Tim Pool Daily Show - Trump Tells Iran "HELP IS ON THE WAY!"

Jan. 13, 2026 - Tim Pool Daily Show

59:57

Trump Tells Iran "HELP IS ON THE WAY!"

Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (everywhere)Show more Guest: Raw Egg Nationalist @Babygravy9 (X) Text TIM to 36912 to get 60% off the BAERSkin Hoodie today! Or click: https://baer.skin/tim Show less
[Read More]

Participants

Main

charles cornish-dale

24:34

tate brown

34:24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		What is going on, Patriots?
		This is Tate Brown here, holding it down.
		Once again, here in Rumble Studios, we are here taking you into the afternoon of our Rumble daily lineup.
		It is a beautiful Floridian day.
		The sun is just out every day.
		I remember when I was a kid visiting Florida, and they would have these goalie washers midday.
		I don't know, there's probably some Floridians in the audience that know what I'm talking about.
		We've kind of been spared from this in our time so far here in Florida.
		I haven't really noticed any goalie washers.
		So I don't know.
		I'm waiting for my first hurricane to really spook me.
		You Floridians are just built different.
		You guys get hit with hurricanes all the time and you just don't even react.
		Meanwhile, I'm absolutely petrified at the thought of a hurricane.
		I don't know how you guys do it.
		But with that, we have a great show for you today.
		Obviously, we have Iran in the news once again.
		Trump saying we are going to send assistance to the protesters, the rioters, obviously the people seeking to dethrone the Ayatollah.
		Trump has now pledged support.
		He is saying help is coming.
		So that is very interesting.
		Help is on the way.
		We will unpack that.
		We also have some updates on ICE, really the reaction to ICE.
		It is just a total comedy show, really.
		The left's reaction to a lot of these things.
		Scary, but there's a lot of insane things that we're going to unpack.
		It's going to be good.
		We have a situation developing in Australia.
		We don't really keep an eye on Australia for a variety of reasons, but there's something interesting happening there in regards to free speech.
		Obviously, they are going after some of the more fringe right-wing parties or projects in Australia.
		But I want to talk about what the implications of that are for the United States, what that says about our political strategy going forward as people on the right, and maybe some lessons that we can learn from the Australian right.
		I think it's going to be interesting.
		We'll hopefully get to that.
		We'll have time.
		And we have a few more articles that we may get to if we do have time.
		I won't disclose them yet because I don't want to let you guys down if I don't get to them.
		And then we also have at the half hour mark, the Raw Egg Nationalists will be joining the show to discuss all things Maha.
		We obviously saw last week RFK is sort of reinvigorating the food pyramid.
		He is bringing the food pyramid up to reality rather than just shilling for the grain industry.
		And so I wanted to bring someone on to talk about that because it's a really big story and it's kind of tough for us to work into a news show.
		And I thought no one would be better for that topic than the Raw Egg Nationalists.
		So we will be chatting with him again at the half hour mark.
		It's going to be great.
		I'm really looking forward to it.
		He's a great guy.
		But first, before we get started, I do have some bad news, unfortunately.
		It's unfortunate about an hour ago, it was announced that the great Scott Adams unfortunately passed away.
		He had obviously been battling with cancer over the last year or two.
		And, you know, there are some moments where he was saying, well, I could potentially make a recovery here.
		Other times he's saying it wasn't looking so good.
		But we did see in the last few weeks, obviously, things unfortunately did take a turn for the worst.
		And unfortunately, yes, this morning, he did join our Lord and Savior in heaven.
		He unfortunately did pass away.
		Obviously, people all across the space have been sending their condolences, giving their thoughts, discussing his legacy.
		Everyone has something great to say about him.
		He's clearly just a tremendous Titan.
		Obviously of Dilbert fame.
		That's what a lot of people remember him for in sort of the mainstream.
		But us here in sort of this political space, we obviously remember him for his immense patriotism.
		Trump put out a statement regarding Scott Adams just now, actually.
		He said, sadly, the great influencer Scott Adams has passed away.
		He was a fantastic guy who liked and respected me when it wasn't fashionable to do so.
		He bravely fought a long battle against a terrible disease.
	My condolences go out to his family and his many friends and listeners.
	He will be truly missed.
	God bless you, Scott.
	And here's obviously a photo of Scott Adams in the Oval Office.
	Yeah, it's very, very sad.
	I've obviously been very familiar with Scott Adams.
	I never met him, never met him.
	So, you know, I really wish I could have.
	He was just a fantastic guy, patriot.
	And he had so many things to say.
	He was an oracle in a lot of ways.
	He always had a take on everything.
	He was super well-read, super plugged in.
	And he's very prudent.
	I think that's kind of the number one trait I think people should seek to emulate in Scott Adams is he was very prudent.
	He was very careful about, very cautious of people.
	And he was aware that everyone sort of had angles or some people had angles.
	And he seemed to be really good at picking the right people.
	And that's evident by the fact that some of the best people I know are absolutely heartbroken at the news.
	And I think that's just wise for politics.
	He wasn't really getting thrown around by the trend or by the algorithm.
	He was consistent.
	He had a vision for the United States.
	And he would latch on to the, again, the political vehicles that he deemed to be viable for his, to sort of bring forth his vision for the United States.
	Just a tremendous guy.
	There's so much.
	There's so much to say.
	But I just wanted to open the show up with that, obviously.
	I imagine everyone in the Rumble lineup is sending their condolences as well to his, especially his family.
	Great, great patriot, total patriot.
	So he is very, very, dearly missed.
	So with that, obviously, we're going to get into some of the news.
	So we have some interesting news, obviously, this morning.
	People have been talking about Iran.
	Obviously, the Iran situation has been in the zeitgeist since the beginning, since day one of the Trump administration.
	The question has been, what is going to be done regarding Iran?
	And then in the last week or two, we've seen these massive protests kicking off all against Iran.
	If you remember on the show last week, I actually was fairly dismissive of these protests.
	I walked through the list of protests that have occurred over the years, these sort of mass protests that we've seen in Iran over the years, you know, saying like, okay, well, these happen every three to six months.
	You know, I need to see a little more oomph to really buy that this is truly a mass groundswell of activism to sort of dethrone the Ayatollah.
	And this did, these, these protests kept continuing for a good amount of time.
	They were concentrated in the northwest of the country.
	And to me, from my perspective, I was like, okay, this looks like sort of, it had a more ethnic component to it.
	Obviously, you had like Kurds, Balooks, these sorts of groups protesting.
	And they always have an axe to grind with the central government for a variety of reasons.
	Usually when these protests do break out, it's either an ethnic, certain ethnic group that is dissatisfied with the conditions, or it is the urban elite.
	So Tehran specifically has a rather large secular urban elite.
	This is something people don't know about Tehran.
	They think that Iran is just this like super, you know, traditional, conservative Islamic society.
	That's what a lot of people on the right and left, you know, for a variety of reasons, see and view Iran as.
	But it's not really the case on the ground.
	It is true in large parts of Iran.
	It still is a very conservative, traditional society.
	But Tehran, there's, I mean, 20 million people, massive, massive city.
	And you can go on Google, you can go on YouTube and look up street scenes from Tehran.
	You can, you know, these people that walk around downtown, you know, various cities with a camera, and they just document what they're seeing.
	And you'll see in Tehran, you know, women not wearing headscarves.
	They're dressed fairly Western or very, you know, secular, whatever you want to call it.
	You know, there's nightlife going on.
	There's people drinking.
	It's not the indications, the indicators of the capital city of like a deeply conservative Islamic society.
	This is not necessarily to downplay the fact that it is indeed still an Islamic country.
	Obviously, the IRGC are Islamists.
	There's no question about that.
	But it is to say that increasingly so, the Ayatollah, the IRGC is sort of out of step with the youth in Iran.
	You actually see some numbers coming.
	You know, people scoff on the show yesterday, but it's true.
	You can look up the numbers.
	You're seeing among the youth in Iran sort of a renewed interest in Zoroastrianism.
	It's sort of this people perceived as this antiquated religion.
	But among young people, that interest is developing because you have to understand something about Iran is they're not Arabs, right?
	They're not Arabs.
	They're a separate ethnic group.
	They're Persians.
	That's a completely different ethnic group with a completely different ethnogenesis.
	And so a lot of really traditional Iranians, people that are really deeply invested in their heritage, this isn't all of them.
	There's some of them that are down for the cause, but a lot of them perceive Islam as sort of imposed on them.
	They perceive it as a foreign religion.
	They don't view it as something that's, you know, like maybe how Saudis do, where they view, you know, Islam as deeply intertwined and interconnected with their ethnic or heritage, you know, their background.
	In Iran, it's a little different.
	They don't view themselves as part of the Arab world.
	They don't view themselves as being a people, you know, with that without Islam, they would make no sense, right?
	Like they believe that they're a people group that happens to be Muslim.
	Again, this isn't the, you know, I'm not saying this is every single person in Iran.
	I'm just saying that a lot of these people, especially people protesting, this is the way they perceive the situation.
	And so what you're seeing with young people is they either are sort of nominally Muslim, but not really like down for the cause per se.
	They're not like super trad, or you're seeing a renewed interest in Zoroastrianism.
	And to a smaller degree, Christianity, although it's not, you know, super widespread.
	All this to say, the youth in Iran are increasingly sort of dissatisfied with the ruling regime in Iran.
	They don't feel like they're being represented very well.
	They just feel like this is just a stodgy 20th century institution that's been drug into the 21st century.
	And so you're seeing now that there's blood in the water with these protests.
	They've become widespread.
	They've really kicked off.
	It's very fascinating to watch, to see.
	And yeah, when these protests started kicking off in Tehran and you started to see government buildings targeted, you saw a mosque burned, I sat back and I said, this time could be different.
	Do I think these protests are ultimately going to lead to a toppling of the Ayatollah?
	I don't know.
	I think we're still going to need to see a lot of movement on that.
	You would need to see some IRGC officials like defect and not just ethnic, but like actual Persians defecting to the side of the protesters.
	There's some rumors that yesterday the protests have been tamped down a little bit, obviously.
	I can read here there was an article in the New York Times, a shoot to kill accounts from brutal crackdown emerged from Iran.
	There's estimates that, you know, hundreds, potentially even thousands here were seeing here.
	A senior Iranian health ministry official said about 3,000 people have been killed across the country, but he sought to shift the blame to terrorists fermenting unrest.
	So the messaging from the Ayatollah and from the Iranian government is that this is like American-backed.
	This is completely artificial.
	Everyone in Iran loves the government, and this is just completely unthinkable that anybody would have a gripe with the Iranian government.
	But this is not the reality on the ground.
	Like I already illustrated, the youth are just very out of step with the Ayatollah.
	Again, they view it as like a 20th century institution being imposed on them.
	So these protests, obviously, kicking off, they're widespread.
	Something really interesting is there's quite a few cities that protests broke out in that are traditionally strongholds for the regime.
	They're typically places in Iran that the regime could turn to to, you know, they would know they would have support in these cities.
	And you're even seeing, you know, widespread protests there.
	So again, there's still a few more things that need to happen before we really start to think that maybe the Ayatollah is on the way out.
	But it's fair to say, I think it's a correct assessment to say this is probably the most tenuous situation that the Ayatollah has been in in probably 30 to 40 years.
	All this to say, Trump puts out a statement this morning on Truth Social.
	Here's what he said: Iranian patriots, keep protesting, take over your institutions, save the names of the killers and abusers.
	They will pay a big price.
	I have canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops.
	Help is on the way.
	MIGA, M-I-G-A, make Iran great again, or MIGA, I'm gonna say MIGA, it sounds funnier.
	And I could get clipped for that.
	President Donald J. Trump.
	So Trump, I think it was last week, he put a statement out saying the American hardline is if they start to kill protesters or rough up protesters, the Americans will intervene.
	They will step in.
	They will put their thumb on the scale.
	And so that's obviously going to happen.
	That's just, that's going to happen.
	They are going to harm protesters.
	This is just how these things work.
	And Trump says this morning, help is on the way.
	Now, the question is, what exactly does that look like?
	Does it look like basic media coverage, like backup, these sorts of things?
	Or does this look like actual boots on the ground?
	Does this look like maybe strike, drone strikes, or targeted strikes?
	We don't know.
	We really don't know.
	I don't think anyone knows.
	You're seeing conflicting reporting, you know, people citing insider information and they're not in agreement.
	What we saw with Venezuela is they conducted that entire operation.
	It was like six months in the works and not a single leak.
	I know the Washington Post came out and claimed that they had received a tip and they refused to publish it.
	Does anybody really believe that?
	I don't think I do.
	I don't know if you do.
	That just seems like they wanted to emphasize that they still have some sway or poll in the beltway, which I don't think that they do.
	But I think what Venezuela has indicated to us is that the Pentagon is leak-free or very minimal leaks.
	So whatever they are planning on doing in Iran is going to stay under wraps until it happens.
	Now, I'll state for posterity's sake, I don't think it's a good idea to get involved in Iran.
	I would be opposed to that, especially before Venezuela, especially before Venezuela.
	Say, no way, this is just a foolish decision.
	When the strikes occurred last summer, I wasn't too thrilled about it.
	I didn't blackpill.
	I didn't, you know, say MAGA's dead or anything.
	That's like some people do.
	I just said, no, I disagree.
	You can disagree with a decision and not like throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	But, you know, there is this question of what exactly is the incentive for the United States to get involved in Iran.
	We pointed out in the show yesterday, we know Israel has tremendous interest in toppling the Iranian regime.
	And when you're evaluating Israel and the United States and their actions in the Middle East, the question you have to ask yourself is: when do the incentives or when do the goals overlap?
	And when do they diverge?
	In this instance, I think what is prudent, what is crucial is what are the interests for the United States?
	What are the goals for the United States in Iran?
	Are those interests happening to overlap with Israel's?
	Or is this us conducting operations sort of on behalf of Israel or in conjunction with Israel?
	That is the ultimate question.
	And as I see it now, again, I'm not a geopolitical expert.
	I don't have a military background.
	I'm simply a commentator.
	But as I see it now, it's difficult to imagine what the incentive is for the United States to topple the Ayatollah.
	Again, I know what the moral implications are.
	Obviously, everyone knows like, oh, it's great to spread democracy and these sorts of things.
	But the way I see it, the Iranian regime is already vulnerable as it is.
	I think that the Iranian people are more than capable of sort of taking the trash out, so to speak, themselves.
	And at large, I think the Middle East is secularizing.
	You're seeing this all across the region.
	I mean, Saudi Arabia is letting women drive now.
	I mean, anything's possible.
	Anything is possible, so to speak.
	So again, I just don't really see a benefit.
	If it is, it's not worth the price we would have to pay for really stepping in with Iran.
	But all of this was before Venezuela.
	I still maintain this position, but I do have a lot more faith in our military to conduct affairs without really bogging us down.
	Because again, we took the trash out in Venezuela in 88 minutes.
	I don't think Iran is like that much more formidable than Venezuela.
	They're still, they are more formidable than Venezuela, but they're not like this untouchable regime with China or something.
	So if we do get involved, I don't think it's going to be the end of the world.
	I don't think it's going to be World War III, these sorts of things.
	But I don't want that.
	I think it would be bad.
	I just think, again, it's just unnecessary.
	It's not like Venezuela where the goals, the outcomes are very obvious.
	Like that's our hemisphere.
	That's our domain.
	Iran, it's like, really, this benefits like, you know, Israel, for example, much more than it benefits us.
	And so that's just the question really is, okay, what's the goal here?
	What are we getting out of this?
	What's the benefit for us toppling Iran?
	My position is, yes, I do think the Ayatollah is bad.
	There's no question about that.
	I do think potentially it would create more stability in the Middle East because obviously you have two factions currently in the Middle East.
	Iran with all their proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis.
	You know, there is a foreign policy outcome that is favorable to the United States if the Iranian regime collapses.
unidentified		But they're running out of money anyways.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Said yeah?
unidentified		They're running out of money anyways.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		They're running out of money anyways.
		The regime's on shaky footing.
		So it's just like this situation could just resolve itself.
		I don't know.
		But we're going to see what help actually means here.
		Again, if this is like targeted strikes, you know, media warfare, some sort of, you know, maybe a small degree of like financial backing for these rebel groups, I could maybe be persuaded on that, but I just don't know what help is on the way.
		So I can't like pontificate much more than that.
		But we got to keep moving here.
		We got to keep cooking.
		This is another story regarding the situation with ICE and their operations, obviously, across the country.
		This is what we're seeing.
		This is what we're seeing.
		This is what I knew was going to happen is these people, these ICE protesters are going to be fishing for incidents.
		They want to become a martyr.
		So take a look at this.
		This is in Memphis.
		This is my hometown.
		This is very familiar to me.
		I actually know where this is.
		This anti-ICE protester claims he was struck by Tennessee Highway Patrol vehicle during a protest in Memphis.
		Take a look at this.
unidentified		Move!
		Get out of my way!
		Get out of my way!
		Move!
		Move!
		Dude.
		Move!
		Get out!
		Come here!
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I mean, is that not like LeBron level flopping?
		I mean, that is really tremendous to see.
		That was a flop.
		That was flop city.
		And then, of course, he hops right back into his car.
		So he's just like, again, these people are still under the impression that they can operate with total impunity, which is absurd because they've clearly, the ICE has demonstrated there's sort of a new sheriff in town and they're not going to tolerate BS like this.
		Completely ridiculous.
		No one was hit.
		And then of course, when this broke and the news hit the wire, you had all these people on the left saying, oh my gosh, I just ran over someone in Memphis and the video comes out.
		And it's just ridiculous.
		It's just like we're dealing with children here.
		Ultimately, we're dealing with children.
		We're dealing with people that have zero moral compass.
		We're dealing with people that quite literally are willing to destroy their lives if it means protecting 68 IQ Somalis.
		Like, what are we doing here?
		We can't.
		We can't.
		Pat Casey made the point.
		I'm going to throw a luxury box up real quick.
		Hang on.
		I got to lock in real quick.
		Pat Casey made the point on the show.
		You can't arrest libtards purely for being libtards.
		I understand and I agree.
		But, you know, this is why it's so vital to just completely break apart these institutions.
		And I think the Trump administration is doing a good job, but like completely breaking apart these apparatuses that allow these people to mobilize en masse.
		Because again, these people can't do this without some funding, without some organization, these sorts of things.
		And all that's going to result in is people dying.
		Because when these things happen, these ICE protesters, zero impulse control, they start running over cops and getting shot.
		It's like at a certain point, you know, you have the right to protest, but these things are just getting ridiculous.
		It's getting ridiculous.
		I was, for the record, I was, you know, I said the ICE shooting was a clean shoot.
		You could argue about, you know, the morality or whatever.
		That's not my concern.
		It's a clean shoot.
		The officer, as he should, has not been charged.
		From my perspective, the lady did try to run him over.
		And I was very strong on this position.
		I maintain this position until this morning, someone weighed in on the situation and it changed my entire perspective.
		I was sitting here and I was saying, yes, obviously clean shoot.
		No one could possibly change my mind on this.
		Until an oracle of morality weighed in, when you think like, okay, who are some of the most ethically sound people in the United States?
		Who could weigh in to potentially change my mind on the efficacy, the morality of that shooting?
		Casey Anthony has spoken up.
		I think everyone here is potentially going to have their minds changed now.
		I think Casey Anthony weighing in really changes the calculus for everyone involved.
		Casey Anthony calls out JD Vance over his stance on the Minneapolis shooting.
		Dear Vice President JD Vance, there is no such thing as federal law enforcement officers having immunity because it is convenient for you in this administration.
		This applies to your Gestapo agents and ICE.
		This completely changed everything for me.
		Just completely changed.
		I total disband ICE, you know, defund it all.
		If anything, we need more Somalis.
		We don't have enough.
		You know, let's flood the country with illegals.
		Finally, someone that I respect, someone that clearly is above board, someone with a strong moral compass has spoken up.
		Casey Anthony has weighed in.
		This is great news.
		So this is the coalition.
		Jokes aside, this is the coalition that they're stitching together over there on the left.
		If Casey Anthony not only is speaking up but making headlines and she's parroting the exact same talking points as these people, you know, you got to ask some questions.
		What's going on?
		It's just a coalition of losers.
		It's a coalition of the deracinated.
	It's a coalition of people that just have nothing to lose, people that are compromised, people that have no consistency in their ideology whatsoever.
	But they really are just fundamentally losers.
	This cracked me up.
	This is from the Captive Dreamer friend of the show.
	He piped in.
	He chimed in.
	He got this hilarious screenshot off of Blue Sky.
	Obviously, the geniuses over at Blue Sky.
	Will Stancil.
	Will Stancil, he's really a character.
	He's a brave warrior combating fascism or something like that.
	He's really just adult.
	He's a bonehead.
	Really funny here.
	This is what he had to say on Blue Sky regarding his operation and bravely defending fascism.
	Slight chance I blew the Fitz transmission tracking ice on the interstate today.
	It is a far, far better thing to do.
	I have known.
	He's being gay.
	It's like a Reddit thing.
	Captain Dreamer obviously summarizes the situation here.
	Update, Will Stancil's blown the transmission on his 2011 Honda Fit after tailing ICE vehicles in Minneapolis.
	So these people, these freedom fighters, they're really the last stand before Trump's fascist authoritarian takeover just completely eviscerates the Constitution and throws everyone in gulags.
	The only thing that can stand in the way from this brave resistance and their goals is the transmissions on their 2011 Honda Fitz.
	That's really, that is the last sort of impediment they got to get over.
	If they can just keep their Honda Fitz in working condition, then we won't have fascism in the United States.
	It's really, it's really something.
	So I respect these brave warriors.
	Casey Anthony chiming in, finally stepping up.
	I'm very relieved to hear her weighing in on the situation.
	Obviously, just an oracle of truth, Casey Anthony.
	And then Will Stansel bravely, bravely saddling up in his Honda Fit to drive on the interstate and track ICE agents.
	I mean, what would we do without these people?
	You know, like what would our country look like if these people?
	And the question is, what perfect utopian society would we live in if Will Stansel's transmission was simply functioning on his 2011 Honda Fit?
	Can you imagine the perfect utopian society?
	We wouldn't have any fascism.
	We wouldn't have any heckin, you know, bad people.
	We wouldn't have any bigotry.
	We would just, we would sing Kumbaya.
	We would link arms just like Maduro.
	We would be singing John Lennon's Imagine.
	It would be a beautiful thing.
	Jokes aside, we are very lucky that our opponents are losers because if these people ever put it together, if these people ever actually demonstrate a degree of competence, we might actually be in trouble.
	We might actually be kind of cooked.
	I don't know if you remember.
	I'll take you back.
	Let's take you back a little bit.
	Last year in Dallas, there was a shooting at an ICE facility.
	Someone's taking pot shots.
	They killed two detainees.
	I'm not laughing because it's funny.
	I'm laughing because it's absurd.
	They were trying to kill ICE agents and they killed two detainees.
	Demonstrates immense incompetency, demonstrates their idiots, demonstrates they don't know what they're doing.
	But the problem is, what happens if that person was competent?
	What happens if that person did know what they're doing?
	That's a scary thought.
	So it's like, it is hilarious that these people, quite literally, their crappy old cars are causing them issues.
	But what happens when these people put it together?
	What happens when these people continue to organize, continue to sort of have these powwows, continue to build resources, build funding up?
	We actually could be in a bit of trouble.
	So this is why it's so important that DHS comes down hard on these people as they have been doing.
	But I just wanted to point that out.
	That was very funny to me.
	I have one more story I'm going to get to before we bring in the great raw egg nationalist.
	He is ready to go.
	So we'll grab him here soon.
	This was out of Australia.
	I'm just going to read here the write-up.
	The National Socialist Party, White Australia, the European Australian Movement, and the White Australia Party have all officially been disbanded in response to the Australian government's new prohibited hate group laws.
	So Solianath, he's a poster on Twitter.
	I'm going to read what he said.
	The situation of free speech in Australia is incredibly dire.
	Joel Davis, who's like an activist over there, has been held in prison and isolation without bail, trial, or mail, has been deprived of access to even books for weeks now as punishment for simply protesting the Australian government.
	Now the government has basically given itself a free reign to dispose of all right-wing dissidents.
	They aren't going to stop at the right-wing groups that are, quote, hateful either.
	Until the recent Muslim terrorist attack to crack down on right-wingers as a level of cynicism that is hard for most people to even imagine.
	This is the beginning of a far more draconian political scene than even the UK has.
	And this is absolutely correct.
	This is really disturbing.
	Again, this is not me like endorsing these groups.
	This is not me saying you should endorse these groups or join these groups.
	I don't know.
	I'm not Australian.
	I'm not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of the sort of political system over there or sort of where these groups fit in.
	But I think we've all learned this was following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
	Punching right is just not really prudent right now.
	Punching right is not politically expedient.
	And this is the result: they're going to expand their definition of dissident right.
	They're going to expand their definition of radical right-wing extremism until they can like grab anyone to the right of Ted Cruz in that group.
	That's what's going to happen.
	This is what accelerationism gets you.
	So you've seen a lot of people on the right, you know, talk about, well, Trump, you know, he's falling short in these certain regards.
	So we should withhold our vote so that way they're forced to court you.
	This is what that gets you.
	This is what the culmination of that looks like is they just completely ban you from the system at large.
	They completely take you out of the playing field.
	If you elect a Gavin Newsom, if you elect, well, you know, a whoever, this is the result you get.
	This is Homan's top guy put it really well here.
	Accelerationism.
	That's exactly what's going on here.
	Is accelerationism doesn't get you.
	You won't get these people to kowtow to.
	You won't get these people to like court for your vote.
	You simply just ensure that people that may be friendly to your ideology get frozen out of power forever and then you get banned from everything.
	That's what happens.
	Ask Brazil.
	Ask South Africa.
	How did accelerationism go for them?
	Did South Africa, for example, like, you know, as things get worse over there, is that, you know, is it creating more and more room for the right wing over there?
	No, it just gets continually worse.
	It just gets continually more oppressive.
	So this is very alarming out of Australia.
	Again, this isn't me saying you should join these parties or like everything they say is fantastic.
	This is to say when you give them an inch, they take a mile.
	That's what's going on.
	And this has applications for the U.S. Obviously, the First Amendment's much more expansive here.
	It'd be a lot trickier to imagine us just outright banning a political party.
	But I've made this point.
	I have a whole show about it across the pond where I explain to you that the fates of all the Anglosphere countries are interlinked.
	The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada.
	I know we call them lip tards and we make fun of them, but they are our cousins.
	And the sort of political movements that happen in those countries do pour over into the United States and vice versa.
	So this is something very important to keep an eye on.
	And this is the reason why it's important to win.
	This is the reason why, again, sometimes you're not going to get everything you want.
	Sometimes the allies that you join up with, you're not in total agreement.
	You're not seeing eye to eye on everything.
	But if you lose, this is what happens to you.
	You lose everything.
	We're literally playing for keeps right now.
	That is the political sphere in 2026.
	We're playing for keeps.
	If you allow these people to win, you will get eviscerated.
	You will get eradicated from the political sphere.
	It is over for you.
	So with that, we are going to bring the raw egg nationalists in.
	Let's see.
	Surge is getting this fired up.
	I'm excited.
	I'm excited to talk to the raw egg nationalists.
	Obviously, we saw last week RFK inverting the pyramid.
	Now meat is prioritized.
	Bread, grain, these sorts of things are not so prioritized.
	Before I bring raw egg in here, I see him.
	Can you hear me?
	Raw egg.
	Oh, I know what to do.
	All right, let me switch this audio source.
	Boom.
	We're doing it live, like Bill O'Reilly.
	Hey, can you hear me?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		I can eat.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, before we get started here, I just want to read this headline.
		This is hilarious.
		This is from the New York Times.
		They put this guest essay out.
		This would have been on the 10th.
		No way.
		The new food pyramid brought to you by Big Me.
		Now, I saw this.
		I said, look, everyone's talking about it.
		Big meat.
		Everyone's, you know, thinking about big meat.
		Big meat's been like just in my brain.
		I'm having a tough time grasping big meat.
		Obviously, it's on the tip of everyone's tongues.
		So I wanted to bring an expert in.
		What are your thoughts on big meat?
		Do you think big meat is maybe it's like kind of an imposing force?
		Do you think RFK is shoving big meat down everyone's throats?
		What do you think is going on?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I, you know, Tate, I think about big meat a lot.
		It occupies a lot of my thinking.
		A lot of my writing is about big meat, about what big meat means, how you would define big meat, you know, what constitutes big meat, what's small meat, or average meat even, you know.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Right.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, but to be to be serious, though, you know, this, this notion of big meat actually is absurd.
		I mean, what they want you to believe, I think, really is that basically there's big, like there's big ag and you've got big corn and you've got big soy and you've got big beef and big chicken and big pork.
		And they're all kind of competing forces within the market, right?
		And so, you know, what's good for big meat, for big beef or big corn, or big chicken or big pork, isn't good for big soy or big corn.
		Well, that simply isn't the case.
		I mean, it might once upon a time have been the case that you had conglomerates that were just in chicken or beef or pork and conglomerates that were in grains.
		But agriculture is so deeply, deeply integrated in the US now.
		So if you look at a mega corporation like Cargill, for example, Cargill is one of the largest grain companies in the world and has been for and has been for the better part of a century or more.
		They're also the biggest or one of the biggest beef producers in the US.
		So this notion that somehow all RFK Jr. has done is he's kind of like, you know, flipped a switch and now instead of favoring big grain, he's favoring big meat is just nonsense because you can't actually, you can't separate them.
		There's no, I mean, so it is a nonsense.
		It really is a nonsense to suggest that this is just about pleasing or pandering to a new set of corporate interests.
		You know, the big meter, big meter slipping RFK Jr., you know, stakes, steaks in the background or something like that, it just doesn't work, just doesn't work like that.
		Agriculture is not like that anymore.
		So actually, you know, you find that these big companies that were traditionally in meat, so Cargill, I think, you know, and another, Tyson, for example, Tyson's a better example, you know, Tyson was traditionally a meat and dairy company.
		Well, they're hugely into grain now, and they're also hugely actually into alternative proteins.
		And this is something that I talk about in my previous book, The Eggs Benedict Option that I wrote in 2022.
		You know, all of these companies that were traditionally just producing meat and dairy, they're now producing like their things like plant-based meats and pea protein and all sorts of alternative foods as well.
		So like there's just this notion of big meat, of meat production being separate from other forms of food production, separate from processed food in particular, because processed food is the principal constituent of the vast majority of Americans' diets now.
		It's just nonsense.
		So, I mean, it's fabricated.
		As funny as it might sound, you know, to be talking about RFK Jr., you know, riding big meat, it's nonsense.
		It's nonsense.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		Well, I mean, that's why I wanted to bring you on, because obviously this story has been in the zeitgeist, but there's not a lot of people that can speak with authority on it, let alone speak with the depth of knowledge that you have on the topic.
		You know, before we really get into the meat and potatoes, so to speak, of the story, could you give an overview on the work you've done thus far?
		And then what aspects of that work you have seen implemented in RFK's sort of overhaul of HHS?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, you know, it's very interesting.
		I actually met someone who is now very senior in HHS just before the election, like days before the election when I was in the US.
		And this person said to me, I read your book, The Eggs Benedict Option.
		It's amazing.
		It's a blueprint for make America healthy again.
		Like everything you talk about here, corporate control of the food supply in particular, the elimination of animal foods from, you know, from diets of ordinary Americans and the corresponding decline in health.
		This is all the stuff that we want to get into.
		This is all the kind of stuff that we want to focus on.
		So, I mean, my book, The Eggs Benedict Option, is about the plan for a global plant-based diet and why that's a bad thing.
		And so, you know, I mean, that was a big thing in like 2020, 2021, 2022 during the coronavirus crisis, you know, when people were talking about the great reset, whatever that was supposed to mean.
		An integral part of that was this idea that actually we need to change our diets.
		We need not only to have a great reset, you know, of the way that we, of the way that the world of work and the way that we live and all this kind of stuff, but also the way that we eat in particular.
		And so they were pushing plant-based diets.
		And so I thought, well, you know, what would that actually mean for our health?
		And so I wrote a book about it.
		And then I wrote an alternative proposal.
		So my great reset was a vision of actually returning to returning to the way our ancestors used to eat, to animal-based diets, basically.
		And I drew very heavily on the work of a dentist, come anthropologist called Western A. Price, who wrote this amazing, amazing book in the 1930s called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which is basically the best book on nutrition you've never heard of.
		So he basically went around the world to small scale traditional societies.
		He visited the Inuit.
		He went to the highlands and islands of Scotland.
		He went up into the Swiss Alps.
		He went to Africa, to Polynesia, to Fiji and New Zealand and all these different places.
		And he looked at what people in traditional societies ate.
		And he looked in particular for traditional societies where people were basically in perfect health.
		And he discovered that everybody, all of these societies, every single one of them, prioritize nutrient-dense animal foods in particular.
		So, you know, like an Inuit isn't eating exactly the same food as a pastoralist in Kenya, right?
		But the type of food is the same.
		So yes, an Inuit might be eating salmon and caribou.
		And yes, a Maasai herdsman will be eating beef and milk and blood in particular.
		But actually, they're both prioritizing the same kinds of animal foods, which are nutrient-dense animal foods.
		So it's things like organ meat, fatty cuts of meat, dairy foods, eggs, seafood, shellfish, crustaceans, fatty fish, that kind of stuff.
		And that's basically how our ancestors ate since the dawn of time.
		But then there was this profound change in the 20th century in particular, continuing into the 21st, where we started to eat these new types of food produced in factories, the first processed foods, and then ultra-processed foods, which are kind of like a more recent development from the 70s, 80s into today.
		But yeah, I mean, the HHS agenda, I mean, I'm amazed.
		I'm really amazed so far, actually, you know, that they really have turned the food pyramid on its head.
		And it's basically, I mean, it's everything I've asked for.
		It's everything I've said we should do.
		You know, we need to return to diets that are based on nutrient-dense animal foods.
		We need to stop being afraid of animal proteins and especially animal fats, you know, animal fats and cholesterol in particular, which is a constituent of animal fat.
		They've been demonized in the 20th century.
		Cholesterol in particular, I mean, cholesterol is one of the real boogeyman, apart from, say, something like tobacco of 20th century medicine.
		You know, in the late 1960s in the US, then there was actually a specific health warning attached to eggs in particular in the US.
		So they are the only foodstuff in American history that has ever had a specific warning attached to its consumption because of the amount of cholesterol in eggs.
		So we need to reverse all that.
		We were promised, Americans were promised, and the rest of the world were promised, renewed health.
		We were told, look, if we stop eating cholesterol, we'll stop getting heart disease, all of these other chronic diseases will go away.
		We'll have renewed health.
		And that just hasn't happened.
		And it's obvious.
		You look around today.
		People are unhealthier than they've ever been.
		They're more dependent than they've ever been on pharmaceuticals.
		In fact, people are dependent on pharmaceuticals in a way that once upon a time, 100 years ago, would actually only have been conceivable in the pages of a science fiction novel, right?
		I mean, in somewhere like Scotland, for example, I mean, I know Scotland is a kind of, it's a kind of grim place.
		And so it's kind of a bad example, but 25% of all adults in Scotland are on antidepressants.
		That's one million people out of four million.
		And then I think a further million are also on other forms of drugs like Z drugs, anti-anxiety meds, benzodiazepines, all these kind of psychotropic drugs.
		I mean, we are medicated to an insane extent.
		I mean, virtually everybody is taking pills.
		Everybody is medicated.
		So, you know, the orthodoxies of 20th century medicine need to be thrown out.
		They certainly need to be re-examined.
		But I mean, fundamentally, I think they need to be thrown out.
	And it's good to see that actually HHS under RFK Jr. is prepared to do that.
	I mean, he knows.
	He knows.
	I mean, I would doubt that my thinking and his thinking on diet and health differ at all, really.
	You know, he's just, he's in a more difficult position, obviously, because he has to oppose competing interests.
	And, you know, he's the one who has to push against the medical community and all these entrenched interests.
	But I think fundamentally, we really do align in our thinking and our approaches.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Well, I guess that would be the question is, obviously, you outlined the history, obviously, when processed food introduced the diet, the pharmaceutical industry really taking off.
		I guess the question, and I think a lot of people in the audience would sort of wonder the same thing or debate back and forth.
		How much of that was brought into our lives out of for ideological reasons, like these people genuinely believing, A, this is better for us, or B, potentially they wanted to neuter us, versus how much of it is just business interests, like, hey, I just want to move more grain.
		I don't care what you have to say to move the product, just say it.
		I mean, those to me seem like the two sort of camps I would explain it.
		How much is attributed to each, would you say?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		It's a complicated thing.
		I mean, I don't think that you can just say there was some kind of conspiracy to make us all sick and dependent.
		And I mean, that has been the practical effect of everything that's happened in the 20th century, without a doubt.
		I mean, like I say, you know, we are unwell and dependent on pharmaceuticals and the medical industry to an extent that would have been impossible to imagine.
		I mean, if you just look at the demonization of cholesterol, for example, then you can see the involvement, the deep involvement of corporate interests, even from the very beginning.
		So the theory that cholesterol causes heart disease, which has been the principal justification for abandoning animal foods in our diets, is something called the lipid heart hypothesis.
		And it was formulated by a man called Ansel Keys in the 1940s.
		Now, Ansel Keys presented himself as an expert nutritionist, but he really wasn't.
		He worked on the K ration.
		He helped make the K ration, the famous army ration or military ration that was used by American service personnel during World War II.
		He helped come up with that.
		And then he kind of branded himself as a nutritionist.
		Anyway, heart disease rates were exploding in the US in the 1940s.
		You know, it was really the beginning of the kind of big upsurge in heart disease.
		And it was becoming a national issue.
		And so people were looking for explanations.
		His explanation that he came up with was that it was saturated fat consumption and saturated fat and cholesterol consumption are linked.
		And he produced this study called the Seven Country Study, where he presented results, correlations between saturated fat consumption and heart disease in seven different countries from around the world.
		Showed a very close correlation.
		Very close correlation.
		But why was that?
		Because he cherry-picked the countries.
		So he just picked seven countries that had a very close correlation.
		He ignored, for example, a country like France.
		They talk about the French paradox, because the French consume so much butter.
		They consume four times the butter, I think, might even be more than four times the butter Americans consume, and yet they have significantly lower rates of heart disease.
		Now, this was all pointed out at the time, actually, by his colleagues.
		So he was kind of laughed out of the room by his contemporaries.
		They were like, look, you've gerrymanded this data.
		You're just presenting a totally selective picture of the relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart disease.
		This is rubbish.
		And it was rubbish and it is rubbish.
		But Ansel Keys managed to get the backing of margarine makers.
		And I think in particular, Procter and I think it was Procter and Gamble, I think.
		There were these, you know, these companies that were trying to market new forms of fat that were made basically from industrial waste products.
		And this is one of the things that you hear about seed and vegetable oils, margarine, right?
		Is that once upon a time, these were industrial waste products, and then corporations found a way to turn them into edible products.
		And so they started making money.
		I mean, that is actually true.
		That is actually true.
		So Crisco, which was the first margarine, is crystallized cottonseed oil.
		That's where the name comes from, right?
		And so cottonseed oil was a byproduct of the production of cotton industrially, right?
		So they would just have loads and loads of cottonseed oil laying around the place.
		And they're like, well, what can we do with it?
		We can use it to lubricate machinery.
		We can use it as paint thinners.
		And then somebody comes up with this industrial process of hydrogenating cottonseed oil to turn it into a semi-solid fat like butter.
		Well, what Ansel Keyes did was he provided the science to justify the consumption of these new alternative fats, right?
		And so the margarine producers, and I think particularly Procter ⁇ Gamble, poured millions of dollars into promoting this stuff through organizations like the American Heart Association.
		So I think Procter ⁇ Gamble gave the American Heart Association the million dollars in 1940, whatever, which was a lot of money there, right?
		And so you can see from the beginning that actually, you know, it was industrial interests pushing this science and they won.
		They won.
		And the science was accepted over the objections of large parts of the scientific community.
		I mean, this is something that you don't hear when people talk about the transition from consumption of animal fats to these novel industrial fats.
		It's that actually loads and loads of scientists at the time said that the science was rubbish.
		It wasn't that everybody accepted it.
		It was that actually, no, lots of scientists didn't accept it, but the money won out, as is often the case.
		So it's a complicated thing.
		But of course, then once you erect a system, once you entrench these interests, it becomes very, very difficult to dislodge them and to replace them.
		And so, you know, this has been the orthodoxy for 70 years, 70 plus years, you know, that we need to stop eating animal foods and we need to adopt, you know, a different kind of diet that's built around healthy plant proteins and healthy plant fats in particular.
		And actually, along the way, along the way, as is often the case then when you have this kind of dominant paradigm, conflicting evidence is ignored.
		So there's a very, very famous example of this called the Minnesota Coronary Study, where basically a large-scale double blind, double-blind gold standard intervention study was done,
		where I think it was seven or maybe 10 institutions, health institutions, hospitals in Minnesota substituted vegetable and seed oils, like sunflower oil, that kind of thing, for animal fats in the diet of the patients.
	Now, according to the lipid heart hypothesis, what would happen is, well, everyone would live longer.
	Their health would improve, right?
	The complete opposite happened.
	The complete opposite happened.
	And actually, the scientists behind the study showed that for every, I think it was something like for every 30 point reduction in cholesterol in blood cholesterol, the mortality rate doubled or something.
	I mean, it was crazier.
	Like it was absolutely flew in the face of the lipid heart hypothesis and the orthodoxy that had been accepted.
	So what happened?
	They did this expensive study over a period, I don't know, maybe of a year, might even have been longer than a year, cost a lot of money, took a lot of time.
	They just binned it.
	They binned it because the results didn't fit.
	And then 30, 40 years later, they rediscovered this study and were like, actually, you know what?
	Maybe they were right.
	And maybe this shouldn't have been hidden from the public.
	But it was simply because it didn't fit with the established narrative.
	And that's what happened.
	That's really what happens.
	You get these entrenched interests.
	Huge amounts of money now are behind.
	I mean, however much money there was in making margarine in the 1930s or 1940s, we're talking orders of magnitude more now, many orders of magnitude.
	I mean, consumption of soybean oil, for example, has increased a thousand fold over the last century.
	I mean, this is, we're talking about huge amounts of money.
	So it's a complicated thing.
	And I think you have to look at it historically and understand, you know, not only like what led to the initial kind of take up of these products, but also then you have to understand the kind of dynamics that exist within the scientific community, within the corporate community, within government.
	You know, I mean, these, they're all kind of hand in hand.
	They're all hand in glove.
	And so it becomes a very, very complicated thing actually to really to do anything and to make any change.
	So it's a mixture of things.
	It's a mixture of things, certainly.
	But there's corporate interests.
	There's, you know, I think a lot of, I think a lot of people in the scientific community also genuinely believe in the science.
	I think they do.
	I don't think that people just push it because they think it's because it's convenient or because it serves some ulterior motive.
	I do think there are a lot of true believers and they're very hard to convince.
	And the reaction to RFK Jr. turning the food pyramid on its head has been, well, I mean, people are talking about big meat.
	You know, I mean, people are conjuring up these phantoms that don't even exist to try and explain how somebody could ever come to the conclusion that actually, you know, eating animal fat is healthier than eating a byproduct of cotton manufacture.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they're shadow boxing against like these boogeymen that literally have been completely disarmed over the last 20 years.
		It's like totally ridiculous.
		I guess I have one more question for you.
		Obviously, people have seen the headlines or perhaps even the data sort of indicating that, you know, when people participate in activities like weightlifting or clean eating, they become more right-wing.
		Obviously, it's almost a cliche at this point.
		People say that over and over again.
		But, you know, from my analysis, it's true because it does produce more testosterone.
		And that's obviously going to make you more disagreeable in a good way.
		So then you're going to be able to reject sort of the consensus at large.
		My question is, do you really, do you think that RFK's sort of decision-making here with HHS is actually sort of a viable political strategy in which as he sort of unchains the vitality of American men, we will see more and more men stepping up and saying, yeah, this consensus that we've been, you know, that's been hoisted upon us is absolutely ridiculous.
		They're going to be more sort of poised to buck the system, so to speak.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
		I mean, look, this is one of the central, one of the central contentions of my new book, or certainly one of the things that I really talk about in the new book is about, which is called The Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.
		It's out now, Amazon, hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook.
		But, you know, one of my central theses in that book is that actually testosterone decline is a serious political problem.
		And we're seeing a civilizational decline in testosterone levels.
		There are many factors causing it.
		It's partly diet.
		It's partly its broader lifestyles, its exposure to toxic chemicals, etc.
		But, you know, we have we have very good reason to believe that actually decline in testosterone is tied to changing political behavior.
		And there's a lot of experimental data from disciplines like social and personality psychology that shows that if you give a man a dose of testosterone, so there are all these experiments, you know, where you'll have groups of people and one of them will be groups of men and one of them will be given testosterone gel and the other will be given a placebo.
		And then they'll do some kind of activity that's supposed to show to demonstrate particular kinds of behavior.
		And what you'll find is that actually if you give men a dose of testosterone, they do basically become more right wing.
		Let's go.
		You know, they display particular behaviors that are associated with being right wing.
		Like, for example, being okay with hierarchy.
		Now, that's something that social and personality psychologists look at a lot is hierarchy, attitudes to hierarchy and inequality.
		And it turns out that if you give men a dose of testosterone, they're happier with hierarchy than they were before.
		And hierarchy, obviously, you know, is a fundamental organizing principle for the right wing and for conservatives.
		And it's, you know, a central, it's the central target of leftist politics is hierarchy.
		The leveling of hierarchy is the leftist project wherever it's found.
		And there are loads of other studies that I talk about actually, you know, at great length in the book.
		I mean, yes, I do think that improving the health of the nation and particularly improving male health is a winning long-term strategy for the right and should be one that the right should focus on.
		I mean, it's funny because, you know, once upon a time, health was more or less the province of the left, actually.
		You know, you had hippies and all these kind of crunchy beatnik types, you know, all, you know, eating their organic foods and their smoothies and talking about raw milk and all that kind of stuff.
		Well, those days are gone now.
		I mean, the left is explicitly kind of anti-this stuff, actually.
		And it was, and it was very interesting during the election campaign to see that there was no alternative to RFK Jr. and the Maha agenda from the Democrats.
		They just simply didn't acknowledge it.
		They weren't interested in, they didn't think it was a winning issue.
		And maybe it maybe it isn't a win.
		In fact, I don't think it is a winning issue for the left now, because what the left wants to do is to foster dependency, wants to foster dependency on the state in particular.
		You know, I mean, you know, you want a big state, you want big daddy or big mummy to give you everything.
		Then, yeah, it's great to have everybody, everybody fat and useless.
		It's great to reduce people's capacity to rely on themselves, to be physically fit and courageous, and especially for men to have testosterone.
		So I do think that this is a, yeah, that this is a winning.
		I don't think that this is a distraction.
		I mean, I think that this actually should be and is at the moment at least a fundamental part of the right-wing platform.
		And it should remain so going forward, you know, indefinitely, I think, actually.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I totally agree.
		That's great.
		I mean, that's, it's so true.
		I love the denial of the testosterone studies from the left, too, the ways they can conjure up because they know how much of an indictment really is of their politics.
		But with that, we are running out of time, but this is so fantastic.
		I really appreciate you hopping on.
		Where can people find you?
		Where can people find your book?
		They're going to want more.
		So where can people find you?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I'm on Twitter.
		Baby Gravy9 is my unfortunate handle.
		I am the Raw Egg Nationalist, Baby Gravy 9.
		I have a sub stack, raw eggstack.com.
		And my new book, The Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity, is out now from Skyhorse.
		It's available on Amazon, as I said, in hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook format.
		And I will be doing a little bit of a book tour over the next couple of weeks in the U.S. I'll be appearing on InfoWars, doing some live events in New York and Washington and maybe LA as well.
		So pay attention to my Twitter if you want to find out details and maybe turn up at one of those events.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		I love it, dude.
		Thank you so much.
		Well, I'll catch you next time.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼		It's been a pleasure.
unidentified		Thank you.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, that was D-Rog.
		Just the perfect, perfect person to come on and talk about these sorts of things.
		Yeah, it's so true.
		Like, Maha as a political vehicle is very real.
		Like, we're not just doing this for fun.
		Like, legitimately sorting out the people's health is going to be very politically expedient.
		Testosterone, huge crisis.
		People are getting fatter and gayer.
		And I got to lock in.
		The book's great.
		I just picked up the copy, but I got to lock in and just really HealthMax, Chud Max.
		Chud Maxing takes more than just a mental change.
		It takes a physical change as well.
		So with that, you can find me on X and Instagram at RealTate Brown.
		We'll be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m. Be There or Be Square.

▲