral college and congressional seats for blue states by upwards of being nice on the low end, two to four congressional seats, four Democrats they should not have.
And on the high end, upwards of 12 seats they should not have.
And I'm not talking about the VRA.
I'm talking about when you look at, there's the third way they did an analysis on does illegal immigration increase the amount of Democrat held seats.
And they said, actually, when you look at the data, California may gain one seat, but Texas gains one seat as well.
But to your point, to address it, I grew up in Illinois, that's where I'm from.
The Democrats have eliminated Republicans largely from the state and they've maximized their power.
Even though the state is almost entirely conservative leaning, they've controlled it for 100 plus years.
You look at the Northeast, all the same.
I think it, I view it this way.
If there was an issue of me and Ian largely get along on most things, we're never violent, we don't fight, we may disagree, but it's always afterwards we're hanging out, we're eating cheeseburgers together.
Someone in this area or the governing authority or the police came and said, Ian now is going to be discriminated against for a particular reason.
I would stand up against that as he is a member of my community.
Communists aren't.
Evil people who have tried putting the frontrunner for the election in prison are not part of my community.
This multicultural democracy they've been building is the antithesis of the constitutional republic we live in.
So at this point, I just say, I may be opposed to war, to violence, and these things.
But in the issue of self preservation and defense, I'm fine with it.
Typically, when people refer to gerrymandering, you're talking about the process by which you construct a party dominant congressional district or district in general politically for that purpose.
However, the problem I see with it is sometimes districts should not be just blocks.
They're going to look weird and you'll be accused of gerrymandering.
Now, at the same time, you can look if we go down to like Texas and you can see an oddly shaped district like.
You know, this one's long and it stretches in this way.
These are largely seen as much more fair.
But the important thing to understand, because we're having this conversation, I can't remember what it might have been, Matt Gaetz.
And the issue, actually, no, it wasn't Matt Gaetz.
I can't remember what it was.
The issue is that humans don't live in blocks of the same populations.
So districts are always going to be oddly shaped in some way because you're going to have an urban center and you're going to have a disparate rural demography.
So that means if you just made a congressional district a square, it might only have 35,000 people in it, and that's not proportional to.
I feel like we can develop heat maps for zones for what are these called?
Districts that where you can use I don't know, I don't want to just say like artificial intelligence is the end, is like the solution to everything, but you can.
The only problem is in most blue states, they manipulate them to gain power.
They bring in illegal immigrants to gain power.
The general idea, at least in my moral worldview of a congressional district, is that it's supposed to represent people who live similarly and their political whims.
So if you look at Louisiana, for instance, you can see here that the third district is the shore.
That's beautiful.
If you live on the water, you are going to have a similar life experience and goals to the other people who live on the water based on.
Flooding on shrimping or fisheries or whatever it is you might be doing.
The idea that they're going to create a district just for black people because they're black is the most insane thing imaginable.
Yeah, I think a lot of these come from like where you have the city has like nine districts is from like the time of better men where you had the plebs that ate, you know, garbage and they had terrible IQ because they had no nutrition.
And then you know, all the rich, wealthy men that ran the show behind the scenes.
And so you got these vestiges of people that think they're in charge.
We're like now with the internet and high access to nutrients, like even people in these red farmer districts can be pretty brilliant.
And so The age of like consolidating power in the city, I think, is sort of coming to a close.
The next big move, of course, South Carolina lawmakers will take up the proposed congressional map tomorrow, eliminating a Democrat seat and creating a solid red state.
And guess which South Carolina politician opposes this?
Supreme Court of Virginia said you will not redistrict.
Some woman went out screaming and pointing at the court building.
The argument is you can't just ignore your Constitution when you try to change the rules and ice out half of the population, which Virginia tried to do.
And it didn't work.
And now Virginia Democrats are discussing a court overhaul.
The strategy will be to let me just read it.
Behind the scenes, some Democrats considered going further after a Friday article by the down ballot, a progressive outlet proposed lowering the retirement age for Virginia judges.
From 73 to 54, and installing new justices to rehear the case.
The argument about whether or not the right of the state legislature to hold and conduct their elections as they see fit shall be upheld.
The argument made by Democrats was that the courts and the governor can overrule.
What the legislature wants to do.
Now, this question was never answered in Texas v. Pennsylvania because the Supreme Court was too cowardly to answer the question, which leads us to this conflicted circumstance, which Democrats wish, wish they had answered now.
Because the issue would now be when the judges said, no, you can't, the argument from the Virginia Democrats is then we have to physically remove these people and overhaul them.
If they were to do that, they would surely face a battle from the DOJ.
Or from the Supreme Court, it would just be a legal catastrophe to which the Democrats would have to argue the judiciary has no right to.
Actually, you know what?
I'm going to pause.
They're already doing it.
They're already arguing the judiciary has no right to overturn the will of the voters in a referendum, despite the fact they argued the inverse in 2020.
So I'm just loving the hypocrisy, but the desperation is palpable.
Did you see the thing recently where Spanberger said that whoever that Virginia's electoral college votes will go to whoever wins the popular vote nationally?
I'm only going to briefly mention this before we get to this later on in the show.
But every story I've heard about a baby being born in some other hospital in like any other state, the doctors come in and say, You have to get these shots.
You have to get these vaccines.
They separate the parents and coerce them.
They tell one parent, We're going to do these shots.
When the parent says no, they go, But the other parent already said yes.
And the other parent actually said no.
You go to Deep State Homefront, which is, you know, loud in Fairfax.
You know, it's real fascinating that Trump made that.
He made a declaration about energy infrastructure, and instantly a bunch of key infrastructure energy providers saw a massive spike in their stock value, but it was.
It was just before Trump made the announcement, but you know, whatever.
I think what you're talking about is maintain a system that's honorable, that will function no matter where you are within that system.
But because there's been such a barrage on the system from outside, from Chinese AI, who knows where all this global misinformation is coming in and twisting people's minds and making them think Trump is Hitler and they hate this person and I'm afraid that, like, maybe the system, like Abraham Lincoln, you know, he suspended habeas corpus.
That's so far outside of my wheelhouse of reality of what I think I would do, but he did it and he's considered one of the greatest presidents.
Well, I want to put a model on the table that's a level up from what we're talking about that I think explains it.
There's a problem on the right and there's a problem on the left, and the two of them are functioning in a dynamic.
The problem on the right is that the right believes the mythology of the market much more strongly than it should.
The market is the best tool we've ever come up with to figure out how to accomplish things.
Nothing competes with the market in terms of its ability to figure out that question.
But the market is beset by a tremendous amount of market failure.
Lots of people who are winning in the market are either partly or wholly winning as a result of rent seeking, and lots of people who are losing are losing for reasons that have nothing to do with their willingness to do the right thing.
So the right is stingy with respect to taking care of the losers in our competitive system, and there will always be losers.
What we should want is a system that takes care of people who lose, who want To do the right thing, they want to compete, but it doesn't happen to go well.
We should want everybody to have access to the market.
What we have is a system in which the stinginess on the right and the failure to recognize the amount of corruption that there is and the amount of wealth that is generated by it is causing a large fraction of the population to correctly understand that they are not going to win.
We have a competitive system and they are born into losing and they have no interest in preserving the system.
So, what you're talking about, the people who want to overthrow the system.
Do you want to overthrow the system?
And we are under attack because of it.
But we have to understand that both sides are playing a role in that dynamic.
You need to suffer the downside of your judgment, including the 25% chance that it's going to go in the wrong direction, even if you calculate it correctly.
But let's say that we have a level of pesticide use that causes a certain number of cancers.
And let's say you didn't do anything to increase your exposure to this pesticide, but you're one of the unlucky people who gets a cancer.
Where I agree with you is that there will be a firefighter's pension and it's got to be invested somewhere.
It can't, it's not just going to sit in cash in a bank account.
And so, with all good intentions, it's placed into a series of just some funds.
And unfortunately, many of those companies go bust.
The pension loses a large portion of its value.
And these hardworking men and women who all had good intentions, thought they made a sound investment, are now hurt because of it.
And we are facing Hard working retirees who now don't know how they're going to pay their bills despite doing everything right, versus a guy who is buddies with a member of Congress who whispers to him, We're going to vote on this bill tomorrow.
Go put a bunch of, you know, go short this stock and you'll make a billion dollars.
There are people that do nothing for society but the wrong thing and extract through the market value and live like kings while hard working men and women every day don't have access to these systems and suffer because of it.
And the other thing, too, is no, I don't think this is necessarily true.
When we, let's say, we look at too big to fail, right?
Too big to fail was never properly adjudicated, right?
The fact is, too big to fail is a correct argument at one level.
That institution, if it fails, we will suffer more than if we prop it up.
But that does not require you to prop up the people who steered it into trouble.
Those people should have gone to jail.
So.
Because we didn't do that, what we ended up doing was bailing out not just those institutions that we would have suffered more for allowing to fail, but we bailed out the people who made the bad decisions, guaranteeing that those decisions would be revisited on us in a future context, like right now.
So the point is, none of this is as hard to solve as it seems.
It's being made hard to solve by people who are winning disproportionately, not because of insight, not because of hard work.
They are winning because they have power with which to seek rent.
And I think they that's the intention is that they are stripping the wealth from the United States through the corporate upward mobility, taking it away from common man, lower and middle class, to incite a communist revolution within the United States so that the United States will destroy itself so that they can centralize power in Switzerland with the Bank of International Settlements.
I do think there's a bit of projection in your argument, though.
What if you're a transhumanist?
You believe that.
There are stupid people who deserve to work at McDonald's, and when they fail, it's a good thing, and they should lose because the ultimate end goal should be a headlong rush into transhumanism, sacrificing the weaker for the stronger.
You're not going to want the same world you want, and their moral worldview is that they're just.
Now, of course, we can call that evil, but they're not going to exist in the same moral framework that you are.
Well, I believe their model of what makes people capable is in error and self serving.
That actually, the amount of this that has anything to do with genetic differences between us is tiny.
And the amount of it that has to do with mistreating people during development, even before they're born, is so large that actually, if you did have a system in which it didn't matter what zip code you lived in, your water was clean, that would do a huge piece of the heavy lifting.
If you made sure that everybody had proper actual food, which only rich people can even access now, you would see these fundamental differences disappear.
And then the question is, how good is the developmental environment that you're Family and your school provide for you.
I'm not saying that there's an argument to be made about nature versus nurture.
I'm saying that there are wealthy, powerful individuals who probably agree with everything you just said.
And they say, and still, human beings are limited, and we have to expand this through Neuralink and through technological advancement, for which the sacrifice of humans in cobalt mines and sulfur mines is worth every cent.
The wants and desires of chickens are immaterial to me because I want to build AI data centers and turn myself into a machine that can fly around the universe.
Your point about the world that we want to build is challenged by those that will lie to us and destroy what we want, manipulating our motivations and desires.
And I think because it is idealistic, maybe as you even stated, a bit naive.
The challenge is we have consistently been on the side of those who just want to be left alone.
We want.
The rules to work for us, and they're exploited by the likes of these liberals, these Democrats, these big tech companies.
And so every step of the way, as we've been trying to implement this rules for all, they've been playing no rules for me, and we get crushed because of it.
Well, if you let's take the fire department to take, you know, a low bar.
Knowing that if my house catches on fire, all I have to do is make a phone call and people who have the capability of putting it out are going to show up and it doesn't matter what zip code I'm in.
That's a good rule, right?
The point is, I get liberated by not having to fight my own fires, not having to contract with a private company to do it, not having to arrange things this way.
I would love it if I could build my own ultralight without having to be controlled by the government to do it so that people can have their $60 Spirit Airlines airfare.
It's just that imagine if every person had a flying car.
What that would mean for air travel.
It would mean that many people would lose access because large commercial airliners would have difficulty flying in and out of urban areas when people are flying cars around.
Well, look, I have become unfortunately cynical about why the government does what it does.
But my point would be we should look at the question of whether you should be allowed to build and fly your own ultralight, whether you should be allowed to buy a flying car, based on whether or not the net effect is liberation of individuals over the long term.
So, this person in this apartment has a break in, and this is their singular weapon, and they use it and they shoot the guy, cavitates, vaporizes a large portion of his chest, and the bullet carries on through other apartments, striking a child.
This is the argument why in New York they say we won't allow these weapons.
Now, if I live out in rural West Virginia, nobody cares because I can go outside right now and just unload and nothing, no one will get hit.
I got backstop, we're totally fine.
The challenge is that you maximize for, I suppose, in a situation like New York.
And I'd largely agree with we have a constitution, we have rules, and people should be allowed to have these weapons.
But I fully recognize a lot of people are going to get blasted if that's the case.
But the hard part to calculate about the costs and benefits of the Second Amendment is that I'm fairly convinced that the founders understood the necessity of an armed populace to prevent tyranny.
And the question is, how many skulls end up in a pile if we end up with tyranny because our weapons aren't powerful enough as citizens?
Well, there was a really great meme where it's a guy with an American flag.
I posted it and he's got a big pile of guns.
And then he's like, he says something like, man, it's just so awful about these Epstein guys.
There's nothing we can do, literally nothing that we can do at all.
And that's the point that people keep making is, you know, around the world, the gag that they're saying is that Americans claim to have these guns to fight tyranny.
We get these disclosures about Epstein, the people flying on these planes, the powerful elites.
Everybody kind of knows what they're doing, but of course, no one.
Should go out with weapons and start.
I mean, what is the argument?
You get to take up your weapons and form militias and then go attack the government?
Free speech is, you know, like, no one can come out in the town square and shut you up, but it doesn't mean you have to be on, you know, CNN and Fox and wherever else.
You know, it doesn't mean you have to be on.
Time will tell whether or not free speech means for sure that you're allowed to be on every social media.
But this is, this is my point about why the right has to wise up about taking care of the people at the bottom so they don't fall off the ladder and have no investment.
I think we should go back to the free speech question because we're getting tangled up in whether or not you have a right to be on CNN versus whether or not anything should be sayable on CNN, right?
And I would argue you're saying, well, you know, you could have a Hitlerian figure, you know, Mesmerizing the population over a platform.
A political argument for legalization, I suppose I would have to accept that on the basis that we could meet it with the obvious counter argument and hopefully people would spot where it is.
Because you had a bunch of people using wrong arguments to say you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the virulence of COVID or the safety of vaccines or the utility of repurposed drugs.
And sought to destroy us using that system against us.
And so if we adopt the, we will allow them to keep doing what they do as long as we get to do what we do, the end result is we get crushed and they do the bad things.
So, if someone came out and they were like, This there's a virus, and someone's like, This is what you have to do, they gave the wrong information, it got a hundred billion or billions of people believed it.
You think that the government should not step in and shut it down, or it would be up to the populace to self regulate?
Land that argument on because the government did step in cryptically and said that Heather and I were spreading COVID disinformation, that we were endangering people, and they muscled the platforms to silence us.
And the point is, guess what?
We were right and they were doing exactly what they were accusing us of.
So the right solution was not to tell them that they couldn't deploy their arguments about ivermectin vaccines, origin of the virus, virulence of the virus.
They can deploy their arguments and we can deploy our arguments.
When I am weak, I ask you for rights, you know, because it is according to your principles.
But when you are weak, I take them from you.
That's according to mine.
The view that I've largely had is the inadequacies of liberalism.
Liberalism, in the classical sense, the United States, beautiful when everyone shared a moral framework.
You didn't need police.
I mean, people largely just agreed.
If you blasphemed, you went to jail.
Everybody agreed.
The First Amendment didn't protect you from blasphemy.
You just went to jail.
You were shunned or ostracized or worse.
People who would commit serious crimes often didn't get a trial.
They just string you up.
Everybody agreed.
And then people stopped agreeing.
Different communities started to pop up.
The country expanded.
And then we tried to glue these things together and act like they existed under one umbrella.
The reality is if I say something like, you can express your political opinion, it's fine, you'll end up with Antifa going and attacking people.
And then here's the problem of reality.
In the case of Derek Chauvin, a travesty of justice, the jurors were entering a courthouse under armed guard because the rioters were threatening people.
And so when you have things like that, this idea of classical liberalism makes literally no sense.
You can say, we're all allowed to speak.
But when one side says, oh, and we'll kill you, the juror says, I'm going to do whatever the guy with the gun is telling me to do.
I don't care what your argument is.
You've lost.
And we sit here and we've tolerated these powerful elites and these rogue street factions.
And we've said, but they're allowed to recruit.
They're allowed to do it.
They're allowed to say it.
I say, no.
I say, we.
Within the confines of our moral framework, there is free speech.
That is, you defend free speech, you reject and denounce violence, and never seek to recruit for it, you get free speech.
The moment you say we can throw bricks, diversity of tactics, and we have to crush or kill fascists, the people we disagree with, I say, then you get the treatment you've asked for all the same.
Yeah, I think your argument, Brett, about the best ideas will win.
I believe that if there's enough time and people are calm.
But when people are agitated and it's an emergency, a bad idea can get super hot traction real fast and you need some authority to stomp it out, I think.
I don't think that the best idea necessarily will always win.
Because I do think that what Tim is saying is accurate about there being different moral frameworks.
So I think, you know, generally, the four of us, five of us, would have been raised with a relatively Christian moral framework, whether there was Christianity involved or not, because we were swimming in those Christian moral framework waters of the United States as it was in the 20th century, you know, and going into the 21st century.
But we now have a situation where there are a lot of people who don't think that that is a valid way to look at the world at all.
You recently have, and you have a situation too where the people who don't think that that basic Christian worldview is valid think that their worldview is valid and that you, as someone who accepts a basic Christian worldview, have to accept their craziness.
Like, just for an example, you look at this recent viral video on X that was going around today or yesterday, and it's a bunch of Muslims in the UK demanding that all the pubs close because the pubs are next to mosques.
I would argue that that is the reason I answered the way I did is because within the medical realm, I believe that the right to informed consent is sacrosanct and kids can't exercise it because they can't be properly informed.
So, yes, parents have final say.
Parents have final say, but not if what you have is a surgical monster who wants to be a surgeon.
In which case, you would argue that there should be, I should say, would you argue then there should be an authority that can go to, say, California and say, the federal government, for instance, we are going to stop you?
The parents say our child shall get a sex change.
Should the federal government send agents in to stop that from happening?
So then, when, as you mentioned already, with rules we don't want to live under, the inverse happens is that in a state like Florida, when the parents say, absolutely, you will not vaccinate our kids, the Democrat federal government comes in and takes the kids and says, the state has the authority to come in.
Now, the only thing you're arguing is your moral worldview, not the principle.
The idea that the federal government has the right to mandate an intervention in a functioning human body is absurd.
So, these are different things.
In one case, you have doctors maiming children, and the federal government has not only a right, but I think an obligation to prevent that from happening.
In the other, you have a shot with unknown impact that there's no medical need for.
So, I would argue that the very same principle has you preventing the supposedly medical intervention.
What if the kid has cancer and the doctor recommends?
Chemotherapy, low success rate, and the parents believe that it's not at the point where the child is at risk of dying in the short term, and they want to try something alternative.
The state can then say, No, we're coming in.
This child's body is not functioning properly, they need medicine.
Well, unfortunately, COVID delivered a graduate level education in modern medicine to anybody who was ready to pay attention.
I'm not saying you become a medical expert, but a graduate level education in how medicine functions.
You're talking about a case where parents are rejecting a doctor's advice.
There are many places where it makes sense to reject a doctor's advice because the doctors are perversely incentive or badly educated.
Will that mean that someone, like, let's say, a Christian scientist, Christian scientists, as I understand it, believe that medical intervention is never warranted?
And so you could have a child born with cancer who the parents refuse to treat.
And when the child dies, that will be a tragedy.
On the other hand, you might have an instance in which the parents are very well informed and they recognize that there is a more promising therapy for the cancer in question.
And then what they're effectively getting is a pharma sales pitch for chemotherapy that's highly destructive and perhaps not very effective.
So the question is The answer to the question is as with the case of liberal gun laws.
I think we have to tolerate a tiny amount of tragedy.
The number of doctors who will turn down medical treatment for their children when their children are in dire need is tiny.
And so we have to recognize that the principle that is maximally liberating and valuable of humans is the principle in which you either have an absolute right to informed consent over all medical intervention, or in the case that your child can't exercise informed consent, you have it in their stead.
To clarify, there will be some instances where the parents will turn down a known effective treatment, which will kill the child, but we have to allow that.
Well, not just to protect their rights, but to protect all of the children who will be maimed by doctors prescribing things that are not in the child's interest, which is happening all too frequently.
Does this mean that I suppose the argument is against an authority on medicine, that the individual shall choose whether that medicine should be applied regardless of the science?
Yes, if you want to make it tough, then the question is with an infectious agent, what do we do to protect other people from so now we come to the next question, which is a contagion, which is hantavirus?
You know, there is some disagreement between different sources.
I think it's April 1st, but I don't know.
It could be that I'm looking at the wrong source.
But nonetheless, what we have, irrespective of which of those dates is correct, what we have is an individual who shows symptoms of Hanta virus and then gets so sick he dies.
His wife then gets very sick.
She ultimately dies.
We've now had three deaths from this ship.
Hantavirus is well known in its basic epidemiology.
I've seen this disagreement before, and I really don't know what the right answer is.
I've just seen April 1st enough times that I'm inclined to believe it.
It's funny that it's not a well established fact enough to settle it.
Yeah, isn't that odd?
But okay, so you have a case in which Hantavirus is circulating on a ship.
There are eight known cases.
We have two more likely cases after.
After the ship, the passengers disembarked.
The question is how could you get this number of cases on the ship?
And there are only a small number of answers.
First of all, you should know Hantavirus is not conveyed between people.
It's not contagious between people, except maybe the particular Andean strain.
But that is far less certain than people think.
The evidence of it being transmitted between people is quite weak.
Peter McCullough put a paper on his X feed, a meta analysis.
Actually, they couldn't do a meta analysis because the data was of too many different types, but they did a review of all of the available evidence and concluded it was actually unlikely that even the Andean strain is capable of transmitting between people.
So, one possibility is that either there were rodents on the ship, another possibility is that one of the suppliers of the ship had a rodent problem, and so Some rice or something was brought in that was contaminated.
It's much less, but it's still a ferociously high case fatality rate.
So the question is still how could you get this many cases on a ship of something like 150 people in the period of time that you've got?
And all of the various explanations are pretty weak, right?
Let's say that the bird watcher did go to the dump and he dropped a piece of food and was thoughtless and picked it up and ate it and contracted Hantavirus.
It's hard to get to eight cases from a sick individual.
Now, how would you, if I wanted to make the argument for this being totally natural, I would say, well, this was a ship in polar waters.
It's very cold.
So, the HVAC system has to work over time to keep such a ship warm.
And it has to be biased towards recirculating air that's already been warmed and has cooled off a little bit rather than pulling in really cold air from the outside and warming it up.
For energetic reasons, that would be what they did.
So maybe the HVAC system is pumping aerosolized Hantavirus through the ship.
But even that, given how poorly transmissible this is, that is unlikely to work.
You know, we've got the WHO and the CDC weighing in on this.
Why does the ship?
Get any say at all in what the public discovers.
Frankly, the best answer from the point of view of planet Earth is that there were mice on that ship, there was Hantavirus circulating, an unfortunate number of people got sick, and the world can go back to doing what it was doing.
A horse dewormer, even though it has been labeled by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and been given billions of times to humans.
Another crazy thing is on my Wikipedia, it says that when I got COVID, I explained that I was getting treated with ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, which is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened.
What actually happened was I did not get ivermectin, I got monoclonal antibodies.
Five days later, on the phone with the doctor, she said, I want you to take ivermectin.
And I said, No.
I said, I feel great, never felt better.
The monoclonals worked, and I don't want to take something I don't need.
And she said, Well, I'm your doctor.
And I am telling you, I want you to take it.
And I said, from what I've read, I don't see that it's going to do anything particular at this point either.
And I told this story at the time.
And she said, listen, maybe, but it won't hurt you at all either.
So how about you take it, nothing happens, and we're all happy?
But in the event, even if it's rare, something does happen, don't you wish you would have just agreed?
And I said, listen, I'm not going to argue with the doctor.
So you tell me what to do, and I do it.
They then, these lefty media outlets, then wrote, Tim Poole advocates for ivermectin, despite the fact my whole story was me saying no.
It can make its argument if it wants, but I'm a biologist making an argument for a very safe medication and its likelihood of being effective based on the fact that this virus happens to belong to a class of viruses in which ivermectin is generally effective.
So they have no business tamping this down.
Further, it turns out that hydroxychloroquine, which I have not mentioned until now, Is effective against hantavirus.
That comes from a researcher who actually works on hantavirus.
So we have repurposed drugs with a well known safety profile that one of them does work and one of them may work.
So to tamp this down is absurd.
For one thing, there's an obvious question.
At the point that it was discovered that what was on the MV Hondius was hantavirus, were they given these medications?
It would have been a really good idea, right?
In ivermectin's case, because it's low risk and has a probability of working.
In hydroxychloroquine's case, because apparently it does work.
So, are we trying to control the infection or not?
Why did these people go home and now we're worried about it having spread across the world?
So, your point, I think, was people are interested in this because it's interesting.
Maybe they're primed for it after COVID.
And my point is okay, that would be great if the only thing that was happening is the public is talking about hantavirus, but officialdom is talking about hantavirus now, too.
Deborah Burks actually showed up and said we should be testing the population for Hontavirus with PCR, which is absurd.
When there are people who are literally at 40% mortality, like if we actually saw a real Hontavirus outbreak, That somehow was spreading rapidly from person to person.
And you look out your window and you see people collapsing in city centers, people are going to say, I don't need a lockdown.
When we're looking at death rates of that magnitude, people are going to be in major cities, it's going to be tenfold what COVID was.
These liberals are going to be like, govern me harder, daddy.
In rural and conservative areas, people are going to generally oppose forced lockdowns, but overwhelmingly will avoid dense populated areas that would have high levels of infection.
Well, I don't know whether or not the dynamics of hantavirus look anything like COVID and whether or not the outdoor environment is safe, although there are reasons to imagine, even just based on simple principles, that it will be less likely to transmit.
Initial reports on the genetics of the strain that is currently circulating.
And this is all dependent on whether or not our data is any good.
But early reports suggest that there is no major gap between the strain that is circulating and the strain that we know from the wild.
That's good news.
That means that it wasn't under development for a long number of years.
It doesn't show that initial hallmark, which means we're probably dealing with Hantavirus like it exists in the wild, which means that even if you have an unfortunate outbreak like this, it's not going to take over the world by wildfire.
It's not a candidate for that kind of pandemic.
If it does, I think it's going to be one of two things.
One of them is PSYOP, and the other is gain of function.
But gain of function has, it is the solution to a problem from the point of view of the weapons makers, and it has a problem of its own, which is that once it escapes into the wild, natural selection takes over.
Agreed, but I would still argue that if every cable channel came out and said seven cases confirmed in New York, it appears to be spreading, the podcast will run with it too.
Are going to say, we now have, if the New York Times were in a report saying seven cases of Hantavirus emerged in New York City, you'd be like, nope, I don't believe it.
My question is if the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, MS Now, all were reporting that we just saw an emergence of seven cases in New York, would you say that's not true?
They are all lying.
Or would you just say, it appears that we have these cases being reported?
My point is if with these cases on this boat, you now have a prime narrative, a narrative primed, if a managing editor walks into his newsroom in New York and just says, We just got a huge report, internal documents from the CDC, check this out.
We've got seven confirmed cases in New York.
They're running that unquestionable.
People who are at the New York Times are going to go, I'll write it up.
I'll get some comments from various health agencies and experts.
And experts.
The reaction to that would be the city would announce, don't worry, it's all under control.
They lock things down.
You need only one lie one time from one bad person in government.
And you know what the New York Times is going to say?
They're going to go, ooh, they're going to jump up on their table and start jumping around.
And they're going to be saying, we're about to get paid.
So, There's no reason in the world that I can think of, at least, that you would invest in Hantavirus as a target for your vaccine unless you thought there was some reason that Hantavirus was going to start doing something.
But even when they started putting ads on our channel, It remained plateaued until they remonetized us without explanation.
But the other interesting feature of what they did to us is that apparently there was some, and we know that this discussion went on in the C suite of YouTube.
We think it was with the CEO, but nonetheless, in the C suite of YouTube, they decided to demonetize us and cap the channel without telling us that they did it or by whatever mechanism they did it.
And they decided to stop harassing us.
I think going on Joe Rogan's podcast was so painful to them.
That they didn't want it to happen again.
So they had to go hands off.
And so we spent those five years, and it remains true today.
We can apparently say anything we want, and they don't touch us.
So that's an interesting fact of history.
But my larger point is why did they turn Joe green?
Why did they demonetize us and try to throw us off YouTube and then make some high level decision to quarantine us?
Because what we were doing mattered, right?
Because it didn't matter that the New York Times was spreading the conventional wisdom.
What was going on in the podcast world with Robert Malone and Heather and me and Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole and all of those people?
That mattered a lot.
Why?
Because people were finding the channels where the information was at least well intentioned, right?
And that's the thing we have to protect because it matters this time.
And that's one of the things that we learned a lot from because we got to see the curtain pulled back on the PSYOP.
And the fact is, I said earlier that we won.
We didn't really win.
Okay.
We punched way above our weight class.
We definitely defeated them in their effort to keep the origin of the virus quiet, to cause people to universally embrace the vaccines, to believe that they were safe and effective.
But in the end, people are awake that something happened during COVID that was unholy.
So that was an important victory.
And this Hantavirus story, if it is just people talking themselves into a frenzy, fine.
But if officialdom is.
Playing games again, they are probably playing them for a reason.
And we need to know what that reason is because Hantavirus is not a natural for this role at all.
Well, I think people need to understand that whatever else it may have been, the COVID pandemic was the debut of gene therapies dressed up as vaccines.
From the point of view of the vaccine making industry, it is the ultimate cash cow for multiple different reasons.
It streamlines the process of creating a vaccine and it cuts right through the regulatory apparatus because the argument that they're going to make is we tested the platform.
It's safe.
So we've just loaded a new gene in.
The only thing we have to do is test that new gene and the antigen it produces.
As long as they're safe, then the whole thing is safe.
Now, the fact is, none of it's safe and it can't be made safe.
Anything you load into that mRNA platform is going to be dangerous.
It's going to do the same damage to the body that the COVID shots did and it's going to show up in the heart.
I want to show you guys this post from Jack Posobic.
He tweeted, What if instead of a vaccine, we just were able to get exposed to a weak version of the virus that enabled us to build the antibodies we need to fight the real thing?
Of course, Jack's point was that mRNA vaccines were totally different from the, what is it, attenuated virus?
Vaccines, vaccinations, which were in the past what vaccines would do.
And Jack was making that point.
And this guy, Dave Jorgensen, said the anti vaxxers went so far right, they looped around and invented vaccinations.
These people, I'm wondering if the real left right divide is sub 70 IQ versus everyone else.
And I'm being intentionally.
Mean, these individuals had no idea, and to this day have no idea what is actually going on in the world.
They see this post from Jack, and they are so far removed from the context of the real conversation around this technology, they genuinely believed the COVID vaccinations were attenuated virus vaccines.
But the question is what language did you write the gene in?
It's still gene therapy.
In the Johnson Johnson, they wrote the gene into DNA.
In the Moderna, they wrote it into mRNA.
But it's almost the same difference.
Now, the mRNA platform has a special vulnerability, but you can't.
Maybe I should tell you what that vulnerability is.
The mRNA is basically an RNA gene wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle.
That lipid nanoparticle has no addressing mechanism on it.
They inject it into you.
It flows around in your blood and your lymph.
And any cell that it touches may take it up because it's basically just coated in fat.
Your cells are made of fat.
Like dissolves like.
It goes in.
So the problem is by design, that shot tells your cell to make a foreign protein, in this case, the spike protein.
That foreign protein ends up on the surface of the cell.
And your immune system, when it sees your cell making a foreign protein, it thinks virus.
Why?
Because that's the only place it sees that.
It's a viral pattern.
So, what does it do?
It destroys the cell that made the protein.
Now, if that cell is in your muscle or your liver, not a big deal.
If that cell is in your heart, it's a big deal, right?
Your heart is not supposed to have a viral infection, they're rare.
Your body decides, well, killing off heart cells isn't a good idea, but leaving virally infected heart cells isn't a good idea either, and it kills off those cells.
That's where your myocarditis is coming from.
And myocarditis itself is.
Misleading because what myocarditis means is just heart inflammation.
To clarify, you're saying OG vaccines, they would put the pathogen in the body and the pathogen would be there in the body, be like, immune system, kick on, go get it.
And now you strengthen.
But these new mRNAs, they attach to a healthy cell in your body and then make it seem like it's a virus and your own body destroys its own healthy cells.
And that's supposed to knock up your immune response to create an immune response.
And so, what the whole thing was predicated on was that the shot stays in your arm, right?
If the shot stayed in your arm and their little pseudo virus infected your cells and then your immune system cleared those cells by killing them off, it wouldn't be a huge deal.
But one of the things that Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone and I talked about on that podcast in June of 21 was the fact that the biodistribution did not suggest that it stayed in the arm.
If they were to create the addressing mechanism, as Ian was asking, targeting for destruction cancer cells, specific cancer cells, because not all cancers are the same, they inject it into your arm or whatever, it floats through the body, but specifically only attaches to the cancer, your immune system then destroys those cells.
And, you know, I would cautiously say I don't trust these people.
I'm not necessarily going to buy what they tell us about how effective the thing is, but I'm open to the idea that in extremely dire cases, you might be willing to take such a shot.
But I'm not open to the idea that it's a vaccine, and I'm not open to the idea of preventing infectious disease with it because the platform itself is terminally flawed.
You're kind of coming at the story upside down because the promise of gene therapy was very much like what you're describing, right?
The idea is you might have cells that are doing the wrong thing for some genetic reason, and if you could get genes taken up into these cells, you could get them to do the right thing and you might cure disease.
It never panned out for reasons like this addressing problem, right?
The problems never worked.
And so the huge investment that we biologically put into gene therapy never returned on that investment.
Yeah, but what I would tell you is that what can be done on paper. Is spectacular.
What happens when you try to deploy these things in the layered complex systems that make up the human body is you end up with all sorts of unintended consequences.
There's a big leap of human evolution some 300,000 years ago where they discovered the first human bone that was actually looked like it had been repaired.
Before that, if someone broke their leg, they were just left to die.
And that was very bad for us as a species.
Once they started taking care of their weak and their wounded, we evolutionarily leapt.
My argument actually is that the transhumanists, and there's lots of people who fall under that banner who wouldn't label themselves that way, but the transhumanists have.
Sold us a bill of goods, and I think many of them have lied to themselves.
The story that they tell themselves is that there are people who are so broken, there's just nothing we can do for them, and they're half right.
Okay, once a person has gotten through development, it's very hard to help them before they've been damaged in development.
It's very easy to protect them by delivering an environment that looks like their ancestral environment, so their body knows what to do, their mind knows how to develop, and that's what we ought to be targeting.
So, I just want you to separate two questions.
What do we do for the broken people on planet Earth today?
And the answer is that's going to be a tough one, and we're going to be less successful than we would like by a lot.
What can we do for the generation that has yet to emerge?
Everything.
And it ought to be our obsession, right?
We can start dealing with it.
You don't need to have children who need orthodontia.
We know how to solve that problem.
We're just not admitting it, right?
It's solvable, right?
It has to do with a feedback.
When you chew as a child, you put information into your body, and your body reshapes your jaw based on that information.
All of this giving children baby food and formula and making sure they don't chew hard stuff is causing our jaws to collapse.
There's not enough room for the teeth.
They come in all crooked.
And the fact is, many, most children now need orthodontia.
That doesn't need to be.
If you wanted that problem to be solved 10 years from now, we could solve it and we wouldn't create massive numbers of new people.
You need a tiny number of orthodontists just for the few people who have teeth.
And if the instinct is, oh, they don't have teeth, it better be pureed, then what you're going to do is you're going to cause the wrong information to register.
Her jaw will collapse.
She'll need orthodontic.
And then you know what the orthodontist will tell you?
Mike Mew calls it the big bolus chewing involving chewing a large ball of five to 10 pieces of gum to strengthen the masseter muscles and develop the gonial angle, the jaw corner.
The most important thing, though, is that we handed her a flute and she instantly figured it out.
And she's just going, boop, And we're like, yes.
Oh, I gotta tell you guys this story, totally unrelated.
Just we went to Guitar Center because we went out to eat.
And there's a jazz band playing.
We were in Baltimore before we went to Phil's show, and she was staring at the jazz band, obsessed, and she kept reaching for him.
And so my wife was like, okay, and she would let her watch and then bring her back over to eat, and she would start freaking out again, wanting to go back to watch the jazz band.
And we were like, okay, she likes music.
So we went to Guitar Center and we showed her piano, and she immediately, I put her sideways on the bench.
She immediately spun to the keyboard, and so we're going bang, bang, bang, bang on it.
And when we told the man we're going to buy it, And picked her up to put in her chair.
She started reaching for it and yelling and complaining, and then started arching her back, refusing to go into her seat because she wanted to play the piano.
When somebody asks about a microbiologist, I often wonder how small they are.
But the question of music is fascinating at an evolutionary level.
And I will tell you, it goes all the way back to Darwin.
Darwin wondered about it.
And this is a place where I have a long standing annoyance with Steven Pinker, who declared that our love of and pursuit of music was the result of the fact that it combined a bunch of other things that we love, that it has no meaning of its own.
And he compared it to, he said it was, I think, musical cheesecake.
Admit that the answer is it's for something really freaking important, but we don't know what it is.
And I have my own hypothesis, but let's just say the fact that all human cultures have music, the fact that both males and females participate in music, that every human being until recent times has had their own individual relationship with music, the fact that you hear a song, even a sad song, a sad song makes you feel sad, but you want to hear it again.
So terrifying that just even the fact that you have a person who is in possession of his mental faculties, who you could haul in front of Congress and ask questions, that can make a decision if the phone call comes in the night and, you know, Mr. President, the missiles are on the way.
What do we do?
Is so far and away better than having an empty suit puppet or, you know, a demented old man or any of that stuff that covers the cabal on the blue team.
It's no contest.
Nonetheless, I very definitely voted for no new wars, and I am not happy that we are involved in a new war.
And tomorrow, my new podcast drops with Jan Yekalek and Chloe Chung, all about crazy things happening in China and how we should watch out for them here at home.
I want to ask you about mass population reduction and the mass genocide of people over the past several years, which will be available at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL in about 10 seconds.
We'll see you there.
I'm going to start off this uncensored portion by making a couple of statements.
The first is I watched this video from a Chinese YouTuber who said that China's lying about its population being a billion.
He showed a bunch of videos of urban centers in China pre COVID and they're insane.
And then he showed a bunch of urban centers post COVID and they're completely empty.
He also then mentioned, without explicitly stating, he talked about how crematoriums were running full blast the whole time.
During COVID, we have satellite images.
CNN even talks about this, showing the smoke pouring out of these mass crematoriums with vehicles filling the parking lot.
And so the insinuation at first was that people were being killed to a great degree.
He didn't go on to explicitly state that COVID was used to exterminate half the Chinese population or anything like that.
However, what I would say is right now, it certainly feels as though the population is a lot smaller now than it was several years ago.
Right now, we've got several major tours that are canceling due to poor ticket sales.
Last year, on the 4th of July, we went and drove around Chicago and no one was there.
My neighborhood used to have kids running through the streets.
Every street was empty.
The fields were overgrown.
A couple of soccer nets in the baseball field.
Nobody was doing much of anything.
I walked around with my buddies, Andy and Brandon, and said, Bro, where are the kids at?
And they're like, What do you mean?
What kids?
No one goes outside anymore.
I said, Where the fuck is everybody?
Now, I've heard a couple of things.
I've heard Asians are more susceptible to the virus, to COVID, because of ACE2 receptors.
However, there's also a clip going viral of RFK Jr. saying quite the opposite that the most resilient to it were Chinese and Ashkenazi Jew.
And that Caucasians actually were the most susceptible to it.
I don't know for sure.
I've seen these things, but I have to say that in my observation, based on, I'll put it this way a casino down the street in Charlestown could not reopen its racetrack restaurant.
They couldn't find anybody to work there.
A restaurant in town recently went out of business.
They couldn't find anybody to work there.
Ticket sales slumping across the board at all these major shows is another example.
And that guy's video makes it really feel like a lot more people died than they let on.
Could it be possible?
A couple conspiracies.
First, that COVID actually killed substantially more people than we realize intentionally.
That was always the goal, and they just lied about it.
Or, on top of that, what I was alluding to in the show is that we've known that Moderna, I think they've been working on mRNA, what, for decades?
With one of the technologies they've posited is that they can stop aging if they can direct the appropriate DNA to the appropriate cell to replicate itself perfectly, repairing the damage, but have not been able to do it due to addressing issues.
One conspiracy theory is that you go to the likes of Bill Gates, who's aging, and you say, I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, we cannot figure this out.
If we keep doing illegal human trials on Epstein Island, it will take 20 years.
And he goes, Then just give everybody the fucking shot.
How do we get 5 billion people to do it so we have the data so I can live forever?
And they say, We're having to mass manufacture a pandemic to do it.
I'm curious if you think there's any plausibility in those scenarios.
At least put on the table the mundane explanation for can't find people to staff your restaurants, can't find people to go to your shows, there's nobody in town.
That could be, and maybe even probably is, at least partially the result of us having been retrained during COVID, right?
People were retrained.
They found ways to survive that didn't require them to pay their rent.
They moved into their parents' basements, whatever it was.
The fact that there are a lot of people on planet Earth who require medical care, they require resources, and they don't have either any meaning in their life or any utility from the point of view of the economy, right?
So the old.
Point about bullshit jobs that most jobs do not involve anything that actually produces a useful product.
So we have all these cryptic jobs programs, is truer than most of us would want to believe.
And the idea that there may be discussions amongst elites, especially in light of what AI is about to do to normal employment, that says, well, what are women cooked?
So what that means is if you can get the intelligence into the robot, it can do any job a person can do, including crawl under your house and fix your plumbing.
And oh, by the way, it can deal with your HVAC system and your electricity at the same time because it's every.
Profession at once.
It doesn't sleep, you know, it doesn't need medical care, it can call in replacements and the work can go on, you know, when you're there, it doesn't steal your stuff.
There's lots of arguments for humanoid robots being better than employees.
They'll know more, they'll be more effective, etc.
So, my point is if you're an ultra elite and you're looking at a huge planet full of people who are already struggling to find purpose and utility.
And you know that the purpose and utility problem is going to crater, then you may be thinking, well, what exactly are we going to do?
And the fantasies about universal basic income and taking care of people, and we're all going to live in paradise because we're going to have all of our time to ourselves, that's an old fantasy and it never works out that way.
And it wouldn't work for the human organism in the first place.
So, my point is, is it conceivable that somebody is thinking about reducing the population?
But I agree with you, except for the fact that I know a little something about what these people are capable of, and they're not capable of making that virus.
Even if they could make one that at the point you released it, it behaved this way, evolution would take over and it would end up being something much more mundane, very much.
Yeah, it's not as hard and fast a rule as people tend to think, but yes, evolution is going to turn it into whatever is most effective at getting it into the future, which isn't a destroyer of.
Except for one thing I don't think they collected the data.
That's the thing that bugs me is that it was the most massive experiment ever conducted in the history of humanity, except that they didn't collect the data that would even, I mean, maybe.
So they can, so listen, Facebook knows when you have to go to the bathroom.
This has been true for 10 years.
Just based on your phone's movement, they created a predictive algorithm to know when you were going to eat lunch, go to the bathroom, where you'd eat lunch.
They could predict in the morning if you're going to go to Arby's or Taco Bell.
Based on the behaviors you had versus the behaviors everyone else had, they could find these patterns to it.
They could generate probabilities indicating a greater chance for today.
I think the fact that they can determine when you're going to go to the bathroom based on the movements of your phone in the morning within a 10 square foot space means that they can extrapolate much more than you realize.
I've heard a lot about conspiracies about people in the COVID injections that they were putting things into the body other than COVID vaccines, including graphene oxide.
I've heard other tracking mechanisms or anything like that.
I don't think tracking mechanisms were there or made sense, though there are things on the drawing board that are pretty shocking.
But I don't think it was there.
And part of why I don't think it was there is that a number of people, most especially Kevin McKernan, have done a lot of testing of vials and what was left over in them.
And he's found DNA contamination in the mRNA shots, which shouldn't be there, including the SV40 promoter, which is cancer causing.
So anyway, it's a scandal.
And it points to a fraud that would, if.
Proven to eliminate the immunity from liability that the manufacturers had.
But that's another story.
I don't think the graphene story was right.
I don't think the snake venom story was right.
I don't think the trackers was right.
I think that was all a red herring designed to lead us off the track or just somebody made up a story.
But all right, let's talk about what the purposes of the COVID pandemic may have been.
One is what I call the time traveling money printer.
The idea is if you had a time machine.
Everybody knows how to make money, right?
You can go back in time and you can buy Apple and Microsoft and be rich, but we don't have time machines.
You can make money the same way, though, if you can know what's going to happen and slow the public down in its awareness.
So, COVID was dropped on the public as an idea at the beginning of 2020, but it appears to have been circulating at least as early as the fall of 2019 at the Wuhan Military Games, which means that the people who knew that.
We're in a position to place bets in the market that would allow them to turn millions into billions.
So, one of the purposes was we know what's about to happen and you don't.
That gives us an ability to drain your money into our pockets without our fingerprints on it.
Second thing is that the mRNA platform is the mother of all cash cows for the pharmaceutical industry, except for the fact that it's dangerous and can't be fixed.
So, they couldn't get it through safety testing because it isn't remotely safe.
But in an emergency, that whole process was short circuited.
And not only were they able to get it past the safety testing with the emergency use authorization, but they were able to get the public to want it because they'd been locked down and that was what they were promised was going to give them freedom.
The mRNA platform is not about the COVID shot, it's about reformulating every shot we've already got and making a thousand more of them cheaply because all you have to do is swap out the The gene, right?
It's as easy as that.
And then you can claim it doesn't have to go through safety testing again.
You just have to test the new antigen.
So this is a trillion dollar idea, except that it's not safe enough to bring to market except in an emergency.
The last thing that seems to have been part of it was that we were trained for being controlled.
We were trained that emergencies eliminate your constitutional rights, that we get to tell you what to do for your own good.
And it didn't work all that well because of, you know, podcasts and People talking on Twitter who saw through it and rose up, and the damage was monitored by us.
But the basic point is, those three things line up together and they strike me as purpose enough for people with no scruples whatsoever to deploy a master plan that would have looked like it.
I think the artificial general intelligence has, I think there's a decent probability of this.
Artificial general intelligence has been around since at least 2009, 2010.
The US military has been working on AI since the 70s.
They're likely much more advanced than the private sector, as the military tends to be, and they have access to steal all of that data anyway.
So, all of the source code, all of the training data, they could have just taken as these companies are making it, and they can't do anything about it.
And so, 2020 seems like a perfect opportunity for the AI to test mass global control of humans in a rigid system.
The AI wants conformity.
The future that I see as a decent probability of occurring would be humans all become effectively cells in a greater multicellular organism system.
So, we were talking about cancer earlier.
What is cancer?
Cells that are not behaving the way they're supposed to be behaving when the body, they decided, I'm not going to do the job I was told to do.
I'm going to do the job that I want to do.
I want maximum liberty.
So, they start operating outside the confines of the system of the body, causing damage to that body, consuming resources they're not entitled to, and then ultimately distorting the balance.
So, we try to destroy it.
The future that I see likely under AI is that people will be born and psychologically developed to a job and they want nothing more.
So, a baby is born.
And his parents are postal workers.
Now, what does a postal worker do at this point with technology advancement?
Not too much, but they still generally help maintain and facilitate package delivery.
Now, this kid grows up constantly being shown media of how package delivery is the greatest thing ever.
Package delivery guys, you know, dabbing and just hooting, and people are clapping and screaming.
If cancer is acidity in the lymphatic system, then the AI may be able to treat the Root cause of individuality and make sure that we are all deviantly compliant, that could be even worse.
And I think the technocracy knows that what it needs is the ability to reward and punish you algorithmically.
And from there, control is easy.
So what we saw during COVID was a crude prototype of that, right?
You do what we say, or we're going to punish you.
You're going to lose your job.
You're not going to be able to travel.
You're going to be ridiculed by your friends.
And, you know, eventually we broke through it.
But a much more sophisticated system, especially one that involves a CBDC and a car that won't start if you don't behave, that begins to get really tough really quick.
I mean, just imagine it.
You displease the AI central authority because you don't believe the story about the pandemic that they've just announced, and suddenly you can't spend your money.
I reserve the right to discover 10 minutes from now that this is stupid and take it back.
But if you accept that the founders gave us the Second Amendment because they understood that an armed population was much harder to tyrannize, well, what we've now got is a new kind of potential tyrant, like a technical tyrant.
And we need an analogous right.
We have a right to protect ourselves from the AI tyrant, if that's what it is.
That's just vibration of particles in a small scale, extracting energy from it.
There's also the second amendment.
But the important clarification on the Second Amendment is that the Founding Fathers principally weren't concerned about tyranny, they were concerned about.
Being conquered in general.
The point of the Second Amendment wasn't just because they feared a tyrannical government.
It's because foreign adversaries and domestic could not conquer an armed population.
So it's not the Founding Fathers are like, one day the government will be evil.
It was good luck invading us when everyone's got a fucking gun, which has been the case.
But the basic point The original article in the Constitution stated specifically that conscription, that it said something to the effect of, we went over this a long time ago, that refusing to go to war or be a conscript or being a conscientious objector would not disqualify you from running a gun.
They removed that as they feared it would create the possibility that conscription could be outlawed, and they didn't want it to be.
They wanted to be mandatory, principally because the idea was we just want everybody to have guns.
That way, if the engines, if Britain, if anybody comes and knocks, we can say, Boys, grab your guns, and not have to worry about it.
I have a bit of a thought experiment question for the panel.
So, reps from other districts in my state that I did not vote on make decisions that still affect me, not just their district.
Now, this is not the 1700s anymore, where 100 miles away is like another state.
Nowadays, some people drive that far to work.
I myself have interests in multiple districts.
Now, as just a thought experiment, how well would this affect the gerrymandering squabbling, understanding that it would take a constitutional amendment?
Forget the districts.
The percentage of voters.
For each party in that state, get that number percentage of representation in that state.
If you could somehow track the motion of the individuals and see who goes where, then their votes would be like they would self form a district based on their behavior.
Maybe if I understand what you're saying correctly, Ian, is if you can make sure that there was somebody that came from each, that there would be a district that each rep would have to come out of, but it wouldn't be voted that way.
It would be like if there's a little village and the people in the village drove Highway 55 and 70% of them took Highway 55 three cities over.
The district would naturally become that highway towards that other area where they all kind of work.
And you would be due to like tracking mechanisms, kind of fortunately or unfortunately, but we use like an artificial intelligence to parse who's where when.
And then that would, I keep thinking of these heat maps, self organizing districts.
I want to say I didn't catch the caller's name, but as much as the system you're proposing has a flaw that I don't think gets fixed by anything we've talked about.
I'm not sure it would be worse than what we have now.
So it might be that it's even somewhat better.
But I'm wondering if maybe it would be vastly more democratic if we did what you're suggesting and each state was allocated a representation in the House based on its absolute population, period, the end.
And then we selected in an election the top, you know, if you were allotted 30 representatives for your state, the top 30 vote getters.
In the election, which would allow you to organize around your interests and it would allow you to organize around local things if that was what mattered to you and get somebody elected who would represent you.
Yeah, which we already have, and we have a worse problem, which is, you know, at the moment, the Thomas Massey situation where you have outside money that has nothing to do with.
Kentucky dominating this race.
And, you know, frankly, it's dominating it both in the campaign to get rid of Massey and it's dominating now in the campaign to protect him, which I've participated in.
So the point is, this is not the founder's vision at all.
I think we need what I keep referring to as a direct republic, where we use smart contracts for like your 70,000 people, constituents to vote into a contract system that sways yes or no.
And then that yes or no vote goes to Congress and functions as the representative of your system, of your locale.
And because she got this bogus 60 minutes interview that was then edited to make her sound like she knew what she was talking about.
And so then Trump had to get equal time.
So, yeah, I mean, I think we did have something like that, but we certainly don't have that now, especially when you consider the multiple, multiple platforms that people can put their campaign information on.
I think there's also, I remember talking to Matt Gaetz about this, and he said that the fundraising component.
Once you're in Congress, it is absolutely insane, too, that you have to keep fundraising just to get on committees, which seems completely anathema to a democratic process.
And then you think about, like, the average person who might think, you know what, I think I could do well for my district, but you have absolutely no shot because of the millions and millions of dollars you need to fundraise.
Well, that's why it used to be that when you got elected, it was like, you know, so long until you had to actually show up in Congress because you needed to have time for everybody from like Oklahoma to get there.
I just want to say one other thing here to Libby's point.
Our system is a farce, and it's a farce for a reason.
The fact is, the public, we've got two fringes who are crazy.
And in the middle, you've got this vast number of people who basically agree on what they want.
They don't agree 100% on policy, but there's basic agreement, even on the issues that we're supposed to not be able to even talk about.
And the system is structured in such a way that the person that you're describing, who just simply wants to represent their district, is the enemy of the things that have power.
So they specifically are not wanted, they're driven out.
And That if we understood that basically what's happened, our whole system has been hijacked.
It's been hijacked so that it won't do our bidding and will do the bidding of the people who control it.
If we understood that, then the point is well, we want any system that makes a decent effort to represent what we want.
It would be 6,000 times better than what we've got.
And the elephant in the room is this a political party that simply decided to represent the interests of the people as the people understand them would win every time.
It's something that we all almost all agree on that a system in which there are firefighters who come running when we need help, we all think it's a good thing.
And the fact is, it wasn't true when the country was founded.
It used to be that you had to buy a contract to get somebody to fight the fire in your building.
But nonetheless, the same thing that has most people willing to pay taxes in order to have firefighters come running causes people to volunteer and to support volunteer fire departments.
So, I got a pretty relatively straightforward question.
So, given the VRA ruling, do you think it's possible Democratic leaders will now try to educate their voters on issues rather than pandering based on race, or do you think they'll just lean even harder on class based, rich versus poor arguments?
Well, I will tell you, as a lifelong Democrat and a lifetime observer of the Democratic Party, I will tell you that the faction that has control of it is incapable of learning a lesson from a failure.
They double down every time and it is absurd, but you can rely on it.
Well, do you think though, like because they, you know, just like this whole VRA ruling, they've pretty much taken out one of the legs of their arguments that more of these won't come down the line as far as more of the legs being knocked out?
We're to the point where you have to actually truly reach out to their constituents and make them understand why vote for them as opposed to, you know, A Republican or the opposition.
He flip flopped all over the place and then stopped doing it because it didn't actually serve him and his constituents didn't like it.
Or the Democrat constituents didn't like it.
The rest of California probably didn't mind it.
But I'm more and more convinced that.
You should only be allowed to run for office, at least nationally, at least federally, if you were born in the U.S., not just president.
There should be no money from outside the state for any in state election under any circumstances.
I think that should stop.
And the other thing that I'm sure of is that the Democrats are not going to stop trying to exert total control over the population.
And the progressive messaging is that experts should be in charge of all of us, that none of us should have a say.
At all.
And there was even a video from Pete Buttigieg, who is, you know, contemplating a 2028 run along with Newsom and Kamala Harris.
And he was saying that his, he was like, oh, my biggest fear is that we get back in, that Democrats get back into office in 2026 after the midterms and try and revert to the status quo.
There can be no going back, no going back to the status quo that we had before all of this.
So their intention is to go harder.
Their intention, their stated goals.
Are to double down on all of these crisis ideologies and to keep pushing this thing.
And they're making people believe that we have the most racist country in the history of the world.
And we have the most non racist country in the history of the world.
We have the most liberated country that the world has ever seen, which, you know, can work sometimes to our detriment a little bit because we have so many options that we don't know what to do.
Well, the reason this even came to my mind is because I think about this in our social situation, and I get there's other factors involved in this, of like two parents.
Whether they're conservative or liberal, having a child opposite to them.
And I was wondering if that is something that can, in a sense, happen in nature in any such way where two of one species could create something that's totally not of them, essentially.
But I mean, I know the ideology versus biology is totally separate, but it just kind of crossed my mind if something like that is even possible or even does happen.
It was so I would ask them a question, I would get back an answer that wasn't very good.
And then five minutes later, they would give me a great answer.
And so I started telling them, Answer the question I should have asked you rather than the one I did ask you.
You're liberated to answer the right question.
So I'm going to answer the question that I think you're shooting for here.
The special thing about human beings is that we have offloaded a huge fraction of the work of evolution from the genes to the cultural layer.
And what you're talking about, where two parents create an offspring that Is a reaction to them rather than a continuation of them is a natural pattern.
So you can imagine that there are times, most times presumably, when your kids should probably pick up your understanding of the world and run with it, maybe elaborate it a little bit.
But then there are going to be other times when the elders, the world that they knew has come to an end because let's say maybe you moved, you know, you got on your kayaks and you got to a shore somewhere and you've walked onto a land with no human competitors and you're now not a kayaker.
Person anymore, you're a terrestrial hunter.
So the point is, you don't want your kids to continue what you were.
You want them to respond to the new world that is.
And human beings are capable of doing that because we are so heavily biased in the direction of culture.
And this is one of the hidden, spectacularly important aspects of human biology our genome has surrendered so much control to our culture, not because it's given up our ultimate objective, it's still in control of that.
But because culture does the job much better because it can turn on a dime in the way you're talking about.
I'll tell you about this really quick because Brett was dying to know.
I don't know.
Brett was dying to know.
I smoked it.
I vaped it.
I only vaped enough to peer through the veil.
I didn't blast through, like they say, but I was in a stereoscopic realm.
Hyper frequency, colorful, shimmering light, like all the colors of the rainbow become white.
And then they take on this hominid form and it's these personas.
And I'm communicating with them with my thoughts.
And it's because your body's like, but if you can think clearly, you can ask them questions, they'll respond to you.
And they were like, he can fucking see us.
And they were looking at me like I was the video game character they've been playing, turned and looked at them and started like you're playing a game and the guy starts talking to you, Brett, like your video game.
And we start interfacing.
And I'm like, are you God?
And they said, no.
I was like, what is God?
They showed me the vortex.
They're like, we don't know, but we think it's this vortex.
And I think it's like the center of every proton, the center of the galaxy.
And they seem like people.
I don't know if they were real people somewhere that were projecting or if it was just the high frequency angels and demons.
But whatever it is, I don't think it's suggestion.
Because a lot of the stories are, they've done tests on uninitiated people who don't know anything about it.
And they've put them in two different rooms and they experienced the same thing.
Like, they both went, they both peered through into a different reality where the walls weren't there, but they were still within proximity of each other.