Tim Pool and guests dissect GOP redistricting blockades, noting five Republican defections in Virginia and South Carolina alongside a Supreme Court ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act. They analyze ICE's Palantir-driven crackdown on 10,000 student visa fraud cases, contrasting U.S. legal limitations with Nayib Bukele's 92% approval rating in El Salvador. The discussion covers Eileen Wang's guilty plea regarding Chinese infiltration, White House insider overreach, and fears of a totalitarian technocracy. Ultimately, the episode warns that eroding privacy, algorithmic bias, and coercive community dynamics threaten American sovereignty, urging total assimilation against hyphenated identities. [Automatically generated summary]
Republicans have won the redistricting war quite decisively, but not without some hangups.
Lots of court action going on throughout the country.
The Democrats are not going down without a fight.
So, we're going to get into all of that.
There's quite a few stories on the redistricting front.
I'm sure you guys are all sick and tired of hearing about it, but this is potentially, we're talking about decades of Republican dominance in this country, despite the demographics not quite going their way.
So, we're going to get into all of that.
A lot of big stories on that front.
We also have ICE cracking down big time on one of the most egregious.
Visa scamming mills, I think we've ever seen in this country.
Absolutely unbelievable stuff going on, specifically around student visas.
You might think that that's innocent.
We're just talking about, you know, some people just trying to get their caps and gowns.
Far more nefarious things going on in the student visa universe, and ICE is cracking down hard.
We have a California mayor going down with CCP ties.
I think that's to be expected.
I don't know if you've kept tabs.
I don't know if you're really much of a politico, but the happenings in California aren't exactly the most pro American, at least not thus far.
And a mayor has gone down with CCP ties.
Quite interesting stuff happening.
We're going to get into that.
We have a few other stories we'll get to throughout the show.
But with that, we are very pleased to have you guys with us.
And I believe we have a few advertisers that we need to give a shout out to before we start the show.
But we'll get that going in some time.
Before we do, obviously, I want to give a shout out to the Discord.
Everyone hanging out in the Discord.
Very happy to have some fantastic Timcast members.
You can head over to timcast.com, check out our Discord to get involved, get involved in the action.
Some very exciting stuff.
So if you haven't clicked away yet because there's no Tim, Head on over to Discord, go hang out in there first, and then come back and hang out on the show.
It's going to be a very beautiful thing.
But yes, Tim, he's out today, unfortunately, a little under the weather.
So I'm holding it down for you guys because as you may know, Phil is on tour.
I am the former director for Candace Owens, even more former, former director for Daily Wire, currently the host of the new podcast, Mark Explained, where I mansplain things, but I'm Mark.
Fantastic panel, some rock stars on the panel tonight.
So let's get into this first story.
I'm sure you guys are sick and tired of hearing about it.
But again, like I said, absolutely vital stuff.
This is really important stuff to pay attention to.
First, I got to say, it looks like the Republicans have decisively won the redistricting battle.
Now, as soon as we sort of kicked that bee's nest, I was pretty skeptical this was going to go a positive direction because, as we know, the Republican is the party of managing decline and then the Democrats are the party of just declining.
So I wasn't too hopeful when we.
Sort of kicked off this entire redistricting saga.
And as time went on, I felt vindicated.
I saw, you know, Indiana, various other states across the country, the GOP sat on their hands.
They came up with the reasons for why we shouldn't or can't redistrict.
It was really some pathetic stuff.
We saw the Virginia redistricting race where the Republicans put pennies behind that race and the Democrats put a war chest behind the redistricting battle.
It was really blackpilling for a while.
I was not too thrilled with the direction that things were going, but fates have turned around.
We got a decisive decision, obviously, from the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act, which sounds kosher on its face, right?
Oh, yeah, we want voters to have rights.
Well, obviously, it was used, utilized by the Democrats for quite nefarious purposes, basically consolidating as much power that they were not entitled to as possible.
So, first thing that dropped, obviously, we had some news here.
This is good news, obviously, is that the Supreme Court, as we've seen in Virginia at the state's level, can intervene, you know, if they feel that things are not quite passing the sniff test.
Well, Missouri, we're in the clear.
This is where people were a little more concerned, obviously, and this is what we have in the title.
And this is a bit concerning, obviously, if this were happening while we were underwater in the redistricting battle, people would have been quite outraged.
But I think everyone's taking a victory lap right now.
So, it doesn't seem to be Discussed as much.
This is concerning stuff from Yahoo News.
South Carolina Republicans tank redistricting for now.
That is the key contingent here.
The South Carolina Senate just made it harder for the state to withdraw its congressional map, resisting pressure from President Donald Trump.
Lawmakers on Tuesday failed to reach the two thirds majority needed to approve a measure that would have allowed them to take up a vote on redistricting even after the legislative session ends later this week.
And then this is the sort of egregious thing, but this is what we're kind of used to.
Five Republicans hopped across the aisle, joined all Democrats in voting against the proposal.
Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, Could still call a special session through his, though his office so far has dismissed this idea.
So we have good news, bad news.
And then here is an example of something in a blue state where it appears that, again, conservatives are going on offense, which is unbelievable that I'm even saying that.
I never thought that would happen.
From Democracy Docket, a really reputable source here.
Right wing group sues Illinois and first post Clay attack on the state voting right act.
Of course, Illinois is probably one of the most egregious gerrymanders in this country.
It looks like you spilled a bowl of spaghetti.
But yes, the Republicans, by extension, the conservative movement.
Going on offense here.
Finally, we have this was from Sean Davis.
He has the copy here.
Notice has been given to all Democrats in the Tennessee House that all members of the Democrat caucus are being removed from all standing committees and subcommittees as a result of their behavior in the state House during the redistricting debates last week, which included setting fires inside of the Capitol and attacking law enforcement.
In the state of Tennessee, political terrorism will not be tolerated.
National Republicans, take note that this is how you exercise power.
So, guys, How are we feeling about this redistricting battle?
You think we're in the clear yet?
What do you think the future is looking like for the political composition of this country?
When Democrats can't break the law or do what they want to do illegally or kind of twist things up, they get upset when, like, actually the rule law is held to the ground and what it's supposed to be.
I agree because actually, what they did was they kept all the bones of the VRA intact.
I think gutting that language I use is specifically regarding the current Democrat interpretation of the VRA, which is effectively just look, I'll just cut the chase here.
It's effectively a black supremacist interpretation where they're just saying, no, we're entitled to districts because of our race.
It is absolutely absurd.
And the Supreme Court obviously came down on the right side of that decision.
Regarding, yeah, Tennessee, I mean, I'm a Tennessee native.
I don't know if how many people in the audience can relate to that.
And I'm from Memphis.
So this is something that I'm quite familiar with.
And Justin Pearson, you brought him up.
I mean, this is this guy who literally, if you look at videos like 10 years ago, he was like a just basic normie, like a theater kid in his university.
And he was like, hello, I'm Justin Pearson, and I'm looking to work across the aisle, and I'm looking for bipartisanship connection.
Flash forward 10 years, he's doing this like basically minstrel show on the floor of the Tennessee Congress.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
He's got his big afro that he's like, and then he's like LARPing like he's like a reverend.
I mean, it is really egregious, unbelievable stuff.
And to your point, or to the point of both of you guys, I mean, Yeah, of course, the Democrats here feel especially threatened because, again, they're losing a beachhead and what is becoming the center of the United States, which is the South.
And the reason that's important, the reason why they're specifically so concerned about what's happening in these Southern states is because, again, if you look at what the next census is going to look like, again, the way that the direction of the country is going, the South is going to be dominating the political spectrum.
I mean, they're going to be dominating the presidential elections.
That's where a lot of these electoral votes are heading towards in the next census.
And so the Democrats understand that if, again, the entire South becomes ruby red, they're in serious trouble for the next few decades as far as winning goes.
Kind of aligns with all these people leaving the Democratic Party over the last eight years since the mask came off of the machine.
And I think you're just kind of seeing a sorting realignment throughout the electorate now.
It is, I mean, like you were saying, Mark, it looks like escalation.
Like it's, I just mean, escalation towards more of it.
And like, I've been like, okay, the United States is transitioning to a technocracy, a global technocracy led by American military, economic, whatever.
This is like the most stark indication of that.
This is such a transition of American governance.
I've never seen anything like it in my life.
The way that the electorate's going to change in six months is so drastic.
Well, I think what's interesting is, you know, this was the fear for the longest time with various.
Republican strategists is just because of the nature of the changing demographics of the United States.
It was thought that the Republicans would be increasingly politically unviable because, again, we've seen the non white percentage of the country grow, I mean, exponentially over the last 60 to 70 years.
What is the primary voting group that will turn out the ballot, you know, and check an R on the ballot?
It is white voters.
So, again, as white voters, their share of the electorate shrunk.
That was kind of the common thinking is that the Republican Party would shrink along with it.
So, that's what makes this so dramatic is we've seen two things happening.
One in the last presidential election, we're seeing the Democrats lose their monopoly on non white voters.
We saw especially Hispanics surge in support for the Republican Party.
And there's a lot of reasons for that that we could get into if we want.
And something that we can get into, and I don't know if this is a little too controversial for anyone to discuss, but I think it's true, is there's this idea that with the Obama Rainbow Coalition, that all non white voters were this one giant monolith.
But I think we learned during 2020 that maybe Hispanic Americans, Black Americans don't quite see eye to eye on everything.
I think that's fair to say.
And we've seen Hispanic voters react in 2020.
Again, the Democrats sort of, you know, their entire culture that they have kind of developed was very black centric.
And I think Hispanic voters did react to that.
I think that's fair to say.
And again, Trump was just presenting a non racial, pro American policy.
And they said, well, that's why we came to this country in the first place, because we wanted to participate in America, not a specific ethnic grievance based, you know, culture or zeitgeist.
They just want to be in America.
And so, again, I think that's why Trump was able to resonate with them and, again, kind of break up that Democrat power block.
And then the second part of that initial point that I was making is, again, just the shifts that we're seeing and redistricting and these sorts of things.
Again, it's shifting the ball back to the Republicans' court.
The immigration, you know, mass immigration, 20 million people pissed off so many, and just not even like black people or Mexican people or whatever, Southerners, like people or people that, like minorities that were then displaced by immigrants.
And they're like, what are you doing?
People, yeah, I agree with you.
The black vote for Trump was like, and I'm not much of a monolithic, you know, regarder either, but it was notable.
People who consider themselves Americans care about these illegals coming and jumping in front of the line.
Real immigrants, legal immigrants, are real pissed too because they had to go through, spend all this money, do all this paperwork, and all these people get to jump through the front of the line and they get their hotels and houses, Section A, whatever else they get paid, welfare checks, and just regular everyday Americans are not liking this illegal bullish.
Yeah, and I think the general perception of how immigrants will view America and view the Republican Party will change in this Trump 2 paradigm because, again, It's much tougher to immigrate to this country now under President Trump's second term.
And so the people that come here, you're basically guaranteeing that these people want to be here.
Where I think maybe since in the post-Heart Seller America, the majority, maybe not the majority, I think it's fair to say the majority of immigrants that were coming here were coming here because of potential economic prosperity, right?
There was a huge departure in the way that immigrants decided to come to America.
Before Heart Seller, it was more of a lifestyle adjustment.
They were seeking freedom, they were seeking liberty, they wanted to buy into the American project.
Post-Heart Seller, A lot of the immigrants that were coming here, I would argue the majority of immigrants that were coming here, were coming here primarily for economic prosperity, which again, can you blame them?
Not really.
But the problem is, we're not running a charity here, we're running a country.
Hard Seller was the 1965 Immigration Act, which basically changed the entirety of how we conducted immigration.
So prior to the Hard Seller Act, credence was given to immigrants from countries that would be perceived to be more culturally assimilable into the United States.
Post Hard Seller Act, it basically removed any pretense, gave the Americans zero discretion over who should come from where, and effectively viewed The entire global population as a blank slate that could be rewritten with American values, which I would argue has failed quite extensively.
But it's a little tricky because I'll push back a little bit because I do think a British atheist, like a Carl Benjamin, is going to assimilate much easier into the United States than a Christian Haitian.
I mean, Haiti is majority Christian and they've had a very difficult time assimilating the United States because I'm saying this as a Christian, as someone that.
Is chauvinistically Christian, I will acknowledge that there has to be a little bit more to their ability to assimilate into the United States than just sharing a vague Christian worldview.
Broadly, I would say that Oran McIntyre made this point on Tucker Carlson's show, actually, where he was sort of walking through, he was doing a retrospective on sort of the founding of America, what was a certain spirit around the foundation of the United States.
And he argued, and I think this is correct, that again, fundamentally, the American identity at the time of the founding was sort of an Anglo Protestant identity, as in these were descendants from the Puritans, these were descendants from the Cavaliers that settled the South, even the Scots Irish were kind of bought in on this idea.
So he was basically making the contention that.
If you're not in that group, that doesn't mean you have zero stake in the country or you're not an American or anything.
That's ridiculous.
What he was saying was the closer you get to that identity, the closer you are to sort of that core American understanding of sort of what it means to be an American that you would sort of see from the founders.
I mean, the overwhelming majority of the founders were, again, of British stock.
Again, they were Protestants.
Again, this isn't to say you can't be.
I don't think anyone's making that contention.
It's just saying if the people are coming to this country, what are they going to assimilate to?
Well, that identity looks a lot like that Anglo Protestant identity, even if you're not an Anglo, even if you're not a Protestant.
Fair enough, but that's still kind of shocking to me because I've always thought that like the British and the Americans are like different species, not even the same culture.
Well, I mean, I think the Irish, we're really getting in the weeds here.
I think there's kind of a broader, like maybe Anglosphere sort of common identity where I think Australians, Canadians, Irish, British, I think these people can all come here.
And it doesn't feel too exotic to them.
I think that would be kind of the key word used is exotic.
I mean, I'll say I have people I know quite well from all of these countries, and they come to the United States and they say, yeah, it's fairly familiar.
We have a lot of the same customs, a lot of the same understandings, a lot of the same presuppositions.
Where if someone comes from Somalia, for example, or even to get closer, if someone came from Albania, even though that's European, because this is not a like white thing, I'm not saying this is an exclusionary white thing.
I'm saying it's a very specific culture, very specific nationality.
American is a nation.
And there's a lot of white groups that would have quite a lot of difficulty assimilating into American life.
I think that's the tragic thing across the West is, again, I'm making all these presuppositions if we're talking about these countries.
But again, these countries have fundamentally changed, even the United States, where, again, what would be the Japanese understanding of an American?
It'd be like, uh-uh.
I'm James Johnson and I'm a former Marine.
And that's like what's in their video games.
But if you look at like Dallas now, I mean, Dallas looks like a literal UN refugee camp.
I mean, it is unbelievable what's going on there.
Same things happening in Toronto.
Same things happening in Birmingham in the UK.
Same things happening in Melbourne, Australia.
Like these countries, and it's happening all across the West, are just increasingly becoming unfamiliar.
I think that's very fair to say.
And again, I'm not making the contention that anyone is better or worse.
I'm just saying that.
Diversity on the global scale is actually quite a beautiful thing.
You know, the fact that Bangladesh is Bengali or the fact that Nigeria is Nigerian, that's a very beautiful thing.
The idea that a lot of these people are proposing that, you know, the entire world should just turn into one giant group, like one giant homogenous group that has no identifiable features, I find quite tragic.
And again, this is saying on a global scale, I think it would be tragic if Eritrea ceased to be Eritrean.
In Dungeons and Dragons, there's a language called common, and everyone knows common.
And then there's like elvish and dwarvish and all these things, but humans only speak common.
I think it's a take on the white, it's on American English and like how Americans only speak it common.
You know, they only speak English.
But I personally, my thoughts in 2006 when I started doing this was if we can create a world language, and I like your Tower of Babel reference, but if we had a world language that it'll be a lot easier to do this, to win this culture war.
Like, once you get someone to speak your language, you've basically won them.
At scale, it's funny because I never really had a problem with multiculturalism in theory until I started experiencing it.
Multiculturalism in my neighborhood, in my state, the places where I live, and also seeing how it's impacted all these other countries to the point where you've diluted what made some of these countries historic.
No, and I think that tees into our next story quite well, actually.
On the you know, what led to this?
Well, it was my mass immigration that was kind of disrupted a lot of these things we're talking about.
This is from the post millennial ICE identifies more than 10,000 potential fraud cases nationwide related to foreign student job program.
Unbelievable, unbelievable what's going on in this country.
Uh, thankfully, the Trump administration is on the case, they are, um, They're jumping on this.
They're proactive.
Again, ICE has found over 10,000 potential fraud cases involving a program that permits foreign students to prolong their stay in the United States after graduating from college by claiming work employment.
The federal investigation into the OPT, that's the Optional Practice Training Program, revealed that thousands of foreign students have been claiming to work at businesses with fraud indicators, many of which are non governmental organizations engaged in, quote, suspicious activity, said ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons during a press conference on Tuesday.
OPT permits foreign, OPT permits Foreign nationals to work in the United States for 12 or in certain situations 24 months after entering the country on a student visa.
Additionally, the program enables students to switch to an employer sponsored H 1B visa, according to the DHS website.
Quote Our nation will not tolerate security threats originating from the foreign student programs.
Today, we are announcing that we have identified over 10,000 foreign students who claim to be working for highly suspect employers.
That was the ICE director, Todd Lyons, making that statement.
Again, what we're looking into here, what we're seeing is, as they said, the OPT, this basically allows these people who came here on student visas to find work and employment in the United States afterwards, which in theory is like, yeah, that makes total sense.
But the problem is it's being exploited.
What's happening here is they're setting up fake job mills in order to extend that visa, which is, as I understand it, was a fairly simple process.
You basically just go and say, Yeah, I got employed.
I should stay here for an extra 12 months.
State Department says, Yep, checks out.
Here you go.
You're here for another 12 months, or in certain cases, two years.
And ICE has identified that this has been a loophole that's being exploited, and they're cracking down hard here.
I mean, Canada is a great example, actually, of what happens when, again, these programs make a lot of sense.
I mean, again, if everything was functioning as normally, these programs make a lot of sense.
For example, in Canada, if you are a good student and then you come to Canada to study, it makes sense that you would be granted a visa so you can study in Canada.
Yeah, checks out.
That makes total sense.
But what was happening was, again, Immigrant communities, NGOs were involved, but this was primarily immigrant communities, specifically India.
They would set up technical colleges.
And if you looked up the address of the technical college, they would say, well, we're purely online, so we don't need a campus.
Okay, you look up the address, and it's a mailbox.
And they're granting like 30,000 student visas.
Because again, it was a system that, when set up in past decades, worked fine.
I mean, it never would have occurred to someone to commit fraud at this level.
But again, as the world changes, again, as the composition of a lot of these countries changes, we're facing new problems.
And so Canada had this problem.
And now it looks like in the United States, We had a similar issue where, again, we've cracked down that a little more.
It's more difficult for just colleges you've never heard of to grant student visas.
But the post school employment loophole is now being clamped down on by ICE.
A lot of the beneficiaries are managed by employees based in India.
I mean, of course.
So they're violating the work and training requirements.
So all these companies, a lot of these companies, are saying we're hiring these people and they're bringing them in here, even though it's the wrong address.
They have tax liens, they have red flags, and civil lawsuits against them.
They're using these to say that they can stay in the United States when they should not be staying in the United States.
Yeah, because Canada, it's a computer spitting out a calculation.
So Canada has universal health care.
And again, if they determine that this person is going to be like a net drain on the taxpayer, if they were to be treated, that would be the recommendation that would be given to the person.
So people are literally being prescribed.
Suicide by the state because of a math formulation.
I mean, it is absolutely barbaric what is happening all across the West.
The United States is a bit insulated because obviously state power, believe it or not, isn't quite as encompassing in the United States as it is elsewhere.
And it's pretty bad here.
But to your point, I mean, Canada, dystopian.
I mean, the fact that a doctor will tell you, yeah, you should probably kill yourself because my computer told me so.
Well, when we saw the shot across the ballot, I don't know if you guys remember when Beto O'Rourke was running for Senate in Texas, I think it was in 2018 against Ted Cruz.
And at the time, there was a lot of fervor over shooting, like mass shootings and these sorts of things.
And so they asked him, they said, Well, okay, as governor of Texas, you can't just take people's guns because there's, you know, a Republican state legislator that would stop that from happening.
So how do you plan on, as governor, again, clamping down on like assault weapons, for example?
That was like the specific question.
And he said, What I would do as governor is I would instruct private companies like Chase, I think he cited Chase, you know, specifically, from they would basically not allow private customers to execute a bank transaction with a seller to acquire a.
You know, an assault weapon, like he was specifically talking about an AR 15.
So, in short, what he was saying was, I would instruct Chase to not allow you to do business with a gun shop.
And I think that's kind of the workground in the United States because, again, we don't necessarily have an all encompassing, you know, government.
But again, government, and you'll like this, Ian, government collaboration with the private sector can actually create far more worse oppression than just straight up state intervention in this instance, where who are you supposed to appeal to?
There is no private sector to bail you out anymore if you're like a consumer trying to get a transaction done because the private sector's, you know, cozied up with the federal government.
I mean, I guess the question is would it be allowed versus would it be widespread?
I could see a situation which becomes allowed in quite a few blue states.
Would it be like common?
I don't think so.
Because again, the primary reason you're seeing made utilized so heavily in Canada and the UK is because of their public health care and they're trying to lessen the burden on the health care system.
And again, if someone is facing potentially really expensive treatment, it's just a calculation they're running.
They're saying, well, if we kill this person, then we don't have to pay for their treatment.
And maybe, okay, maybe the like, Glad Made doesn't exist here.
Oh, I know.
And I guess the reason you're seeing a lot of these policies pass is, again, this is something we've talked about on the show quite extensively, is again, as sort of the high trust society in America erodes, you're going to have to see the government be more proactive to, again, ensure stability, ensure peace among the population.
A great example would be El Salvador.
A great example would be Singapore.
These are two countries where, prior to the mass government crackdowns, and Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and El Salvador's Bukele, and this was in our lifetime, so it's very prevalent, is these societies prior to the takeover of these, I would say it's fair to classify, and I'm not using this as a prerogative, authoritarian leaders, prior to their ascension, these were countries with very low trust.
These were places where people were terrified to go outside.
These are places with very, very minimal indications of a healthy society.
In El Salvador, obviously, it was culminating in Violent crime.
But even in Singapore, I mean, there was a lot of jostling over political power.
Malaysia and the entirety of Southeast Asia at the time was a very chippy place, I think, to say the least.
But Singapore was kind of interesting because they had a large Chinese population, and the rest of Malaysia was primarily Malay.
So they viewed Singapore as like a problem.
And so, again, when you have these very low trust societies, the only way to ensure that the population is able to at least have, or able to ensure that society is going to function in any meaningful way, the government has to crack down hard.
And that's what we're seeing across the West, again, as the high trust societies break down for a variety of reasons, including immigration, which is vital.
This is why it's so vital that the Trump administration really, you know, knocks us out of the park, is because we have no choice but to move towards authoritarianism, again, if society continues to break down.
And I don't want that.
I don't want to live in an authoritarian society.
I want to live in sort of a Rockwell painting America.
Do you think the government was having to crack down hard?
You think MADE would have even occurred to anyone, again, in a more classical American situation?
Even the idea of the Wild West, like these gun slinging guys, that was exceptionally peaceful compared to what is going on now and what is now the West, like California, Oregon, Seattle.
That's the direction we're going to have to go.
If, again, if we can't agree as a country that, again, we need to have borders, we need to have national sovereignty, people need to be on the same page as far as ethics, morality, customs goes, we have no choice but to introduce a bouquet style government if we want peace.
I mean, if you listen, I think it was also on Tucker's show, actually, Bukele talking about some of the things that were going on in El Salvador before the crackdown.
I mean, it's like, even if you're a full blown atheist, Reddit atheist with the Fedora, That would send chills down your spine, some of the stuff going on in El Salvador prior to Bukele.
The American ICE crackdowns was like, I felt like a lead towards overt authoritarian crackdown on street violence, whatever, you know, corruption in the system.
But, The people reviled so drastically that they pulled back.
And now I feel like the authoritarianism is digital, like they're using Palantir to hunt this fraud down.
I think the problem, and I'm supportive of ICE because I think what they're attempting to do is something that's very much overdue in the United States.
But to Chris's point, I mean, part of the problem is, again, the reason why Bukele can do what he can do in El Salvador and the reason why it can't be replicated in the United States is because what is Bukele's approval rating?
92%.
Now, it doesn't matter how well, let's just use a Republican as an example.
It doesn't matter how well a Republican governs.
The way that American society is currently structured, you're going to have at least half the country that's going to have a problem with him because it's just the nature of American society.
And so, again, to take action as drastic as a naive bouquet, we have to be in a dire, dire situation.
And for the most part, most Americans, even though we're observing a lot of these problems in American society, still don't feel like they're cornered.
I think that would be fair to say.
I think American life still functions fairly well, even though it's obviously degraded.
Obviously, our standard of living is dropping.
You go to Walgreens, you got to beg the employee to get a stick of deodorant.
But by the fact that you can drive to a Walgreens and not worry about being carjacked, you know, the worry about a shooting taking place at Walgreens, that indicates that we're not quite at El Salvador level.
And I don't think it would be terribly relevant because, as I understand, the way most of Latin America works is the media that they consume is mostly like civilizational.
So, again, like Telemundo, companies like this, Spanish language media kind of transcends national boundaries.
So they don't have like a heavy.
Media rich atmosphere that's completely domestic.
It's more of like an international sort of thing.
Happens in Europe where okay, maybe each country has their own specific, um, you know, news aggregator or whatever, but like News 24 is quite ubiquitous across Europe.
There's a few other outlets that come to mind, and as I understand it, that is the case in Latin America.
So even if Bukele were to take total control of state of all media actions in the country, I don't think it'd be that consequential.
I mean, we're in a different state than what we used to be back in the day.
But having your own local militia nowadays to wait right, like how could you organize ice raids with the local?
That'd be like having the protected neighborhood community guys, but they get in trouble because they're on their terrace because they're a group patrolling their own, you know, their own streets.
So, even then, I mean, look, half the country voted for Trump, and Trump was pretty explicit that, yes, we're going to send federal agents into these cities to deport illegal immigrants.
And so, half the country signed off on it.
That was like his biggest policy that everyone was talking about.
With that, we got to get into this next story, move on a bit from immigration.
I could talk about it all day.
From time, California mayor resigns, admitting to being an agent for China.
The mayor of a Los Angeles suburb resigned Monday as U.S. officials announced that she will plead guilty in federal court.
To acting as an illegal agent for the Chinese government.
Federal prosecutors announced Monday that Eileen Wang, 58, of Arcadia, California, has been charged with one count of acting in the U.S. as an illegal agent of a foreign government and is, quote, expected to plead guilty in the coming weeks.
The charge is punishable with up to 10 years in prison, quote, Mayor Wang admitted to acting as a foreign agent from at least 2020 through 2022, promoting PRC propaganda in the United States and acting at the PRC's discretion or direction, rather, to promote their interests.
This was according to Kash Patel.
FBI and our federal partners continue to move aggressively to root out this kind of influence in American institutions all over the country.
Here's just a little background on Eileen here.
Come on, Eileen.
Wang was elected in November 2022 to a five member Arcadia City Council where the mayor is selected on a rotating basis.
City manager Dominic Lazaretto said in a statement Monday that Wang, who became mayor in February, has resigned from the council.
Guys, what do we make of this?
Because this is a really bizarre story.
It's fascinating.
I think there's been a little bit of suspicion for a long time that, again, Whether we like it or not, the CCP has probably infiltrated the United States a little bit more than we would like to care to admit.
Now, obviously, this is high profile because this is an elected official, but there's been discussions at the student visa level, like a lot of these students coming in from China.
Again, these people, they keep a tight, stiff upper lip.
Like they will not disclose a lot of their premonitions.
Which was funny because Swalwell got busted again, rape charges pending and all that.
Initially, what's gotten him thrown out was basically infidelity, which is wrong, obviously, but it's not the First time a congressman's cheated on his wife, I would have thought the affair with a CCP agent was worthy of getting kicked out of Congress and probably your citizenship, but that's just me.
And that's how she ended up in Southern California.
But it is very concerning.
I mean, obviously, it's very concerning if the CCP is electing officials in the United States.
But it's difficult because, again, we have to view all people as interchangeable cogs and that people will not have, again, preconceived notions regarding how they view American sovereignty and these sorts of things.
And we're going to continue to be surprised and blindsided by this.
Of course, hers is.
Promoting the interests of a global adversary in China's case.
That's why this was specifically so egregious.
And she was collaborating with the government of China.
That's what the charge is here.
But you see, I mean, Ilhan Omar literally gets up and she's like, I'm fighting for the Somali community.
And it's like, okay, Somalia is not a global adversary.
But again, does raise the question, what are you doing here then?
You know, if you're not here to serve Americans, if you're not here to serve your constituents, you're here to serve Somalis.
It's a very salient question because, you know, whether we like it or not, in the same state of California, Steve Hilton running for governor there, he's not like getting up and saying, I'm going to fight for the British community in California.
It's like, you know, it's just a tough conversation to have, but we need to be a little realistic here.
It's like, again, if someone, Is born in China and they're a little bit vague or opaque on these types of issues.
It's worth a second look.
I mean, that's happened a bunch of times.
We saw in New York City a few years ago where a bunch of NYPD officers that were Chinese born got busted for CCP ties.
I don't know what their pillow talk was, but apparently dating a Chinese spy was not enough because he didn't really suffer any consequences from it until the video of him with some random hooker came out.
I was going to say that's the same thing as, like, we'll just take Britain.
England, for example, you start small, like with their Muslim community and the Pakistanis, and for people, South Asians, you start small and you build and you build and you build and you build and then you take over.
And we can't be having that in America.
I'm not, we're not going to, we can't allow it, and I will not stand by it.
This is why it's so concerning when you see, again, like ethnic voting blocs, because, again, they may be able to just participate in the system as it is, as it stands, you know, as like 2026 terms.
The UK is a great example where, again, they experienced large scale mass migration.
A lot of these people came from Islamic countries and they came to the United Kingdom.
And the share of like foreign born or foreign heritage in the UK is far lower than the United States.
So, you know, the United States, you might start to see this mobilization occur.
Again, the Muslim migrants to Britain primarily voted for the Labor Party, which would be the analog for maybe the Democrat Party in the United States.
They're varying depending on who's in charge, left wing to center left.
The Muslims are fine voting for this Labor Party for a long time.
But again, they would make statements that people on the right would point to and said, hey, these guys are planning on mobilizing.
It's not going to be like a global infantata, it's going to be just influencing your government to benefit that community.
What we saw in the last local elections is quite literally a Muslim sovereignty party got maybe 200 local councillors elected, which would be the equivalent of city councillors in the United States.
That's insane.
There's like a literal party for Islamic fundamentalism.
Is this to say that we should be worried about strictly an Islamic takeover?
Maybe, maybe not.
My point I'm making here is that, again, we should fear foreign blocs coming to our countries and then advocating for their own policy above their adopted countrymen.
You're seeing this in the United States all the time.
Tyler Olivera was talking about it.
I mean, you know, he's talking to Somalis, Yemenis.
I'm sorry, the Hasidics in New York.
Big problem.
I'm sorry.
Like, I know it's like a taboo to say, but let's be honest here.
I mean, let's start granular here because obviously, like, what I brought up was the Hasidic community in Brooklyn.
And again, if you can't differentiate between like a Hasidic and like Jerry Seinfeld, Then you probably shouldn't be participating in the conversation because there's like two dramatically different groups of people.
And again, like people just have poor understandings of like demographics, how these things work, et cetera, et cetera.
Where again, like you would be indistinguishable from any other American, even someone like Jerry Seinfeld, like very well integrated and ingrained in American society versus again, like Hasidic Jewish people, which is a specific sect of Judaism that again, they're extrapolating exorbitant amounts of welfare money from the taxpayer.
They refuse to assimilate, they've been here three, four generations, and they refuse to do business with.
Americans, they literally refer to us as outsiders.
So, again, I'm just contesting the idea that we should tolerate like ethnic blocs existing in the United States.
Does that mean the federal government should go there and bust it up?
No, I'm just saying that people have the right to be upset when groups come to this country promising that they're going to participate in the American Social Compact and then they don't.
They get here and just do their own thing.
We're talking about like Somalia.
Everyone on the right was comfortable chest beating over Somalis.
But then as soon as Talal Arvera went to, you know, Curious Joel in New York, all of a sudden it was a big problem.
And I'm just saying, I, We got to be consistent across all of these.
Again, America, majority Christian, the Amish, everyone's like, what about the Amish?
The Amish refuse to take any American taxpayer dollar.
They just moved out to the country.
They're an afterthought.
No offense to the Amish, but they're not even watching that.
And that goes back to my original point is like, okay, who is going to be more assimilable into the United States?
Well, the fact that we don't really have any Australian or British or Irish blocs that advocate for their own people indicates that they assimilate quite well.
And, like, this is why we have to have a sensible immigration.
I know we've been hitting on it all show, but it's so true because I think about myself.
If I were to move to Australia, if I were to move to Britain, if I were to move to Ireland, it would be quite easy for me to assimilate into local life.
My accent would be different.
That would be about it.
I would assimilate quite quickly.
Now, if I moved to Algeria, I'd be pretty freaked out.
I would refuse to assimilate most likely, and I would, like, require my kids to, like, Sort of be brought up in my cultural tastes, my cultural customs, et cetera, et cetera, because it's very exotic.
And the reason that is a good reason for why Algeria should reject me if I ever seek to immigrate there, because it's very sensible for me to view a very exotic culture as potentially adversarial to my core values and my core beliefs.
So we just had to flip flop the other way around.
That's just the reality of the situation is okay, if I move to Greece, you know, would I assimilate?
It'd be difficult for me to grasp the language, but at least it would be a slightly, it would be a little bit less of a barrier than it would be if I moved.
Well, and I think you're making a really good point is we can't necessarily be channeling all of our outrage at the people that were just following a very natural incentive structure, which was the border was wide open.
There was zero impetus for them to assimilate.
So they took that chance.
Again, I'm more upset at our lawmakers and the people that cheered them on when they were advocating for this suicidal. Immigration policy.
I'm far more upset with them.
Same thing in Britain.
I mean, okay, yes, you can be upset, especially at the ones that are committing crimes, but broadly, most of your ire should be directed at your lawmakers that allowed this to happen.
Yeah, it is important to stay focused on anger at the policies and the non governmental organizations and not the individuals, man, because that's like you were saying earlier, like COINTELPRO.
You want to get a global revolution and you want to topple the United States, get them to go at each other from the inside, and then get them to beg for technocracy to spy on these foreigners, you know, that crap.
I don't want to say it like it's got to be careful with even joking about it or hypothesizing it because it could happen.
Let me make another attempt of segueing into a segment that is not immigration focused.
It's my fault.
I love talking about it.
From the Gateway pundit, breaking two high level White House insiders caught on undercover video bragging about internal subversion against President Trump.
One has been placed on leave.
The O'Keeffe Media Group on Tuesday released undercover video of White House insiders bragging about an internal subversion against President Trump.
Maxime Lott, a special assistant to President Trump on the White House Domestic Policy Council, admitted to the OMG.
I love that their initials are OMG, by the way.
The OMG undercover journalist that domestic policy decisions are often made based on what, quote, feels like a good idea.
He continued, in theory, everything should come from the president, but it might come from the level below him, Trump, where they're like.
I think I know the president well enough to say what he would say on this.
Benjamin Elliston, a budget analysis manager within the executive office of the president, expressed, quote, we have to get rid of Trump.
He's, talking about Trump, effing it up for everybody.
We've got to get rid of him.
The O'Keeffe media group continued here.
Maxime Wand, et cetera, et cetera, admitted.
Lott reveals that White House officials frequently make decisions based on their own interpretation of Trump's preferences, stating, I think I know what the president well enough to see what he would say on this.
So, again, this is what we all discussed.
I'm going to play this video here from James O'Keeffe.
A White House policy advisor opens up about the internal decision making processes.
Throughout the White House.
unidentified
I think it's just the overall tone and, like, you know, the government right now is a little bit like, I don't want to be very, like, pressured to fix itself.
Maxim Lott even acknowledges that officials below Trump will often make decisions for the president, presuming what his stance would be.
unidentified
In theory, everything he said sort of comes to the president.
Yeah.
But it might come from the level below him where they're like, they're like, I think I know the president well enough to say what he would say on this.
I could potentially have overlapping policy positions with him.
My first contention is can we please stop spilling our guts to journalists because we're on a date and then we just spill our guts to this woman and presuming that, again, first of all, that your date would care?
Like, hello, what are we doing here?
What kind of Riz is that?
That's L Riz.
So, again, I'm not necessarily even making the contention that Maxime Lott is behaving subversively here because, again, I don't know specifically what his policy proposals are.
So, I'm exonerating myself from this.
He could potentially be a great guy.
The problem here is the principle, the idea that there are Trump staffers that feel comfortable enough to openly admit that they are making decisions, policy making decisions based off of what they think Trump would make.
It's also an indication that the centralized authority of the president is not like it's a big, a lot of governance that has to go through this one guy that doesn't have time for it, apparently.
I mean, because look, here's at least as I see it, the fundamental problem here is you would expect cabinet officials to say something like this because, again, they were appointed by Trump.
They were appointed by Trump because of their expertise in said department and what they would be overseeing.
So, again, it would make sense.
I don't know, Brooke Rollins, USDA administer, it would make sense that she does operate with a bit of autonomy because, again, President Trump has put her in that position, presuming that she will carry out his agenda in that position.
And if she ever ceased to do that, she would be reprimanded or removed from her position.
We've seen this countless times.
It is a little concerning here that, again, I don't know anything about Maxime Lott.
He could have some fantastic policies.
I'm not dragging the guy.
I am saying that the principle here is a bit concerning that they feel comfortable enough to operate like this because we have seen sometimes throughout President Trump's administration that some of these policymakers, especially in Trump one, it's not as big of a problem in Trump two, but in Trump one, we did have a lot of rogue policymakers.
It was very real.
And, okay, yes, the unelected bureaucrat problem is a problem, but again, we're talking about Is President Trump going to be able to oversee every single thing going on?
No, that's why he has cabinet officials.
That's why he has appointees, et cetera.
But on domestic policy, that should be something that Trump and his trusted circle should be dictating.
You're Stephen Miller's, you know, these sorts of people.
Do they feel empowered to conduct themselves in this manner?
Because again, I don't think this is scandalous, what Maxim Lott has said here.
And I don't think this is really an indictment necessarily of what he's saying.
I think it's more of an indictment of the general culture of how the White House operates.
This would have been a problem under Biden, would have been a problem under Trump, would have been a problem under Obama.
Is again, do bureaucrats who are not Trump appointees, that were not signed off on when people voted for President Trump, do they feel empowered to conduct themselves in this manner?
That is concerning.
Are they discreetly subverting the Trump administration at times?
I mean, I can almost guarantee it that they're doing one little thing, this or that, dotting one T, missing one comma, or anything else that they're going to do any kind of subvert anything they can if they don't, if not in with the Trump program.
Well, and like, my concern wouldn't be so much the White House Domestic Policy Council.
I imagine everyone there is on board.
And again, if you're sticking your head out to advocate for something that would not be in line with the Trump administration's, you know, popular agenda, so to speak, you'd probably get canned pretty quickly.
My concern would more be on the Intel side, because this is where we know that there's a lot of rogue bureaucrats, rogue Intel actors.
And again, that is where they're able to shape policy in ways that really slide under our noses.
That can be concerning.
I mean, this is why the Trump administration is trying to clean house with FSOs.
You know, these are our agents that we dispatch to, you know, conduct American diplomacy overseas and these sorts of things.
That's a lot of positions that you have to overturn.
So they are dependent to some degree.
It's getting better, but they were dependent for a long time on career guys.
And career guys have their own agenda.
Career guys are not signed off on by the American people when they're elected.
And the intel apparatus is littered with them.
Now, Tulsi Gabbard, obviously, we've seen stories where she has attempted to clean house.
But again, you only have access to so much personnel.
There's a lot of things that need to get done and that runs the risk of, again, these people that just feel like, Hey, it's kind of the culture down here to just kind of, oh, I'm doing this.
You know, President Trump would be totally in line with this and then conduct operations, you know, in a variety of ways that would be drastically out of step.
Well, the intelligence community is essentially a de facto fourth branch of government at this point.
I mean, especially when you look at the integration with Palantir, you know, Peter Thiel's past association with JD Vance.
Really, like Palantir, their big thing right now that they're looking for is reauthorization of the FISA 702 authority.
That's the warrantless mass metadata collection that sweeps up everyone's communications.
And you look at the last time that came up, and JD Vance abstained from voting, he didn't vote yes or no.
And so that gives me a little bit of pause.
Like, is he actually going to affect change and actually like push people away from that sort of thing, or is he going to be beholden to the billionaire class?
But it's just Peter Thiel instead of George Soros.
If his main goal is to follow what this gentleman says, what Peter Thiel says, instead of what the American people say, well, it's kind of a difficult subject to approach because, again, best case scenario, you have zero billionaires influencing politics.
Obviously, that'd be a best case scenario.
We go back to the way that our country was constructed.
The situation that we're in, where, again, we do have a security apparatus, we do have an intel apparatus, we have a surveillance apparatus, whether we like it or not, is a company like Palantir, is this person like Peter Thiel more or less amenable to the desires of conservatives than.
Basically, any of the other offerings.
Because the way I view it, at least, is that you have to view it like a vacuum.
If Palantir, you know, if we truly united against Palantir and pushed them out of any influence in the US government, does Meta or Alphabet not just step in and absorb that vacuum?
I mean, that's the way I view it, where I'm like, okay, well, at least, and I'm not like running cover for Palantir.
I'm just trying to be like, you know, I try to look at this objectively.
At least they're amenable to, again, popular conservative policymaking.
At least they seem to, again, maybe push things in our direction from time to time versus, again, the United States, whether we like it or not, they're going to scrape data.
That's just the way the world works.
Is it would rather have, like, I don't know, a Bill Gates or a Mark Zuckerberg overseeing that operation or potentially figures that we don't even know?
I don't want to be like, make like a King Solomon analogy or anything.
We have to split the baby.
But really, America is founded on privacy.
That is one of the core tenants.
And we essentially don't have it anymore.
And, you know, I think it's bad that the government's doing these things, but much to your point, there's private corporations doing this as well.
There's so many data aggregators that are scraping, excuse me, scraping everything that you do online and packaging it up and selling it to the highest bidder.
So it's like, do I want the government doing that or do I want a private corporation profiting off of it?
But I mean, I don't know if there's really a solution because, much to your point, you should be able to track down bad actors.
You should be able to figure out when people are planning something that is bad that is going to hurt American citizens.
But at the same time, you shouldn't just willy nilly scrape up every single bit of information, put it on an NSA server in Utah, mask it, and You know, have the ability at some point in the future to get a warrant and go back through time and look at all of that information that was collected outside of the warrant, but the warrant applies retroactively.
And it's one of those difficult conundrums because it's like once you instigate, once you start a boss fight, you can't walk away from the boss fight.
A good example I would use for this is again, you have a lot of people who are deeply concerned about the surveillance state, they're deeply concerned about all these things.
Freaking China, they make our parts for a lot of our major power grids, and they can put little, A little switching in, or whatever they want to do to turn it all off.
I was going to say, when you were saying the surveillance state or how would a crackdown look, it would be like data aggregation, see who's talking to who.
I started to think about Boo Kelly and how people were getting locked up for talking to a gang member.
And like, That's why I think we got to start slow with this spy tech, deep state technocratic.
Because if it goes too hard, if we wait too long and then it becomes really, really desperately abrupt, you will go to prison for talking to someone that was bad.
It could be that bad.
So I think saying, like you're saying, you can't just say, no, don't, because then someone else will do it.
And if we don't, so we have to do it in an ethical way if there's even such a thing.
Well, it's the same argument that people, conservatives, make on gun control, which is like, Okay, if you ban guns, you know, like let's just say a city of Memphis, right?
A city with exceptionally high crime, violent crime.
Well, we're going to ban guns to stop gun crime.
Well, that doesn't stop the criminals.
That just stops the like law abiding citizens who would obey with whatever the law is.
I mean, the law says don't murder, so they don't murder.
So it's like, again, if you implement gun control, if you implement gun bans, that only impacts people that were already abiding by the law anyway.
So it's like you're not actually preventing anything from, you know, any bad actors from acting maliciously.
It's kind of the, at least as I see it, the same fundamental principle that we're talking about here, which is, okay, You're stripping it away from people that weren't intending to use it for evil anyway.
You're just guaranteeing that, again, like a China or other rogue bad actors gobble up even more power.
Mark, you were saying that what's unconstitutional or what should be, what is unconstitutional but is currently legal, which is a weird way to put it, is that they're scraping up mass amounts of data.
So, how do you feel about pre crime technology where they only scrape up data if they think they've determined through like artificial intelligence algorithmics that you might or very likely could be a problem?
Just with the fact that we've seen so much AI likes to hallucinate a lot, it likes to aim to please its master, whoever, you know, there's right now somewhere in the world, there is the stupidest person ever typing something into ChatGPT, and ChatGPT is, you're absolutely right.
That's a great idea.
Does that extend to these government based machines as well?
Could there be issues?
I don't necessarily like the idea of a pre crime type of thing, especially driven by AI.
Yeah, this whole situation we find ourselves in, it's an ironclad finger trap, Chinese finger trap, if you will.
Feng Feng, are we talking about her again?
Feng Feng.
She's the finger trap.
Well, maybe for some.
But I do just want to say that I know that my dear friend and colleague Shane Cashman wants desperately to teleport himself into this room and set us all straight on Palantir.
And I'll just share one thing that he said on X today that it's one of those things I read it once and I'm never going to forget it.
He said that JD Vance is the data center of politicians.
And this is why I take this sort of contrarian position because on the right, again, the popular.
I'm not going to say boogeyman because that's kind of a degrading thing to say, but I just can't think of a better synonym to use here.
Why people, again, constantly pointing to Palantir, again, I'm just saying I'm kind of in that boat to some degree is like, well, there's not many options right now.
There's not many options.
Again, we're speaking in very abstract solutions.
Like, well, what if we could have, like, you know, a Faraday cage for our phones or something?
It's probably not going to happen with the options, you know, at our disposal right now.
Again, democracy is very rigid.
Democracy is pretty much impossible to collapse.
I mean, South Africa is a great example.
South Africa should have collapsed a long time ago.
But the way that, again, liberal democracies function, it is very hard to collapse one.
So, again, Palantir, you just have to evaluate on its face, articulate what specifically is bad about it and what makes it worse than any of the other data collector shows in town that, again, will just.
Let's like gobble up any vacuum left over from Palantir.
That's just my question.
Again, I don't want any of these companies to exist.
I think it's a very traumatic, intrusive thing that data collection is even occurring.
It's just my initial point.
Once you start the boss battle, you can't really go back.
Because Ian's a very mellow, chill guy, but then all of a sudden he read Raymond's Twitter, and then Raymond, who he thought was a chill guy, is actually really angry.
Originally, we were going to go with Mike Pence, but I don't think that fits in very well.
That's the direction I want to keep pontificating on this idea.
From the Wall Street Journal SpaceX and Google are in talks to launch data centers in orbit.
A deal between the two tech titans would give a boost to SpaceX's business ahead of a historic public listing.
A launch deal would put the two companies in a partnership as they gear up to compete on orbital data centers, an unproven technology that SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk has said is the next frontier for his rocket company.
This is not my domain, but it sounds like it is Ian Crossan's domain.
I've been thinking about using it since about 2011.
It seemed like it was actually feasible to store data in DNA or in glass cubes in orbit.
And I just keep picturing like firing a laser from Earth in and like hitting a data center and just getting the data.
And then I'm like, maybe they're already out there.
Like maybe a species 100 million years ago seeded data centers and we just don't know where they are.
Because if we hide data centers underground or out in orbit and then humanity suffers a cataclysmic wipeout on the surface, We wouldn't know they were there for another million years, potentially.
Plus, you got to get them off Earth.
They're too big, they're loud.
I just saw Value Tame it tweeted out how they're buzzing.
They're causing people like anxiety from the noise they're making.
They're sucking up water.
They're pumping.
So, space is.
I thought, though, that I'd read that they were trying to figure out how to cool these things down.
He was talking about, we talked about this before the show, his all in one chip fab and manufacturing.
And he talked a bit about the orbiting data centers.
And it sounds like it's just, they're going to have radiators out.
In space, just on the dark side of whatever satellite is out there for the cooling to pass everything through.
And I agree with you.
I think data centers should be moved to space if possible.
There's a YouTuber, Ben Jordan, who did a really deep dive into the infrasound that is coming off of these data centers and affecting people that live in the neighborhoods.
He's doing a project right now to capture and quantify just how much infrasound is coming out in these neighborhoods, I guess, to organize a class action lawsuit.
But it's using up natural resources, it's using up power.
In space, you have a solar panel.
Unlimited free power from the sun frees up resources on the earth.
Well, now, to play devil's advocate here, I mean, look, one of the objectives for the American right for some time now has been sort of reindustrializing the United States, right?
We want to see an increase in manufacturing, an increase in industry, hard industry, and these sorts of things.
Now, you have to ask yourself in 2026, what does hard industry look like?
I think.
Data centers might be an example of that.
And so far as people were used to furniture shops or textile mills or steel mills moving into their towns prior, those left and those towns collapsed.
Now, is there an argument to be made that, again, data centers are sort of the 21st century, really 2026, sort of analog for, again, hard industry, reindustrialization?
Yeah, because they're going to make chips that are faster and require less electricity.
So these giant megalithic buildings are going to become, start to become obsolete, like ghost towns, like the iron, you know, like Akron, Ohio, after the rubber boom of the 1950s.
What concerns me, you were talking about.
Like the re, this is the new industrial revolution, is the AI revolution.
They're putting them in orbit.
So when it orbits over China, does China have a cast of spell to blow it up because it's above their country?
Like it's going to be the reason why now they're going to make the argument that we have to militarize space to protect our data centers.
Yeah, well, I think also a calculation on it with other countries is if you shoot something in space, it creates untold amounts of shrapnel and it basically traps you on the planet, destroys a bunch of other things that are in orbit.
Because a little piece of glass or a little piece of metal flying at 17,000 miles an hour is going to cause some major problems.
And so I think what's holding them back is almost the same principle with nuclear weapons, mutually assured destruction.
If they shoot a satellite in space and it creates all this debris field, They handicap themselves.
They can't go back up there.
They can't launch their own satellites.
They could cause damage to their own satellites.
So I think that's what's keeping them in check right now.
And potentially in the future, a nation could do some sort of Samson option type thing where they're like, screw it.
If I can't do it, no one can.
I'm just going to blow this up and let the world handle it.
So I think that's what's keeping us safe right now.
Well, I think that was the name that they gave it.
That was like calling it the Patriot Act when it has the opposite effect.
Like in their minds, they were doing the right thing.
They were surveilling these groups.
It was predominantly black groups in the 60s.
This is the operation.
I don't know if you heard the story about MLK Jr. receiving a letter in the mail being like, hey, we know you're cheating on your wife.
You better kill yourself.
That was the FBI that wrote that letter and sent it to him.
That was part of COINTELPRO.
And so these black groups were gaining so much power.
And so much cohesion working together, they had to stop it.
And so they had to subvert it by going after a leader of one of them.
They would send letters that purported to be from members of other groups to opposing groups to try and start fights between them to stop them from working together.
They would bring an agent provocateur to protest, to start drama, to start beating people up, to start looting, to misbehave, to essentially weaken that movement.
And we saw something similar with the fall of Occupy Wall Street in the early 2010s.
Which coincidentally rises with the fall of Occupy Wall Street, rises with instances of the words racism and white and black appearing in national newspapers.
So, this woke culture came directly out of subverting Occupy Wall Street.
One that gets me the most that you mentioned of all these like tactics that, you know, counterintelligence tactics is where you get two enemies to start fighting each other.
I learned it in Romance of the Three Kingdoms by playing it on the Sega Genesis.
I don't know what the term was, but it was a very lucrative.
I mean, if you get two opponents to exhaust themselves, I think that's what's happening today on the internet with podcasters and they're making money from it.
And the more controversial ones, some of them are being algorithmically boosted to sow that dissent, like to sow that discord between people.
Who to fracture bases?
So the conservative base is totally fractured because you have these different warring factions, the podcast wars, as Michael Knowles affectionately refers to it as.
It's by design and it's being encouraged by big tech.
And it's, I see why big tech would do it because it serves two purposes for them it drives engagement, so they get money from it.
That's probably priority number one.
But also, a lot of the people running these big tech corporations are liberally minded, they're hardcore liberals.
Of course, they're going to want to subvert conservative ideology.
They're going to want people to fight amongst themselves because then they easily, easily can win elections.
Because if the conservatives can't come together behind a single candidate, the Democrats always vote blue no matter who.
One interesting thing that I did notice as a reporter in Southern California was that there were these kind of unlikely bedfellows of alliances among Muslim parents and Christian parents that were pushing back against all of the LGBTQ gender goblin stuff.
I think generally for Muslims, Christians, Jews, I think God takes more precedent than Abraham.
But I reject the notion of an Islamic Christian alliance purely.
Based on what utility do Christians have for Muslims?
Because again, this is the same false premise of a left right alliance.
What does the right offer the left?
Because again, the left, Muslims, have demonstrated, I'm studying this separately here, but they often work in collaboration.
They often are able to impose their will in spite of their host population, or in the left's case, I'm just tripping on my words, they're able to impose their will in spite of the right's opposition.
Even the left, or just even if we were to speculate an Islamic Christian alliance.
I think, like, every time this has been tried, at least over the last few years, what typically happens is the Christians will fight to advance Islamic causes, but it's never the other way around.
Like, we can give them, like, we like freedom of speeches and freedom of liberty and property rights, but that's what they can gain from us, but they'll take that and throw it out the door.
I think the Judeo Christian thing was more of like a top down effort to maybe find common ground because the conservative movement following the 1960s, there was a lot of Jewish intellectuals.
And I'm not saying this is like a pejorative, I'm just saying it's just the reality on the ground.
And so we felt like, okay, we have some common understanding and culture war ideas and stuff so we can unite.
But I don't utilize the term Judeo Christian because I think, like, I think actually it was Yoram Hazoni said that he believes that Jews, and he's a Jewish gentleman, he said that Jews should be maximally Jewish, Christians should be maximally Christian.
And if that's the case, There's actually not going to be much in common because, okay, where there is overlapping interest, there may be.
But again, Christians do have a fundamentally different view of God, like who God is.
We believe that Christ is the Son of God.
Therefore, it's difficult to truly merge those two in any meaningful way beyond, like, again, some culture war issues where we do find ourselves linking shields.
Yeah, like as a Christian, I would contest that if you're not adhering to the Triune God, right?
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, then that's not the God, that is not your creator that is going to essentially be in communion with you for you to enter heaven.
And I think if a Muslim is being honest or if a Jewish person is being honest, they would make that same contestment.
It's just in public, when we're in public spaces debating, it's polite to not like speak about those hard divisions.
But especially in regards to Islam, you've seen that, again, they do have some fundamental differences between us and Christians.
It's not very useful for either of us to like really seek an alliance because.
There's maybe overlapping interests in regards to, I don't know, maybe like LGBT things, maybe abortion.
That's really where the like locking shields potential really stops.
I see it sort of as like a necessity against to buffer against a greater evil, like the way that the Americans and the Soviets came together to fight the Nazis in World War II.
That there is not that like Taoism or Buddhism is the big threat out there, but I feel like there's more technical threats than religion that we could.
But I would also make the testament, this is going to be unpopular with the audience, but this is just how I feel.
I would have a lot more in common with a secular American than, like, I don't know, like a Haitian Christian, because it's like, okay, we do have some worldview overlaps.
But the reality is that Western civilization structurally is Christian insofar as how we structure morality, ethics, customs, et cetera, et cetera.
These all come from Christianity.
And so, again, someone that's operating within Western civilization is going to have a slightly closer worldview to me.
Than someone that's from a disparate culture that also does have sort of nominal Christianity.
Well, and Raymond, to piggyback off of your point about how powerful religion is, humans inherently want to believe in something higher, something bigger than themselves.
We have just, it's almost like an empty spot in our brains that needs to be filled with something.
And for a lot of people, it's God.
And for atheists, and we see this a lot on the left, it's leftist ideology.
That's why they are so angry about certain things.
And sometimes you even see it with people who just love Funko Pop dolls and Szechuan sauce from McDonald's jumping up on a counter screaming, I want my Szechuan sauce.
It's like those people that are that extreme, 500 years ago, they would have been like ridiculously, was it Christian maxing?
The problem is, Muslims will typically side with secular atheists to combat against Christian interests.
This is what you see virtually every Western country is.
Muslim immigrants will typically fold in with whatever pre existing left wing party there is, Britain, the Democrat Party, the United States, because again, they view Christians, you know, that Christian core of Western civilization as oppositional to their existence.
Because again, if Christians were to truly operate, you know, punching above their weight, firing on all cylinders, there probably wouldn't be much non Christian migration to these countries.
So that's why Muslims do view Christians as adversarial in Western nations, because they are an impediment to further Islamification of those societies, where secular people are kind of indifferent.
And a couple weeks ago, I called Catholics the devil.
Just because they, you know, the NGOs and the Pope, but like they had the crusade.
So I'm learning more.
Like that's props.
Like I don't know if any Christian community besides like Catholics of Rome would do the crusades of even back in the day because they're just such nice, good human beings.
Mechanical Mercenary for 20 bucks here on Rumble said SPLC commercial on TV right now, fundraising on the redistricting, funding racism one donation at a time.
I think that's absolutely true.
It's kind of actually funny.
There are a lot of these NGOs that are quite thrilled about how excellent the Republicans have been behaving over the last few weeks because it's a huge fundraising opportunity for them.
It is quite something to see there.
Pop Raider, Ice being poorly trained.
This, I think, is directed at you.
Ice being poorly trained is a Democrat talking point.
Fast tracked agents come from those with previous experience in law enforcement.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have American citizens being killed.
I understand that they were being resistant, but these guys are not well trained.
And not all of them, obviously, but I mean, there's been very well known incidents that indicate that perhaps they're not getting the level of training that they need to be able to do the job that they're tasked to do.
Because they were hired so quickly, there is a pre existing ICE training regiment.
But again, when you're effectively fast tracking agents here, which is what they need because they're trying to carry out a mass deportation agenda, they're banking quite a bit on their previous law enforcement expertise.
Yeah, the Renee Good, I mean, look, that was something that we litigated quite extensively on TimCast.
We had a few people that were contesting that this was unjust.
I think the stalemate that I think a lot of people could arrive at was again, if you're sort of impeding on a federal investigation, what happens to you is sort of a responsibility of you.
But on that point, about Japan, like they're able to maintain their trains, they're able to maintain their buildings, whereas the people who got colonized in certain countries are unable to maintain anything, yeah.
No, they don't know how to do trains, they don't want to do bridges.
So, at least, like, there's people who can't function in the world, and there are people who actually can function in the world, yeah.
Nikki here says I grew up in New Jersey in the same town as the Hasidic community.
You have no clue how deep it goes, how coercive the community is, and what they've done to Lakewood and the surrounding towns and areas.
Yeah, Lakewood is a pretty egregious case because, in this instance, originally the sort of ultra Orthodox communities that we're talking about, the Hasidics for those, that's kind of the term that's utilized.
People call it Haredim, that's what they call them in Israel.
Anyway, they sort of consolidated in Brooklyn initially in New York City.
And then now, as Brooklyn becomes very difficult for them to live in, they have started moving to surrounding suburbs.
And Curious Joel was the one that Tyler Oliveira investigated.
Lakewood, New Jersey is another example of where they basically come in, they move in, vote out everyone, and impose their will at the local level.
I want to say about the Hasidic community without being disrespectful, because I don't want to talk about the community as a monolith, that it's kind of like a girl that's been through some horrible trauma in her life, and you're like, I'm going to fix her.
I feel like that about the Hasids.
Like in New York, I'd walk around and I'd look in your eyes and I would see you and I'd be like, yeah, you know it's cool.
Like, you know it's cool beyond whatever you're doing with your thing is.
Because people were like, why are you picking on them?
I'm like, you were like cheering me on when I was slamming Somalis and Yemenis.
And then as soon as I touched the group, That, like, people, some of my cheerleaders had a bit more affinity towards, all of a sudden, I'm like this evil anti Semite.
So, I have like these people calling me anti Semites, and then I have a whole other segment of viewers that are like, You're a Zionist shill.
And I'm like, What?
I'm just advocating for a pro America policy here.
Well, and the thing is like, okay, I've met Nick Shirley before, I've talked to him, and I mean this as a compliment actually, is that he's a very straightforward guy.
So, I mean, you're gonna have to take my anecdote for evidence here, but like the idea that he's like some sort of clandestine operator, he's not a he doesn't have a good enough.
You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks Official everywhere else.
If you want to hear some music that me and Ian are going to record and some that I'm going to put out, you can find that at Trash House Records YouTube channel.