Trump Admin To REVOKE 200k Visas, Ilhan Omar May Face DEPORTATION w/ Nick Freitas

The United States is set for the largest mass visa revocation in history, targeting upwards of 200,000 foreigners, business, business visas, tourist visas, basically ruby on chomp or just like, get out. They're not going to let anybody just show up and request a silent. One thing thing is, there's this real interesting graph which shows this crazy, parabolic curve of asylum, asylum, asylum, with the question being, has the world really gotten that much worse in the past five years that we are getting legitimate asylum seekers? And the answer is, no, of course not. Plus, many of these people coming from Central America or even South America or even Africa could stay in any other country, but they're coming to America. So it's going to be big, big news, my friends, and then we got in that vein and a really interesting story. So just the news sent a freedom of information request to ICE, pertaining to Ilhan Omar, allegedly marrying her brother to get him illegal citizenship. And they responded, they cannot release that information due to ongoing enforcement actions. Now, if the rumor there is that Ilhan Omar is currently facing enforcement for marrying her brother, I guess, but we don't know that for sure. This could be something else. It could be other immigration fraud. We really, really don't know. So we will talk about that. And then my friends, the scarier news, the US has about 40 days left in its oil reserve and it's depleting rapidly. Trump just dumped a large amount from the strategic petroleum reserve. And if this continues, we're in trouble, which means the conclusion of this war has to come soon. And I don't mean just because, like for political reasons, I'm saying literally they've got to wrap things up. Now, Trump's administration, best and just announced economic D day for Iran and they're going to isolate and cut everything off. They're actually saying you won't be able to land planes, commercial jets from tourists in certain countries. They're taking it very seriously. And then we got to talk about what happened at the WNBA with Venus Cantor and their screaming at him and swearing and, oh man, woke his back. They won't go away. We're going to talk about that with the WNB stuff. Before we do, my friends, we got a great sponsor for you. It is key.io. Hey, check this out. Here's an uncomfortable question for you guys. Why do you give your messaging app all of your private information? Like, does it really need it? Honestly, if you're just messaging somebody else, it doesn't. I use her name is fine, right? Most of us have already accepted that tech companies collect the enormous amounts of information where we're clicking, where we're going, what we buy, who we interact with. That information is valuable because your attention is valuable. And the worst thing about it is, they're now surveillance pricing is everywhere. So thing, know what you're talking about. When you look things up, they'll be more expensive. So you got to keep that stuff private. Keat takes a radically different approach. It's a free messaging file sharing and video calling app built peer-to-peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end-to-end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Your private life shouldn't be another crop in someone else's data form. Visit Keat.io/TimCastIRL. Download it for free, invite somebody to trust, start a conversation, no phone number, no email required, no trackers, no metadata collection. It's end-to-end encrypted, no centralized company database, peer-to-peer communication and it's free on iOS, Android, Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, I'm going to say it one more time. It is free. Check it out, my friends. It's great. Don't forget to join us at timcast.com for the uncensored Discord call-in portion of the show. If you're a member of Rumble Premium, you can watch the uncensored portion at 10pm. But if you're a Discord member, you can actually call in, so sign up now. We want you guys to call in. Don't forget to also smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Nick Freitas. Hey, thank you very much for having me, Tim. Ready to be back? Absolutely. Who are you? What do you do? Well, I used to be in the Virginia General Assembly. I am not now. I had to flee with my guns to Tennessee, but I'm a host of making the argument and also doing some work over at Blaze TV now. Right on. The boys are hanging out. Yeah. What's going on, Patriots? Deep brown. Deep brown, you're holding it down. You're right there, too. You're trying to hold it down. We're trying to hold it down. We were trying to hold it down. Who's holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum. According to the State Department documents obtained by the AP and two US officials. The actual was taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. And I'm down. Listen. They applied for business visas. And now are claiming they need asylum. That is clearly fraud. I don't know if you saw what just happened out of Sweden. Where they found that something like 70% of the people that have applied for refugee status in Sweden had actually gone back and visited the country that they had sought refugee status from. I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to bet the people that they actually came over on business visas if you actually check their travel records. They've gone back home and visited the country that they're now going to seek asylum from. Yeah. I mean, I think that the asylum program and the H1B programs are two of the most abused, probably second only to social security. Because basically anybody that can come up with sorenies, attempts to get on social security. So I think that anything the government can do to have deport people that are here with in fraudulent cases, that's a good thing. I mean, look, I'm a deport everybody guy, though. I'm going to let you all in a secret. I own this. Okay. Nobody knew this, but I actually own real estate. And the prices are not good right now. Bires are pulling off the market. And so the Democrat strategy with the housing market crisis, I mean, Trump doesn't even want, he's a real estate guy. He has more prices going down, but you can't do anything about it because we don't have enough people. We don't have enough young people. And so the Democrats tried flooding the country with non-citizens to create fake demand and crunch the supply. Now, what I've heard, as people said, the reason housing is expensive is because we have a shortage. This is only technically correct. There's a shortage because the houses are too expensive for the average person, but they exist. So, with sending these people out, here's what's going to happen. Property veils are going to start going way, way, way down. There's no young people buying property. And you're getting rid of the people, these foreigners who are demand. They're older. We have to do it. If, you know, I'm even thinking about Nashville, because there was a bigness at a Nashville that the prices are collapsing, particularly. Even though it's a boomtown, right? There's articles moving, Starbucks moving. You'd think the prices would go up, but they're not. They're going down. And this is good news, because it means that for bedroom house with a white picket fence and a yard and a half acre, for a Gen Z guy and gal to move into and have a family, is going to be within their grasp. Once we start eliminating the artificial demand, pumped in here by Democrats, so that boomers can have expensive houses. Yeah, well, it's funny, because I mean, JD Vance was on the stump today in Maine. And he literally said this. He said, Trump's deportations are lowering rent prices. And then, you know, of course, all these people start calming through all the different graphs or whatever. But it's like, dude, we're positing a very simple mechanism here, which is, let's do a graph. Let's just think of a graph. Illegal immigrants goes down. That means houses that illegal immigrants previously lived in goes up, which means housing supply is freed up. Housing stock is freed up. And it kind of goes back to the initial point that many have made. And it's a very salient point, which is that mass deportations literally fix everything. I mean, we're talking about housing. Again, these are houses that are being occupied by people that shouldn't be in the country. And oftentimes, these are houses, you know, if some people are like, well, these houses are in undesirable neighborhoods. Part of the reason they're so undesirable are illegal immigrants, right? So it's a very obvious going on here. It turns out that Haitians eating your cats and dogs actually devalues the property. Yeah, not good for property. And not good for property values. You know, like, no one on a cat's leg and throwing them on the grill and whatnot. It's not a good look. You know, the kids get a little nervous over that. So again, this is absolutely correct decision here revoking these visas because, you know, the visa overstays is really where we're getting burned. You know, when people think about illegal immigration, they're thinking, no, it's people, you know, just marching across the southern border, like the migrant care events we saw under Biden. Yeah. Well, the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants came in the country legally. They just overstayed their visa. Again, the tourist visa is very common. And then once they try to, like, turn that visa into an asylum claim or a different visa, they get it jammed up in the courts. These immigration lawyers, unfortunately, are pretty good at their jobs. And it causes a lot of problems. So Trump is going right to the source here of these visa overstays and just saying, no, we're going in and investigating why you're here in the first place. Because this is a point that I've made on the show previously is that for one reason or another, like, the visa requirements are imposed with, like, max scrutiny on Europeans, on Australians, on Canadians. But then when it comes to the third world, it's like, they're in an entirely different playing field. Like, they get to skimp on whatever restrictions needed and they somehow end up in the country. So again, I don't think that, you know, people are like, all this and then the H1B that Trump's cracking down on. This is going to cost us so many, you know, bright, bright minds and whatnot. I'm like, those people will find a way in the country. If there is super intelligent and that's the thing. cream that we need to skim, so to speak. Trust me, we're not going to have a problem getting them in the country. What we're doing here is not just trimming the fat, but lopping off the fat because, quite frankly, there's a lot of fat in this country, and it's killing us. So, it got to go back to that initial point, mass deportations literally fix everything. Well, as soon as, when we had the Hart-Cellar Act, there's this, the myth is that we're a nation of immigrants. Okay. Yes and no. First of all, we were, we were a nation initially of settlers. Conquerors. Yeah. Yeah. That's probably it. Settlers, conkers, sure. But it was primarily English Protestants, right? And then if you look at immigration that took place for about the first 100 years of our country's history, it was predominantly from Europe. So, it was from countries that actually had some sort of shared traditions, history, et cetera. And then in 1920, even that immigration was too much for Americans. They felt like there had been an influx and it was like, look, we need to slow this down so we can actually facilitate a simulation. We don't want, we don't want ghettos, we want people to come here to become Americans. Yep. And that, all of a sudden, it became racist in the 60s with the Civil Rights Act. And then you have Hart-Cellar. Hart-Cellar is the first time you have ever experienced mass importation from the third world in the United States. Yep. And it was, it was very much intentional because it also, it didn't just do mass third world immigration. It didn't just open it up and end the preferential treatment for cultures that are similar to our own. It actually allowed for chain migration. Yeah. So now, all of a sudden, you don't just get to immigrate to the country because we think the A will be a good fit and B, you actually have the means to contribute. Now, you came over here and you have legal status. You're not even a citizen. You have legal status. Okay, great. Your mom, your dad, your sister, your brother, your aunt, your uncle, your kids. But they now get preferential treatment when they come in open. And the concept of saying someone is a good fit for the United States, now that's just racist. Yeah. So you can't even put, you can't even, you're no longer allowed to say, look, there are some cultures that are similar to ours. And those are the cultures that we should open our borders to first. It's a situation where now, if you say, oh, well, they're very different, they come from a very different culture and they have very different background. Oh, well, now you're racist because, you know, you're racist. And that means that I don't care. Well, no, I'm going to. Yes. Yes. 100% is crazy. Is these same people that are like literally advocating for all of that and so much more? They want to go way beyond the heart seller. They want to have like mandatory diversification of an area is too white. They literally like appeal to the founding fathers all the time. Like, I don't remember this clip a few months ago from John Assof. I think it was like last month. And he was like, the founders would be delighted to see our pluralistic democracy. And I'm like, dude, the founding fathers would take a look at our current situation with everything Nick Shirley's exposed, et cetera. And they'd look all that and they'd go, oh my gosh, you guys made a Catholic president? Like, they wouldn't even be able to comprehend what's going on. They'd be like, what do you mean an Irish person out of the country talking about the first war that the US fought? That wasn't against the British was the Barbary war against the pirates. And that was after Thomas Jefferson famously bought a caron because he supposedly this like cosmopolitan kind of guy. And he flipped through it and he's like, we got it. Wow. It was crazy. Yeah. You know, what was the reason? I got some I got some new lines for your song. Yeah. The line was that when he went to the the Barbary states and said, why are you doing this? We have not progressed upon you and they said, you're in Fidel. So can you do whatever you want? And he was like, then I am going to raise a Navy and I am going to destroy you. And he did. Yeah. It was awesome. And that's kind of what Trump's been doing. Well, can you guys know why are you invading Venezuela? He's like, they're in Fidel. Look, I just want to, I just want to just, you know, sort of talk on this flex of Jefferson. He's like, I'm going to go back to America. We're going to build a bunch of boats with cannons and we're going to come and blow you up because you because I can. Yeah. That's a flex. That's crazy. We got this new idea for soldiers. They're kind of like army men, but they're also like ducks. Great idea, Tom. They're also like duck, you know, when I see stuff like this, like that in my life. So I was talking to my buddies from where we grew up. And I was mentioned in this last week, there's a video like those like a news report from my neighborhood. And that's like a shooting or something that happened. And this video for the news, it's a normal news video showing the neighborhood. There's cop cars everywhere. And the people who live in the houses are standing outside of their houses looking around. And they're like Indian and Pakistani and Chinese. And you know, that I got a beef. You know what I mean? You know, you live your life. It's just pretty crazy when I say to my friends, like you realize that that neighborhood that used to be a bunch of old people, old white people and Polish immigrants. It's now like it's Latino, Pakistani and Asian, not really Polish anymore. The Polish people are all left. And it's pretty crazy to think how rapidly it changed. But the issue that I bring up in this is one, how the culture is going to rapidly change. And it is because the restaurants we liked are gone. They're going out of business. The type of food is changing. But the old people who live there died and their kids did not take those houses or they did not have kids. I think really what probably happened is like the kids in my neighborhood, they moved. I moved. And so who's going to inherit that and buy those by those properties. So I'll just say this. I mean, understand what it means. When with with no foreigners, those houses would be largely sitting empty. I don't necessarily think that's completely true though. The house that I grew up and I think my parents bought it for something like 60 or $70,000 back in the days is like 89 or something probably less than that. I don't know. I don't surprise you. And today it's like $400,000. If there were no migrants to take these homes, well, they'd be selling for $100,000, $130,000 maybe. And some young person might be like, hey, actually, I'll actually move to the South Side of Chicago. Without that initial migration, we have to talk about the heart seller. You wouldn't have seen the massive suburban sprawl that we have now. So we're kind of in this weird situation. We're now, we'd be reducing the amount of people to, there'd be less dollars chasing housing stock, right? But if we nipped this in the butt early on, we would have never needed these massive sprawling suburbs because people would have been comfortable raising a family in the inner city. Or the fact that when I say inner city, that's like code word for bad. That wasn't a thing until 40 years ago. Like as an American, you need to understand what was taken from you. It's quite literally, we had some of the most beautiful cities on planet earth. And in our like grandparents lifetimes, they got completely eviscerated. We're a place like Chicago. You know, you look and it's like, I was making this point on Twitter. You know, the highway belts basically tell you like every crime wave or immigration wave that we saw where it's like they built another highway wave or highway loop. And then another migrant wave came in. So then they had a fall back to the next county over and then built another highway loop. It'd be fair. New York was kind of shot in the 70s. Yeah, I mean, you had, you know, you had some bad cities, but and so like, you know, New York, but, you know, prior to the 1960s, again, living in inner city, Chicago, you could raise a family there. No problem. Detroit was the second wealthiest city in America. Yeah. Yeah. And, but then you also look at the urban renewal plans that the Democrats were coming up with back then and the way they intersected cities with with the interstate and they created a lot of problems with their own urban planning and their their federal infusion of cash in some of these areas. But yeah, you just see, we also have to look inflationary monetary policies also cause the price of housing along every other freaking asset to go up significantly. So I don't think it's, I don't think it's all an immigration issue, but I do think the immigration issue is one of the most significant things that we can actually affect immediately. Yep. Well, yeah. Immigration just takes an existing problem like, for example, California with prop, was it eight in the 70s or prop 13, which basically like froze property taxes and the people are like, Oh, I never saw my house again, which is up for debate or whatever. And so far as that did create a pinch in the housing market, immigration basically just turbocharges, whatever pre existing market condition is leading to a housing pinch, immigration just takes that and sticks their thumb in the wound. Yeah, I mean, the, just like you said earlier, like, you know, getting rid of the people that are here illegally solves an incredible amount of problems because it will free up people at the ERs. It will lower the cost of housing. It will provide jobs for people that are supposed to be here for Americans. Just the amount of people that the Biden letting, the Biden administration letting not even going back prior to that, right? When Donald Trump came down the, the elevator in 2015 and announced it was like, I hadn't, I didn't really have the concept that immigration. We had a lot of a big problem with illegal immigration. Like it didn't, it didn't register with me. And then here we are now 10, 11 years later. And it's like, Oh, well, now it's clear because of the Biden administration. It was bad before the Biden administration. Well, people also understand that Biden did a lot of, Biden lot, did a lot of tricks within executive orders within refugee laws and things like that, where he turned what had historically always been illegal immigration into legal immigration. And that's, I mean, like Chip Roy and other people have actually got bills that are trying to change this and codify it. So it's not just an executive order battle. But that's the part where you will see these arrogant liberals going, oh, you don't even understand that this was legal immigration. Yeah, because it completely changed the definition of what a refugee was. Yeah. Well, it's funny too because like, you know, people used to say, well, I don't care, you know, where you're coming from as long as you do it legally, they stopped saying that during the Biden administration because Biden was like, okay, magic wand. They're here legally. And then and they're like, Oh, it's actually the people or the problem, not their immigration status. Like that's the most ridiculous claim. It's like, okay, because you got some magical piece of paper from a courthouse now all of a sudden, you're like, I don't know, flipping through a pocketbook constitution. And also, I think, you know, the volume matters too. If you were, if we didn't have, you know, yeah, 20, 30, 40 million people here that are illegal, then it wouldn't be such an issue. But like, if you had like 100,000, 200,000 people that were here illegally nationwide, be like, yeah, we can handle it. But yeah, 20, 30 million, you can't. The volume is such a key point there. Jeremy Carl makes this point about, he's talking about when he's interacted with Indian Americans, right? Like the children of Indian immigrants are potentially even first generation Indian immigrants themselves. And he says like, they're assimilation. level right is completely dictated on where they grew up. So he says you'll meet these Indian Americans and they're like American as as the next guy and typically they grew up in Idaho or they grew up in like I don't know maybe like South Carolina or something. He says the ones that are like Zoran types, those are the ones that grew up in Los Angeles or New York or Boston, not because those are liberal cities but because they were in proximity to other Indians they were allowed to form like enclaves right. It's like the volume is key because low volume means they're spread out. They're surrounded by Americans steeped in that Americanness and they kind of shake off whatever their home tended to have. Have you all seen that video of the Norwegian guy who was raised in India? Yeah. Yeah. He's talking like this. He says they do. I was trying to lift me here. And now you know, and it's he's I think he's Danish or something like that. Yeah. When in the moment, the moment the moment people started racist claim to and I'm like, look, I'll tell you what, I will I will set up the Nick Freitas immigration plan. Here's how it works. If you're Hassan Piker, we're going to kick you out of the country and I will gladly trade you with something that actually like likes America, like all of the people in Cuba trying to flee communist. We'll switch the communist in our country for the people trying to escape communism. Yes. We get polls. We get polls and Hungarians and we'll give you all the Hassan Pikers. Yeah. I mean, I think that's more important than honestly. I mean, this maybe this is because I'm Jan X, but I think that's far more important than race. Like if you love the country, yes, and you believe in the United States, I would prefer you to some some got some white guy that's like, okay, well, you know, well, you know, I'm a con. I got a question. Here's a question for you then because I talked about those with Jank Yuger a few years ago. He believes that the citizen, the naturally born citizen requirement for president is unconstitutional. Because if there's a process towards naturalization, then you you are you you are supposed to be a full-fledged citizen. My argument is that it is not possible for a person born outside of the United States to ever be a full-fledged citizen. And there's only one thing you don't understand. Well, there's two things. The natural born requirement for presidency and the right of denaturalization that exists under the INA and with the and with the Constitution. Meaning if you're born here, ain't nobody ever kicking you out or stealing you taking away your citizenship. But if you're born anywhere else and come here and live here for 20 years and they find you commit fraud or there's just a ifiable reason, they can revoke that 20 years on and kick you out. But there's an interesting point to be made when we're talking about this issue. Who would you rather have Hassan Piker born in America or Dinesh De Soza? Oh, Dinesh De Soza. He's not born here. He can't run for office. Okay. No, he can't run for office. He can't be president. That's what I mean. Hassan can. What's that? We should fix that. Yeah, we should change. And I'm not talking about making it so that way and Dinesh De Soza can run for office. I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to be. You shouldn't be allowed to hold any office in the United States. We go in the federal government at least if you're not. Oh, yeah. Well, but for the president, she was Hassan was born here. Yeah. Dinesh was not. Hassan hates this country and celebrates Chairman Mao and Dinesh De Soza loves this country and celebrates America. Well, so we have we have a small, I don't know if you guys know this. We have a small cemetery in England that is technically American sovereign territory. Now they they granted this territory does for us to maintain. Likewise, we have a similar arrangement with them. There's a cemetery. I think it's South Carolina. So I guess what I'm trying to get at here is we should consider offering the hotel, the hospital room that Hassan Piker was born in to the Turks as a gift. This is clearly someone that is of important, you know, distinction retroactively and retroactively. It's always been sovereign Turkish. So we do a land and everything. We deport them immediately. No, no, no, no, no, no, you are I'm sorry, Tate, that is just that is just too much. We should we should give to Somalia. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. We should. The ballers are. Because that sounds good. A Minnesota and he'd get free money. Yeah. That's true. Yeah. Speaking of speaking of Minnesota and free money, let's jump to the story from prime timer. Trump shares report on ice with holding records linked to alleged immigration fraud involving Ilhan Omar. Let me just cut through the noise. Just the news sent a freedom of information act request to ice related to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's alleged polygamy, not just that, but that she married her brother. That's the argument. I said, quote, I says determine the information you requested is being withheld in full person to title five USC 552 B7A disclosure of any responsive records at this time could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Ice told just the news. The exemption itself does not establish Omar committed any wrong during or their charges filed against her. Now, the presumption many people have that she is being investigated for immigration fraud by marrying her brother, but I want to stress this. It's possible. The enforcement action is related to someone entirely different for which she is tangentially involved, meaning they requested information on some immigration stuff. They've got illegal immigrants who committed fraud or immigrants who committed fraud and she pops up in the documents. That's it. Yeah. Or I mean, you know, if you want to be hopeful, naturalized, the right word hopeful is the right word that nobody deserves to be denaturalized and deported. Well, there's a, in order for her to be denaturalized, they have to prove that she attained US citizenship through fraudulent means or that her family did. And I don't think those the accusations against her, the accusations are that she after the fact married her brother to get him citizenship. Now, I will stress, the novel arguments is that if I get a job at a bank, legitimately and honestly, but then pass off my ID to my friend because the plan the whole time was to rob the bank, you're going to jail is an accomplice in which case the argument is, if she obtained immigration for the purpose of committing fraud, she can be denaturalized as well. So what was interesting is that I, not that I can prove, I believe that her dad was fraudulent when he signed immigration because again, the guy was a part of the Somali regime that was, I mean, what does it say bar or something like that? They, I mean, he had legitimately conducted genocide. Nobody debates this. Her dad had been like a lieutenant colonel in that guy's military. It's served in that guy's military for, I think, upwards of 20 years. I don't think there's any way that guy didn't have blood on his hands, which would have completely prevented him from ever becoming a citizen. He was able to get her over and then she didn't become a US citizen. So I think like, like 17 right before she became an adult where she would have had to go through a different process. I thought the way that the immigration law stated was it's not something you can be need to denaturalize for more than just defrauding the government with respect to your own. I have your parents did to naturalization. Yeah. It's a, and well, I think there's, there's other trees and obviously some other things like that where you can be denaturalized. But yeah, if she, if she used her obviously citizenship in order to commit immigration fraud, I believe that should be sufficient to be able to take her through denaturalized naturalization proceedings. They don't have to do it. But it would be a great idea. It would be a great idea because she obviously hates this country. I'm like, I'm just, oh, she's, look, the people in Minnesota, a lot of these Somalis are just siphoning money away through fake grants sending it to Somalia. Yeah. I mean, it would be great to see her get deported because she's a terrible congressperson. She's, she's likely a fraud and all that. But we got to acknowledge the fact that the person that replaces her is just going to be her again. This is a point. Yeah. This is the most, wait, wait, wait, hold on. This actually says there's other limited grounds. If you are a member of a communist organization, that's the Communist Control Act. Got to go. We got to, we got to enforce, we got to enforce the Communist Control Act. They've got it so much of it though. They haven't got it all of it. And if you come to the United States, you, you should not be allowed to become a citizen or get a, get a visa or even a green card. If you're hostile to the United States and communists are revolutionary, get them out. They shouldn't make it out. Anyone who comes to this country who's not a citizen has to be filmed on video holding up their right hand and saying, you know, I love this country. It's fantastic. I seek to do it in a harm and they can put their hand on whatever holy book they want and they have to swear it. I want to piggyback off what, what, what Phil was saying there because this important point is like, okay, you're rearranging deck chairs in the Titanic with the Alon Omar. Okay, yes, she is despicable, et cetera. But is she uniquely, like, is she uniquely a, and Congress so kind of? Yeah. But no, but no, but is she an exception to what we would expect to see from her district? I have Phil's point. There are so many Somalis there. You toss the Alon Omar out of there, which we should. I'm not saying, no, it's absolutely. Let's step on the gas here. But whoever you replace her with is going to be the exact same. Why? Because there's Somalis. This is a little country. They're all like that. This is not about getting a better Congress person out of that district. This is about setting a precedent that if you do certain things, we will actually enforce our own laws and that includes a member of people. I totally agree. I'm just, we got to have this constitutional conversation again because we were talking about before the show on the strength of the constitution and the core of the argument is basically not to derail, but the willingness to enforce your own laws. It seems that the, yeah, we put it like this. Our country is being sold out to foreigners every single day. Democrat strategy is nobody, you know, I'll put it like this. You know, you can look at modern Democrats as there's not enough kids. So we solve this problem by just bringing in foreigners. But the Democrats who advocated for abortion and do not have kids. So this is a problem that appears to be to many people intentionally created. They are, they are selling you out. The, the, the American dissent, the descendants of the Americans, the traditional Americans, heritage Americans, I don't want to call it. They're not willing to do anything to enforce these laws or stand up that these Gen Z kids who are watching Honduran farmers get free hotels in New York are, are not doing anything. Well, I think they are within the bounds of what's possible, what is reality. If you look at which group voted for Trump in the highest proportion, English Americans were number one. English Americans voted for Trump at the highest proportion. If you were gonna like distill heritage American in a one ethnicity, it would be English Americans. We haven't had much English immigration in the last 100 years. So again, within what is available to them, what is possible in reality, right? 'Cause we don't want them to throw their life away. You know, they like have a super base moment and they go to jail for us for their lives. Instead being pragmatic, getting involved in politics, et cetera. Or just simply casting a vote. The heritage Americans are pretty much doing everything that they can. This is why they're dubbed the last bulwark, et cetera. And it's a next point, like, I totally agree. I mean, like, and so far as you have to send a message to people that this kind of thing won't be tolerated, what I was getting at is that I think this could potentially be chudbait where they toss you on Omar out. And they're like, see how based is that? Meanwhile, like the main problem here, and I'm not saying you're not saying this, the main problem with you on Omar isn't you on Omar, she is just the sort of, the manifestation of the problem, which is the fact that wire Somali's going to, not just America, but the most hostile environment for them. Like, it's like the opposite of Somalia. Is there an American Tory party? Maybe you consider an American Tory party. Yeah, you know, God, King and Country. I guess the Tory party's on the way out in the UK. Yeah. Oh man, that's crazy. Well, you lost the Tories in like 1820s, I think 30s. That was good. I like that. We definitely lost it with major. Boris, the aesthetics were cool, but I thought he sucked. That was a primary rule. He was kind of like Trump in that funny. He was like, Trump in so far as he was like, looked like he just gasped out of the media all day. But yeah, he was like actually the single worst politician, maybe in Western history and immigration. Oh, yeah. Oh no, it like is bad. Like people don't understand that in the UK, they have had more migration in the last 20 years than in the previous 1000. Yeah. Yeah. That's the number of like bloating. You're listening. There's a constant kissing was talking about this. He goes, they keep saying like you're being extreme. It's like you did an extreme thing. Yeah. Right. And it's an all started under Blair in 97. But if you look at the whole impetus for letting the conservatives back into power with Boris Johnson, it was two things. Get immigration under control, solve Brexit. Like get Brexit done. Well, what? And then, and then he, and then he literally took the immigration thing and like in spinal tap fashion turned it up to 11. Yeah. It was like Brexit. Right. And they're like, we have to wait. We have too many Polish immigrants. He's like, let's just do like a million Bengalis. Great call, guys. So this is, it is, it is an attempt at Western, there isn't, there, there are powerful elites in Western countries that want global homogenization. Yeah. Yeah. So the idea is to bring in a bunch of different people forward in the same place and force them to live in this cosmopolitan futuristic utopia, which is not possible to exist. Did you take a look at any of the enclaves that have formed since they started doing this? And it's been a disaster. Not to get too esoteric, you know, forgive me, but it quite literally is the Tower of Babel 2.0. We're trying to recreate what God ordained in our image to then like ascend to like some sort of divine being like in the most esoteric fashion. That is broadly true is that they think that, you know, post-racial post-racialism broadly is like the pinnacle of human civilization. If we can just achieve that, if we can like abolish all of that in any way, shape, or form, then we'll finally reach like, but, but, but, but the problem is, no one actually wants that. Well, no, because then the problem is those same people, because there was, the elites that wanted like the Nelson Mandela thing. The main problem they forgot is that Nelson Mandela, who is like the poster boy of post-racialism, himself hated white people. Yeah. It was like, you bring in these people. When you start seeding ground of these people, they just say, oh, we have the, we have the handgun now. Okay, where's the nearest white guy? Yeah. That's the problem. That's the Carl Popper vision of the liberal experiment is like, oh, this, this post-racial hyper-tolerant society where everything is just, it's the freaking the, the imagined song, right? It's all garbage. It doesn't work. No, it's all garbage. It's not the imagined song. It's Herbert Mark Hughes and it's on purpose. No, no, no. You know, Mark Hughes. So here's the difference. That's not a song, though. Yeah. Okay. But there was, but here's the difference. Here's the difference, right? And this, like, Golly G. Willikard's tolerant universe, he doesn't care. He's a Marxist. Yes. And would he recognize as a Marxist is the same thing. The Gramsci recognize is the same thing that Simone de Beauvoir recognized. And that is critical theory, oppressor versus oppressed, use whatever identity structure helps get you into power, period the end. I, I really want to break this song down, I just really want to break. So let's start with the beginning. It's called National Anthem. I love the Beatles, man, but listen to this. Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today. That's literally happening and it's become a nightmare. Yeah. People are like, we don't care about fixing infrastructure, that's, that's tomorrow's me's problem. Yeah. Remember when they serenaded with us as we're, like, losing our elderly, like, grandparents? Oh, yeah. They're probably in hell, actually. Additionally, John Lennon, when he wrote this song, yeah, this was probably all like feasible when everyone was like 130 IQ anglos because you go back to like 1980, that's what Britain was. So yeah, John Lennon easy to write that then. What about like now, you know, you write that song now and it's like, what are you talking about? Let's look at, look at verse two. Imagine there's no country as it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for and no religion to. Imagine all the people living life in peace. This is like, with all, with all due respect to John Lennon for, you know, the great music. It's like he never read a book in his life or watched the news one time. Oh. Okay. There are places on the earth with, with disputed borders. Okay. Let's talk about what it means when there's no countries, right? And we can understand this by looking at places with disputed borders. It's not, let me just say, when no one knows where the rules begin and where the enforcement ends, they're just killing each other all the time. So if that's what you're interested in and let's just say about the no religion to, I think in the past 30 years with the decline of the Christian moral tradition in the United States, we have come to see a lot of disgusting degenerate things that are bad for humanity's survival and existence. The abuse of children, the grooming, the weird books we've seen, these things destroy the minds of children and make them, let's just, let's say afflicted adults. So I think the idea is not, and also Lord have mercy. It's, and I'm not going to, I'm not going to accuse, I'm not having theological understanding. But no religion, the problem with this and the problem I have with a lot of liberals and talk about religion is they don't understand that moral philosophies underpin many religions and they have what I would call like a holographic religion. There is no core, like, like, like to the atheists and, and look, if you're an atheist, I think you're wrong, but that's okay. You're allowed. What I'm saying is you still have a moral framework and there isn't a faith core base to it, but you still have a very similar, you have a moral framework, which is going to be similar or different or whatever. You're not getting rid of ideological frameworks and moral frameworks. So it's just no religion. Okay. Then communists run around mass incurring people and fashes due to, and there is no moral framework underpinning what a person can or cannot do or will or will not do. Yeah. With Ron Lennon, we're, it's Sean Thurman, a very widely maligned in American society, probably for some good reasons. One thing he was absolutely right on was he was trying to get John Lennon deported for like four years. Yeah. Can we just read verse three? Yeah. Because I have a very important question. Imagine no possessions. Just set a career aside. Did the Beatles own the copyright on this? Oh. Really? And let's talk about all the things they owned and did not give away and this day are still very wealthy. Yeah. I wonder if you can no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man, imagine all people sharing all the world. Okay. I just want to say this. It's a, it's a, if you change the lyrics, maybe, maybe you know what I'll do. I'm going to change you right now. I'm going to, I'm going to fix it. Um, I'm going to, I'm going to say this. You need possessions because like your ability to grow food for your family is your possessions. You, you, you, you have hunger because you're alive. It's kind of a wild. I'm assuming he's saying hunger for other things, but that is still rooted in the human experience of trying to make your life better. Okay. A brotherhood of man, imagine all people sharing all the world. It's just not possible. Someone has to do labor for the food that you ate, John Lennon. Well, I remember when John actually took all of these beliefs and put them in practice in a commune. Oh, wait. No, he never did that because they never do that. And to the extent that you actually have people that are intellectually honest and try, it generally fails after two to three years. And Bernie Sanders getting kicked out of the commune because it turns out he's a lazy douche. Like this, this stuff flies in the face of human nature. And that's why it always fails, which is why they try so hard to reinvent human nature. Yes. It's why they are always totalitarians because the only way you can control things to the degree that they want is if you have that kind of control over society, it's, it's why they assert that people are blank slaves. Yes. They can be remade in whatever image they believe, they ignore the fact that people have inclinations, people have certain different temperaments, different people are different. And that's a good thing because that means there are a small few people, myself not included, don't think that I'm trying to, you know, to my own home, but a small few people that really, really excel and they drag the rest of us morons up with them. If you, if you have a system which encourages it, yes, yes, because again, under communist system, you will have a small degree of people that really flourish in that system. Yes. There'll be the best ones that know how to use political power to punish and reward, right? But if you create the sort of economic system or social system where you are rewarded for, let's say, I don't know, doing a really effective and efficient job of using scarce resources in order to provide the goods and services which make everyone's lives better. Great, in that system, even if you're a greedy SOB, but the only way that you can actually satisfy your greed is by providing goods and services that other people have to voluntarily exchange with you on, that's the positive incentive structure. It is actually pretty good. I asked Grock to fix it. It said, here's the song, Imagine a strong nation. Borders that protect us are flag against the sky. Imagine all the people living free and true. Verse two is, imagine sovereign countries. It isn't hard to do. A homeland worth defending and faith to see us through. Imagine all Americans standing proud and free. You may say I'm a German, not the only one. It's the same course. And this land, oh, this is amazing. The last line of the chorus is, and the land will stand as one. Verse three is, Imagine hard work rewarded. I wonder if you can, no forced redistribution, just liberty for men. Imagine all the people keeping what they earn. (laughing) - Yeah, it was that Grock. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. - The last one was to smack in the face. - Oh, and then if he never took LSD. (laughing) - That's John Lennon, if he stayed alive. If he wasn't murdered and he was able to watch a Prager U video, that would be John Lennon. - No, no, no, no, no, no. - He'll go, oh no. If you'd asked chat GPT, that it would have been like, imagine doing exactly what chat GPT. - No, no, no, no. I'm willing and it'll say, I can't do that because of copyright. And I bet, let's actually do this. I'm gonna ask chat GPT. It might do it. - Yeah. - Chat was like, I agree. - Great point. - Great point, Tim. - Yeah. - This is awesome. I should be your religion. - Yeah. - So true. - Yeah. - A great point. - Who was that again, John? (laughing) - Smart guy. - He did. He wrote a song. I'm not sure if it was Lennon or the Beatles. But as a small silver lining to overall John Lennon, I'm not that I'm a big Beatles fan, but he wrote a song where he was actually calling out Mao Zedong because the, the, you know, the great leap forward and stuff happened before their time. And that stuff wasn't widely known, but it had begun, we were starting to make its way through. And he actually said, you know, he was like, if you're, if you're, I forget what the lyric was, it was something like, but if you're, if you want to be like Mao, then, you know, leave me out of it or something. - Part of the reason he hated Mao so much is because he was counter-settling everything Nixon did. And at the time, Nixon was like pro, like opening China's markets. So that's one of the main reasons. - Nothing to do with the deaths. - I mean, maybe. I would pause it, John Lennon's greatest moment. There's not many of these. There's when he wrote a woman called, a song called "Woman is the End Word of the World." (laughing) - Yeah, GPT actually did a better job in my life. - So true. - Really? Imagine faith still guides us. Our father stand behind us, old glory in the sky. Imagine all the people living by their creed. Verse two is, "Imagine loving country." It isn't hard to do. Something to stand in fight for and faith to guide us to. Imagine all the people living proud and free. You may say I'm old fashioned, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll stand with us and our nation will stay strong. Imagine homes and families. I wonder if you can with father, sons, and daughters, all doing what they can. Imagine all the people keeping freedom strong. That was, that was not bad, but I still think the last line of Grock, kind of. - Grock, I'm hooked there. - Oh, Claude, literally, was just like, "Here you go," and it just made it the opposite. - Oh, really? - So it says, "Remember there's a heaven, "his plane, if you would look, a hell beneath us, "this song sucks, a judgment past the sky. "Remember all the fathers kneeling in the frost?" They just literally like, "We're just gonna head sucked." (laughing) - I'm asking you to rewrite it if John Lennon was a chod. A little too on those. You may say I'm a chod, but I'm not the only one. (laughing) - Now, make it rewrite if it was a gripper. - Oh, be cool. - Let's see if it works. 'Cause then I did, but what if he was an in-sell chod? This is where he started to get some magic. Imagine no hypergamy. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to simp for, and no feminism, too. (laughing) Imagine all the people lifting in peace. You may say I'm a chod, I'm not the only one in some field join us, and all the chads will be gone. (laughing) - Now that's a song. (laughing) - Now that's a song, the fat chod version. - I would have respected it more if it actually took the real definition of chod, and just talked about eating people and living in the sewers. (laughing) - Cannibalistic humanoid underground. - Imagine no orbiting. I wonder if you can, no need for blue pill cope, just a brotherhood of mine. (laughing) - This is fantastic. This is great. John Lennon, if he was bass. John Lennon, if he wasn't the K. (laughing) Yeah, this is a good, yeah, that's a rematch. - Oh, man. - I mean, it's proving that AI actually can be useful. - Yeah. - You may say. - I told Grock to say, right, it is a red-pilled chad, wrote it. - Chad, no, I don't want to hear that crap. (laughing) - Had you specifically calling out hypergamy is just, that's what we need to do. - That's the motivation, oh, hypergamy is the big issue. (laughing) - Ooh, there was so much. - I disagree, I disagree. - Mass medication and contraception. - Disagree, hypergamy. - Like, imagine what would be like though, if there was no birth control. There'd be babies everywhere. - There'd be people. - They'd be running around. - Mm. - You'd have to be running towards peanuts and you'd be chasing after them, trying to get them not to eat it 'cause they could choke on it, you know? - It'd be over. - It'd be over. (laughing) - John Lennon, John Lennon, if you can hear me please, John Lennon, please save me John Lennon. (laughing) - He's looking up at you. - I gotta be honest, like, it made it serious. - This is not funny, my version's not funny. It's just like, imagine a strong country, no bombing before the crowds, like, - I mean, that's still good. - Yeah, I know, but it's like, if I said red pill jet, it should have been funny or like hypergamy or something. - Yeah. - Imagine all the people ♪ I'm going their own way ♪ (laughing) ♪ You may say I'm a child ♪ ♪ But I'm not the only one ♪ - All right, I said, now is if an in-sell wrote it says, I can make the narrator an exaggerated, terminally online in-sell character, bitter self-pidding resentful of dating apps and chads. (laughing) So, wait, wait, wait, this is funny. It's sad I can make them resentful of chads, but not women as a group. - What? - So it literally rags on chads. - Chads. - I gotta say, I've never been more proud of the Gen Z and the millennials that are breaking off their girlfriends and engagements now based off of how they responded - I would be clearly. - Oh dude, if your girlfriend or your fiance is like, yeah, I'm sympathetic to the woman that strangled all three of her kids. Making up with her is definitely an appropriate way. - That is a 100%. - Imagine being handsome. It isn't hard for Chad. Nothing but dates on Friday while I'm alone and mad. (laughing) - That's just disgusting. - There was a, there was, something came up, it was like this reddit chat that I saw it was, I saw it on YouTube. And it was a woman who was like, everything you would expect of like an HR, liberal woke HR rep. And she was talking about, she was noticing something that had happened differently with the men in her life that she had an experience over the last five years. And it was all of them were now just ignoring her. Every time she would try to engage with, you know, every time she would try to educate them on the proper way to-- - Oh god. - She goes, it used to be that we'd get in fights. Like I'd get in fights with the uncle that Thanksgiving or whatnot. Now they literally just look at me and like, okay, cool. And then they just go on and use all of a sudden it's this weaponized indifference. And how do I deal with this weaponized indifference? They won't talk to me. And I'm like, yeah, that's, I got bad news. That's 'cause our tribe technically doesn't need your tribe in order to secure like our rights. - Literally. - I think one of the biggest things that a lot of, and first of all say this, there's a lot of conservative women that are every bit as pissed with Lindsey Clancy. Like, yeah, in my feed, the conservative women is like, this is, there's a sort of crazy, this bizarre and crazy. But actually, the real conservative women aren't on the internet. - Well, I don't, - Real conservative, I'm like, who? - I don't think that, I honestly don't think that women understand what a catalyst moment this is. There's been a lot of conditions set for young men to just be fed up. This is the one where I don't think they realize you could look back in 20 years and be like, oh, this is where we lost the right to vote. - Yeah, literally. - Because the bottom line is, as women become more tribal, men are becoming more tribal. And bad news, our tribe doesn't need you to secure our rights. You need us to help you secure yours. - Yep. - And people are like, oh, Nick Freider says advocating, no, I'm not advocating it. I'm telling you, you get tribal to this degree. We're not only can you kill our kids in the womb through all nine months of pregnancy, but now you can strangle them on the outside and you're the one that gets sympathy. And the husband is to blame. That's where you move men into the screw you phase of the exercise. - Yeah, literally Nick Freider says, like, an evil chud because you can't slime out your family. (laughing) - Ridiculous. - I'm one of those old school Christian traditioners. - If you guys ever watched the abolitionist rising stuff. Have you ever seen any guys? - Yeah. - I recommend it. It's really good. It's amazing. And my actual favorite ones are when he has real conversations. - Yeah. - When the people are just screaming at him, I'm like, I know, like I've been there too. And it's like, you can't stop watching because he's so calm like these guys. And the funniest thing about them, and the reason why I love them so much, well, the good conversations are good conversations, but the funny ones are when like women will yell, do you have a uterus? And then when the woman is with them, they just drop it and they yell anyway. - Yeah. - Like it never really matter if the question was about a uterus. - No. - It's when a yell. - Yes. - Yeah. - Yelling through ice. I think what everyone's missing is that all we need to do as a society is create decoy things to be mad about that don't affect the state of like, you know, political affairs economy. What was the point of like keeping up with the housewives or whatever was like preoccupied by the foids while the men like build rocket and then now that we want to like get involved in politics. Who is the comedian? Oh, man. I can't remember. I just blanked on his name, but he got up there and he's like, Hey, I'm just saying with the family, you guys, your timing was excellent. It's like for centuries, men were out there when it was like 80% of the occupations were back breaking labor. Yeah. Oh, go kill that dinosaur. You're so strong and brave. I'm going to go pick berries as soon as we got air conditioning. It's like, I want equal rights. Yeah. That's a good point. Yeah. I mean, in all seriousness, because there are no women that are lying men, they're not working on oil rigs. You know, there's like one out of every thousand. This is an important point out to bring up is that women always complain about the glass ceiling, but they never talk about the glass floor. No. Sure. And that is that there are guys who are unskilled and have to put it very simply. If you're a young man in this country and you're looking for work, you're going to be told to shovel, shovel crap. They're going to say, and use your hands. And if you're a young woman, they're going to say, How would you like to make $100 every few hours, handing so does to people at a restaurant. Easy, easy, low-skilled jobs that pay really well. But then guys find, I'll tell you, you know, I think one of the problems with how feminism becomes emergent. So you're a young man, life is pretty bad, right? You have no skills, you have low societal value, and you have to learn and earn your skills. And if you don't, and you become frail and stupid, you're just worthless to people. So guys grow up in a muck where it's hard to get work. The work you get sucks, you get paid very little. As time goes on and you get more skills, many men, not all, but many men, start to think they climb out of the sewers and they make their way up into their mid 20s, they start getting jobs that pay better. And they're like, you know, it's going to be all right. Life's improving as I get better at what I do. And so they work harder and harder, and then their 30s, they're like, you know what, they ain't so bad. Women, on the other hand, they grew up with maximum social value. This is not my personal opinion. This is actually research from like Harvard and Yale stuff. And so when they enter the workforce, they get medium level jobs, they tend to pay more for less work. I'm not saying women don't work hard. I'm saying that, you know, I know young dudes who had to literally shuffle manure and they'd get 20 bucks a day. And then, you know, their siblings, the dude's sister worked at a local Italian restaurant and she made 200 bucks working four hours because serving paid better and they don't want to hire men for the most part for entry level server, server jobs typically. So then these women, they're making 200 bucks working a few hours or they're getting hired at small shops while the guys are doing the labor stuff. But as time goes on, their social values are to decline. And this is around, I think that the age is around 27 is when the apex, I'm sorry, the inversion happens. Men at around 27, 28 have equal social value to women, but women have started to decline while men are ascending. So now these women are starting to say things like, hey, bad things are starting to happen to me and I don't like it. And men are starting to say, hey, life's actually not that bad. What happens then in the early 30s when women are now experiencing more hardship because society, and I'm not saying it's right, the society treats women this way, but society starts to value them less in their 30s and men more for their skills. The men who are highly tolerant of hardship and don't really care, you know, if you're a guy, you've been in a fight before, you're just like, I'm just, I'm not going to break a sweat over this. It's you've been there, done that. And so when a woman comes up and she's complaining about feminists, issues, the guys just say, yeah, yeah, whatever. I mean, this is, this is, this is ridiculous. Like, who cares? Like I have a bigger thing to worry about. And so the men start granting more and more to these women who are complaining because the men are just like, these are trivial issues, but eventually a grain of sand becomes a heap. And then you have large groups of angry, affluent, white female liberals voting for really awful things. They believe they're oppressed when they're actually privileged and they're angry about it. Because we're just like, you know, honestly, don't care, I've seen worse, like when I, like, and they're not cognizant of what's actually happening as this, as they continually open the door for people who don't really have problems to implement policies based on problems that never existed. Well, I think the other, the other problem, and this is, there was a pastor actually that I was just talking to, he's in Birmingham and he said it best. He goes, you know, Nick, part of the problem is men were lied about and women were lied too. Oh, yeah. Yes. It's the whole idea of men were told they suck their horrible, their crap, the whole deal, and women were told they're perfect and they're wonderful and they're great. And they're only flaws. They don't believe in themselves enough, right? Like that was it. And the problem is is you, you could not have found a more pernicious way to lie to both men and women because if your goal is to like destroy the family or your goal is just whatever your goal is, that was the best way to do it because it creates the most resentment and animosity between both sides. But I do have to wonder if it's really a bad thing in the long run because while there are bad things happening from it, the strong will survive, the hard times make strong men. And what we end up seeing is, in fact, population is declining, but only those who are really trying to succeed. And I know a lot of people are going to say, no, no, Tim is a lot of accidental babies. Trust me, with the way the liberals abort, accidental babies are becoming something of the past. And the people who are successfully reducing to those who believe in family, want family, think about what that results in in a couple generations. Oh, the dominant culture in this country will be traditionalist Christian. If you look at, when they, when they pulled young men and young women between 18 and 29 who voted for Trump and who voted for Harris, the number one goal of young men who voted for Donald Trump was to have a family. At 13 measures of success, I was the number one. It was six for women that voted for Trump. It was 10 for men that voted for Harris. It was 12 out of 13. And the only reason it wasn't 13th is because the 13th was like to be like rich and famous. It was like everyone kind of low key understood, well, I can't answer that. That would make, you know. And so when you look at that and then you look at the, the birth rate among liberal women is 0.38, that's, that's unsustainable. And so if the left can't import a population or, and this is the big problem that I get on the conservators about, like if you hand your kids over to the left for their education, and you cannot be surprised when your values they can transfer to them. I mean, this, as, I remember when I was a kid going to school, I despised it. I had very few good teachers, a couple that I can shout out that were very good. And most of them were just apathetic, nasty, and it was an awful experience. And you know, Michael Mellis said, public schooling is one of the only places outside of prison where, or, or Juvie, where children experience violence and, but it, but it's, I mean, it's like, it's like a known thing. And I'm thinking about how humans used to raise their kids on the farm together. The kids would be educated by mom for a little bit, sometimes they're little, little, little local schoolhouses and the parents would do teaching, but you grew up on the farm. You learned from mom and dad. If you were the daughter, you learned from mom, you're the son you learned from dad, and you grew up. So it's fascinating to me when I hear this stuff about how like, oh, you know, kids rebel. Like I have people saying to me, like, your kid's going to rebel against you and they're going to listen to hip hop and weird stuff, I'm like, no, no, it's not going to happen. But, you know, I got into an argument with the guy. I won't drag him by name, but he's talking about how his kids all did this. And I said, yes, because you gave your kids away to the state. You gave your children at five years old to institutionalized learning facilities run by communists. And then you were surprised. A few years later, it was like, my kids are rebelling against me. How come that didn't happen in, you know, the 1700s? Yeah. Certainly, there was instances where kids would be rebelling against their parents, but blood was always thicker than water. And people stood by their families and their communities to a greater extent. So I, we homeschooled all three of our kids. They're now 23, 20 and 18. And whenever people ask me about homeschooling, because you always get the quote, what about socialization? What about this? What about that? I, there's one thing I like to leading with. I'm like, teenage years were the easiest. I'm like, what? I'm like, yeah, teenage years were the easiest. Like, why? Because they shouldn't be when you're kids in infant, they can't do anything for themselves. That's hard. When they're toddler, they're constantly trying to kill themselves. That's hard. And then they get into being teenagers and what happens? Now I can have rational conversations with them. And oh, by the way, they see mom and dad as an educator. Why? Because I've never stopped being an educator from the time they were little to the time they're now. Now does that mean I was the only educator in their life? No. There was other educators. There was other people that contributed to their learning and knowledge and wisdom. But I never sent them to a place where all of a sudden, in their minds, they're thinking, this government expert is the one that teaches me and mom and dad just provide food, cool of the in shelter. So therefore, when the teacher tells me something that contradicts with mom and dad, I go with the teacher because they're the expert, right? I just want to point something out. You remember the show, Rugrats? Yes. Just in the context, they're saying toddlers are trying to kill themselves. Tommy had a screwdriver under his pillow hidden so that he could pop the latch on the play place. And I'm just thinking to myself, like, first of all, the things that poor childhood, I'm carrying around that screwdriver, but let's just imagine he doesn't kill himself with the screwdriver. He pops the latch open. The first thing he's going to do is he's going to waddle over to a peanut left on the ground, a half peanut. And he's going to put in his mouth and hail it and then just collapse. And the parents are going to be like, how did he get out? Why did he have a screwdriver? I got to be honest, if the Rugrats show is in real life, those parents would have those kids taken away from them all along. They're like breaking out of the house and like walking around the neighborhood. Just genx kids. What are you doing? No. Yeah. I mean, my kid is getting into the tie, just about tie the face, he's almost a year. And every day, I'm trying to, like. take something, some foreign object out of his mouth. - 'Cause I always try to blow stuff up with the power outlets. - Yeah, amazing. - He was trying to stick a finger in the, there's a cat-five in the house, I'm not sure why they put it in there, but anyways, he's trying to stick his finger in the cat-five and I'm like, no, and then he looks at me and goes, (laughing) - Boy, that's dope. - I'm like, bro. - My son, my son, I came back from my second tour and my son, we hear this crash upstairs, I go running upstairs and my son had literally been climbing up a dresser. And it was like the one thing we had and anchored to the wall, right? And not only does it fall back on him, but there's like this rocking chair so the back of his head gets put there. His head splits over, spinal fluid coming out. I'm rushing to the hospital. This is bad for like three days, we're not sure if he's gonna make it. And then by like day four or five, he's good. He's good and he's through the thick of it and we're all just, so we're in the hospital for a couple weeks or whatnot or whatever it was and then we come home. And by this time we've got everything anchored, right? We come home, he starts to climb something. I'm like, what are you doing? And this kid looks at me and goes, what? I'm like, how old was he when that happened? Oh, he was like three, it was like three. He did that again, he just got a bill on for that. Yeah, that's what I did. You know what I'm talking about? Like the birth rate of women and stuff. Part of me is just, there is a visceral anger that I have towards the political interests that have convinced women not to have children. Because I mean, like any, the thing, like what these young men miss out on because they were convinced not to have kids is like ripping one of the greatest experiences of life away from them and tricking them into thinking it was the right thing to do. As if I'm gonna be honest, as if being a 35 year old woman partying at the club and getting drunk, is in any way near the joy of having a child. You know, well, there was some, some gal posted this out. I can't remember her name, but she goes, you know, they told us that we could wait. They told us that kids could wait and then sold it back to us at $25,000 a pop. Yeah, oh, man. It's like, damn. Unreal. And it's, it's true. But again, none of this has to be. So like my youngest daughter, my youngest daughter, she was growing up. This is another thing I love about homeschools. When she got into middle school and high school, we're not talking about like the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. We're like, hey, you probably need to be thinking about what do you want to do with your life and what sort of things do you want to advocate. And she goes, she's going through and she's like, you know, I think I really want to be a veterinarian. We're like, okay, this is difficult field. There's very few universities. You got to work really hard. You need straight A's. There is no, I got to be here. You got to do internships. And so we're going through this whole process of doing it. And she gets into her better sophomore year of high school. And she comes in one day and she goes, dad, I've done the math on the veterinary thing. She goes, I think I'm gonna go to vet tech school, which is like a two year associates degree. I said, okay, well, I mean, why? I mean, don't back out 'cause it's hard. Why do you not want to do this? She goes, well, she goes, it's gonna cost me about $250,000. Probably it's gonna be at least, at least minimum, six years of school. That means I get out, I'm around, you know, 24, 25. She goes, then I really got to be in practice because I got to be making money 'cause I got to pay off $250,000 in student loans and all this other stuff. And she goes, when am I, like when am I really raising my kids? She goes, so if I do vet tech, I can now get into the field. I can do the things that I love. I can be a wife and mother. I can actually have kids in my early mid 20s, which is when I want to have them. I can homeschool, I can do all these other things. And then oh, by the way, I can still work in this field and I can still be entrepreneurial. And if I want to become a veterinarian later, I can, I can't have, it's gonna be a lot more difficult to have kids later than is to become a veterinarian later. Yeah. And I'm like, that all makes sense to me. And the thing is, is that if she were in a public school, I promise you teachers, counselors, everyone would be lining her up to be like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Don't prioritize being a wife and mother. You need to prioritize this. And people will tell me that that's hyperbolic. Simone, back to Simone de Beauvoir was in a debate, prominent feminist in the 70s, was in a debate. And she actually said, women should not be allowed to be wives and mothers because if we allow that to be an option, too many of them would choose it and would disrupt the revolution. Yep. And then society sees a defunction and humanizes to exist. Yes. You know, and that's the funny thing too, they do argue, have your kids later, freeze your eggs. I'm like, all of that's nonsense. You know, that story, I'm sure you saw, AOC freezing her eggs, right? I don't know, we did the math on the show, and we don't know over the six, in vitro success rates, right? So she's, how old is she? She's 37. 37? Yeah. 30, 30. She's 37, I think, right? I think she's 37, yeah. Let's, let's, let's, let's double check. AOC age, I think she's 37, right? She's 36. Okay. So what's the point of freezing her eggs? Is she going to have a child in two years? Okay, well, then she doesn't need to. Is she going to have a child when she's 42? Okay, well, the success rate there is about 7% or less. It's not going to work. So really, there is no such thing as you can freeze your eggs and have it later because the success rate in vitro is, is, is single digits at 42 plus single digits. If women have children at the traditional adult age, like mid, early mid 20s, then by the time you're kids, like your kids, how, how, you, you, you, you would know better than I. So let's, for, for people out there who don't have kids, at what age do the children still, they still need guidance but they become largely self-sufficient. Oh God. When they get into like 11, 12, depending on maturity level, girls mature a little bit faster, boys are still trying to like kill themselves with that, right? But no, I don't know if they never saw. 11, 12, like our kids were cooking dinner and, and doing laundry and schoolwork and. So now, you know, let's say, especially when you reward maturity. Oh, yeah. Let's say, woman's 24 years old, you know, maybe a little late traditionally, but around 24 seems to be okay. And so by the time she's 35, but 34, she's back on track with the career for the most part. Kids are largely self-sufficient. You can sometimes get babysitters, but, you know, you got good kids, you raised them. And now you've got 40 plus years for anything you want to do and you had kids. And if you wait, the risk to the kids is greater and then there's a risk you can't even have kids. Yeah. When you're, you're probably going to have fewer. And that's, and that's the other thing too. They say the hardest number of kids to have is three, which is how many I have. I'm the oldest of nine. Whoo. The, what's, what's, I know is a real slacker. Real disappointment, you have a father. But yeah, it's one of those things where the more kids you have, the more they start to help one another and, you know, contribute and do all these things. And so you really become what a family unit is supposed to be. And, and family, there's a guy named Jeremy Prior. He has this thing he does called family teams. And one of the big things he talks about is the Western concept of the family doesn't make a great deal of sense. Because it's, it really is kind of a temporary structure. You, you, you might, you find a girl, you get married, you have kids, you raise them really teen, you kick them out. And then by that, and when you have the kids, right, the entire life is the kids. It's 14 soccer practices and ballet, recitals, and everything else. The marriage doesn't mean anything anymore. It's all about getting the kids in a good school, why? So they can become gay, race, communist, and you come out of your class, right? So that's what it is. And then by that time, you, you know, if you fall in love with your wife and you guys don't relate anymore because your whole life revolved around the kids and then you golf and, and whatever. She drinks wine with her friends and complains about you. (laughs) And he was saying, or imagine a world where, you know, on Sunday dinner, great-grandpas and great-grandmas at the end of the table. And little Billy and little Susie are at this side of the table. And you are watching four generations that they're in have a conversation knowing what the roles they play through each generation looks like. And as he's talking about it, I'm like, man, I want that. He goes, yeah, every man does because men like to focus on building things of permanence. - Do you remember when Chelsea Handler made that video, when Superviral, and she was like, I wake up in the morning, I do drugs, I myself, and then I'm super happy to go back to bed, wake up. You know, a bunch of conservatives came out and they insulted her. Ben Shapiro said, that woman is miserable. She is absolutely miserable. And like she responded, I didn't say that. I made a video where I said, I think Chelsea Handler is probably happier than a pig in-ish. I mean, she wakes up, she's rich, she does whatever she wants. She just, I'll tell you this, though, you know, she can go out and she can buy whatever she wants now, she can get a nice limo, she can fly anywhere in the world. She's gonna be 77 years old. She's gonna be in the hospital in this white room. The doctor is gonna walk in and say, Miss Handler, I'm sorry, but it's terminal. Is there someone you'd like me to call? And she's gonna go, no, and he's gonna say, well, press the button if you need us. And then she's gonna sit there as she slowly dies staring at the wall. Or, if she had a family, she could be in the hospital, and the doctor comes in with a chart and her children and grandchildren are all there, crying, scared. And she smiles and says, it's okay, everybody. I know that you'll carry on without me, and I lived my life the best I could, and all I needed was you, and then they're gonna hug her and say goodbye, grandma. And then as she passes on with a smile on her face, it's still very sad. Maybe she's sick, maybe it's unpleasant, but she knows that as she leaves, everything she built is standing there before her to carry on her legacy. So I, you know, I saw that story and I was like, she's happy now, drugs make you happy. But I could not imagine a worse hell to impose on someone than sitting in a hospital. There's a, I can't remember what the story was from. It might've been like Donnie Darko, where he talks about how his dog, I think it was Donnie Darko, one day went missing and they couldn't find it. He went, yeah, I think pretty sure it's Donnie Darko. And then they found the dog, had went under the porch to die alone. And it's like, this is what people do. And I've always just thought that is like, that is the most, like extreme torch rack would think of. - Yeah. - Sitting there, [BLANK_AUDIO] out. No one cares about you. You've left nothing behind. Just congratulations. You worked real hard, I suppose. And you made some people laugh. But by the time she's, you know, nearing the, the, the great beyond, no one's going to remember who she is. Well, did you ever see that interview? Jordan Peterson was doing with a, the gal, she said she was 38 and she goes, what do you say to me? Like, I'm single and I almost feel a little bit blessed because I'm 38 and I don't have to deal with all the things that I see my friends struggling with with kids and all these other things. And Jordan Peterson was just in, in typical Jordan Peterson form, very nice. He goes, well, he goes, you know, you've had a very filling career. He goes, I've also had a filling and interesting career. He goes in that. I'm sure that it's something that brings you a lot of joy and, and meaning he goes, but I have found that the older I get, the more family relationships mean to me. And he talks about, and he basically talked about something very similar to you. And, and I think about this now as a man who is probably relatively soon going to be a grandfather. And I now get to go because when you have kids, you're, you're, I mean, you were just running around trying to make everything work and the trains all run on time and, and your kids are fine and the whole deal. And so there's stuff that you miss. You can see a lot of stuff. There's stuff that you miss. And somebody once told me like, Oh, Nick, being a grandparents great because you get to which you, you get to watch your kids grow up a second time. But this time you've actually got the time to really experience. Yeah. Now you're chilling. And, and I, I was thinking about the, the first, when I came home from Iraq, Iraq in 2006. And I took my kids to, to Disneyland for the first time. And I'm watching my, my oldest daughter, my son was really, really young. So he doesn't remember. But my, my oldest daughter, she had watched the Disney movies and the whole deal. And when she, when we watched, you know, Mickey defeat the dragon and all the fire comes in. And, and for all, for my little girl, I'm watching everything is real. That's a real dragon that is really Mickey and Mickey is really saving her from that dragon. And the next day she is just, she sees Mickey. And it's like, you saved me like she, but you were just watching this most wholesome experience as she's getting to see all of this. And I'm getting to see that I'm, I'm the observer to it. And it's like, man, that's an incredible experience. I mean, here I am like 20 years later saying, man, there's this one time at Disneyland. You know, I have, I have a handful of friends. They're all middle aged and they're single with no kids. And, you know, a couple of my buddies are like, I'm just feeling down, you know, like, I don't know. I'm, I'm bored. I don't know. I'm doing in like, I've been depressed. And I said, yeah, it's because you're middle aged and you've got no family and no kids. And I, I put it like this, you know, when I was a young man, I wanted to see everything. And so I got jobs where I traveled around the world. And I went to various countries and I went on crazy adventures and I witnessed history in some circumstances. All of that was so amazing. And then into my early 30s, you know, we're starting all this business and everything's exciting and new and we're goofing off. And this is really the peak of like, I have done it all, you know, I built a skate park. I mean, and then it's boring. You know, I don't know how many more, it's nice to go to countries that I want to go to. It would be, it would be nice to go to Barcelona again and have some nice squid croquettes and, you know, whatever it may be. But I've done those things. And now, you know, I'm, I'm an older dad. I mean, I just had a kid recently. So I recommend people have their kids younger, younger than I did. That's when, when people ask me questions about, do you want to go to this country? It's more so what do I want to do for my daughter? Yeah. And I'm having more fun with that. It's, it's, it's, it's, you know, I kind of feel like the, when you're younger, everything's more vibrantly colored and everything tastes sweeter. And as a good older, it's like, it's my, it's, I got to be honest, it's my 12,000 pizza. I mean, I got to be honest, it's probably more than that. I'd imagine we've eaten substantially more pizza than that. At a certain point, you're yeah, it's good. Yeah. But when you, you know, give ice cream to your kid for the very first time, it's like having ice cream for the first time all over again. Yeah. When, uh, you know, I, I, I don't want to get too personal with my family's stuff or the fun stuff we've do because I'll keep that stuff private. But, you know, the videos where they give the kid the lemon and, you know, that's the thing every man. Yeah, it's the most mundane thing in the world to me to, to buy on a lemon. I don't care. Yeah. But when you're doing it with your kid for the first time, it's like doing it all over again. But so I say this to the, to the people who haven't started their families, I, I get worried because I think, you know, these middle aged guys that, uh, I, and I want to have kids. Don't get me wrong. It's not like they're not trying it. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, it's really difficult in the, in the modern, uh, sighting culture. But I'm like, I think the reason why you guys are feeling listless, bored, depressed is because the human body is built for at this point, you are expecting to be a grandparent. And you haven't even had your first kid yet. So you're largely bored with all the stuff you've done. You've been to the bar now for the eight thousandth time. You've, you've pulled a slot lever for the 50th thousand time you've had your 50th chicken win 50th thousandth chicken wing. Normally for human beings, you would have raised kids and now you'd be excited to see the next generation, your grandkids in your mid 40s. Yeah. It's wild to think you'd be in your mid 40s. You'd be a grandparent. I, I was, I was married at 19. Um, I will probably, I'll be a grandparent in my 40s. Very confident of that. And someone asked me like, you know, what's your next life goal? I said, I want to climb trees with my great grandchildren. Oh, man. That's my goal. I want to climb trees with my great grandchildren. Well, if you think about, uh, it was not out of the question for a 20 year old woman to have a child 100, 200 years ago. And so, uh, grant, uh, grant. So, so mom is, is now 40. Daughter is 20 had her first kid. So grandma's 40. Then 20 years go by. Now great grandma's 60, you know, mom is, is 40. Great grandma's 80. They're all hanging out in the same house, having dinner together and she grew up with great grandma. Yeah. And now we just to lay it longer and longer for a variety of reasons. I do, I do think the, the academic crisis, you know, 2008 played a massive role in this. For me, I mean, I was sleeping on floors. What was I going to do, you know? Yeah. But, uh, but I think the biggest, I think the biggest crisis is the men have been lied about women have been lied to because you look at poor countries. They have a ton of kids. Yeah. Right. I think, so I think the economics factors into it. I think the expectations associated with the sort of life you have to provide. But, um, there, there's something to be, I'll put it this way. In America, we talk a lot about our freedoms. And freedoms are great. I want freedoms. I want to live in a free country. But the things that give me the most meaning in my life are my responsibilities. That's something that is super important. It's one of the things that I really, really don't like about the libertarian party is they talk about liberty and they never talk about the corresponding responsibility because every liberty that you have all, all freedoms that you enjoy come with a responsibility. And, and people don't talk about responsibility enough that we live in a society that wants to avoid responsibility as much as possible. I think, I think that's true. But the thing that I specifically mean here because 100% agree with that. My first career, my first grad at high school, afforded me the opportunity to know what it's like to think you're about to die. And in that moment, I was not thinking about my freedoms. I'm thinking about my wife. I'm thinking about my kids. I'm thinking about all the things that essentially take away my freedom, but in the best way possible because I have responsibilities to them, but they give me a sense that my faith gives me a sense of identity, purpose, and meaning that cannot be replaced with anything else. Let's jump to news. We got this from ABC seven. Oh man. Leftist streamer Hassan Piker mocks Charlie Kirk during a live show. This video is absolutely insane to watch. There is evil. It's all I can say. Let's play the video here. Excuse me. What theater is that? You can see he also posted carried the flame tonight. Uh, and he's wearing a communist uniform suit. Yeah. These people are over evil. Uh, over evil. Lauren Chenseis Hassan met Charlie many times. I was on a panel with them at Politicon. They were fire in stage, but joeville and amicable with each other once it was done. Charlie would have mourned Hassan had he been shot. Hassan on the other hand chooses to mock. I don't think mockery is, that's the right word. I would say he's celebrating Charlie's death. Yeah. He's on stage singing a song to deride the life of Charlie Kirk while everyone cheers for it. I think that is celebrating in the death of Charlie Kirk. No, I did. I remember I told somebody once Charlie getting murdered, didn't change everything for me, watching the left react for it. That's what changed everything for me. And that's where I first realized like, okay, you guys are not my fellow countrymen. You are my enemies. You are my enemies. Yep. And, and that's, that's what shifted. The speaker, the house in Virginia and I had a bit of an online fight about it. And it was like, well, that can't be true. Like, what do you mean? I mean, show me how it's not true. Show me how it's not true. - Absolutely can be true. - Yes. - And it is. - And it is that the people that are talking about, you know, violent revolution, which Hassan Piker doesn't specifically, well, he actually might have specifically said it at some point on his dreams, he streams a lot. But they're not actually talking about, you know, the Fabian Socialists, where they gain power by being voted in, they want to get enough power to protect themselves in order to carry out violence. Because that's how you would actually get the rest of society to not push back. If you can be violent, which was happening during the summer of the Black Lives Matter riots, they were allowed to be violent and the rest of society couldn't do anything back. You looked at it, whether or not, you know, whether whoever it was, you look at the proud boys, right? Regardless of what you feel about, regardless of what your opinion is in the proud boys, they were the pushback and the cops always went after them. And so then the normal people were like, you know, people that weren't engaging in either, you know, violence or trying to push back on it. They're like, well, it's clear what'll happen to me if I try to fight back. I can't defend myself. The guy that someone shot into his house and he shot at someone or something like that in somewhere in the Pacific Northwest, he got a, or no, I think he brandished a weapon. They were walking by and he branched a weapon. And the police came and arrested him for brandishing a weapon at a protest. It's like you know clearly what will happen to you if you try to respond to violence carried out on you with, you know, equal force. The police are gonna come and they're gonna arrest you. We, you see this most clearly. And you want to talk about a country I think is, it's still several years ahead of us, but not that far. It's the UK. This is what happens when you have, again, you have a political elite that hates their own culture and country. You have a political elite that is, you have a police force that is more terrified of being called racist than anything else. And how many times do we got to see the, it's no longer a meme anymore, but how long do we got to see it where, again, you know, you'll have an immigrant trying to chop up somebody's head in the middle of the street. And the police seem more concerned with the people that tweet about it afterwards. And there's no question that if the same sort of people reached a critical mass in the United States, they would do it because they already do do it in the places for which they think they have enough control like Minneapolis. They don't do it in rural Tennessee. - They're doing it in West Virginia. Probably not gonna do it in West Virginia. They're probably not gonna do it in Florida. They're probably not gonna do it in New Hampshire. You know, but these places are become fewer and fewer where you can actually defend yourself and protect your rights. - Well, the other big thing too is we have guns. Like in Cortal and Idaho, I was talking to somebody, I was sharing an experience during the BLM riots. I said, well, you know, in Copa, Virginia, I was there. I didn't participate in the protest. I was there and I had two things. I had a med bag and I had my gun. Why? Because the moment anybody started breaking down or burning buildings in our town, we weren't gonna allow that to happen. And I was not alone. And they're like, you know, funny you should say that in Cortal and Idaho, people line the streets. - I saw these. - With AR. - Yeah, with right. - They're like, oh, these things, right? They're like, no, no, no, you can protest. You can yell, you can scream, you can be mad all day long and do whatever you want. The moment you start throwing bricks or burning down our city, right? We're not going to put up with that. And guess what? Nobody burned down Cortal and. - Well, I mean, that's why the written house situation was really ultimately the referendum on how we were to sort of operate in this situation because Cortal and Idaho, they had the numbers. But really, the house was effectively, I mean, I know there was other people in the area, but he was kind of the ultimate making an example out of him, right? That was the left attempt to make an example out of him because again, if they were to be able to sort of make whatever he did, unacceptable or beyond the paler, whatever, then to be open season on everyone. So, I mean, I kind of looked back at that moment and written house really was. That's why everything sort of centered around. That's why the written house case became the apex because that was ultimately the referendum on. Are we allowed to defend our communities or not? I mean, that was quite literally what the debate was about. Thankfully, we won and that bought us some time to your point you look over in the UK where the Henry Novak case is the ultimate, I mean, if you said a bunch of right wingers around him, we were like, okay, what would be the most extreme? You know, parody of the UK, it would be that and which, you know, fresh, fresh in everyone's, you know, a jogger burns memory. Quite literally was stabbed by a Sikh immigrant or a child of immigrants and then the immigrants' brother called the police and said he used a racial slur Henry Novak's on the ground dying and they stabbed me. Yeah, and he's like, he stabbed me. I don't think you have mate and then they cuffed him. I mean, quite literally, if we all sat around the table we were like, you know, a year ago and I'm like, let's parody the UK. Let's think about something to prompt a groc. We would have come up with that and that literally happened and then everyone in the United States gets all, you know, there's this tough guy routine. Like I was that's Britain. Dude, that's like five, 10 years ahead if we're not careful. You know, and the guns aren't going to save you because they can take them away at any point. It's like, it can buy us time and it can help us the local level, but this is a battle for power. Like there's so much you can do as an individual. It's a lot of over the levers here. If we started seeing policing in the United States to the degree that they do in the UK where they arrest people for social media and nobody pulling a gun in a cop. Exactly. It's all a tough guy routine online. I'm like, we saw this during COVID and no one did anything. Well, we elected Trump. That bought us some time. But this is a, we're talking about the, you know, we're talking about the direction of our civilization, right? We're not talking about like what's happening in my community. We're talking about Western civilization writ large is ultimately what we're battling over right now. You're absolutely great. There's no such thing like this idea that revolutions happen because the people have just had enough. No, there's always, there's always an elite that leads a revolution. Always everywhere, every single time, if it's going to be successful. Correct. Now, I think there's two things in the United States that put us in a much better position than say the UK is at. One is we actually have federalism to some degree, right? Life in Tennessee is very different than life in California. Values are very different in Tennessee than values in California. The other thing is it is the guns. There is an amazing amount of power that it gives you not because you have to shoot someone, but just because the possibility exists. I mean, it's, and I want to point out like, I understand what you're saying and you're not wrong with it. You can look back as recently as, I don't remember what year it was, but it was during the Obama administration, the Bureau from the Land Management standoff. That was a real thing. And so like, I understand like it is true that like people really laid down for COVID, but during the Obama administration, a boatload of dudes got up on a bridge and pointed guns at federal agents. But if we're in a, if we're in a doomsday situation, those guys will be exceptions to the norm. I mean, we saw this happen. No, no, I understand what you're saying, but like the, I agree there will be skirmishes. I disagree and the reason I disagree is because you, like, and I know that people might, you know, maybe this sounds a little, a little boomerish, but like if you look at the way that the original revolution started, it wasn't a big gigantic uprising. The rest of the colonies looked at what was going on in Massachusetts and said, this is unacceptable. They looked at Lexington and Concord. And they said, this is unacceptable. And the militias pushed back the red coats in, in Lexington and Concord. And then they got their, they're basically their asses handed to him and bunker Hill. And then the rest of the, the, the, the colony started saying, look, we need to take this actually seriously. And it still took a long time to get the rest of the colony. Well, and I agree, and I, and I think I can kind of mend these points here together is I agree that we have, you know, the manpower, right? I'm not disagreeing that the American people are capable of conducting that sort of operation to this day. What I'm contesting is that we have the political elite in place to carry that out because what happened in the revolution is we had the Washington. We had the founding fathers ready to rock and roll. When I look at the GOP now, what we got Trump, we got a few of his buddies, that's really about it. And we got like some people, you know, it's scattered. But there was a unified elite in America that was ready to rock and roll. And I don't think we have that. We weren't super unified. South Carolina didn't want nothing to do with it. What's his name that was? What's the, yeah, New York, I'm not saying unity. I'm just saying they had an elite that was able to stitch everything together. And right now, what we're seeing in the United States, I don't know if the rights are ready for that. Everyone's like, but everyone's like, well, when a civil war comes, then we'll really show them. And I'm like, dude, I don't know. The first time in my life, it used to be when people moved, they moved 'cause they were retiring to warmer climate or, you know, the job opportunity or whatever. I have never seen this much geographical, ideologically based geographical self-sorting in the United States as I've seen in my lifetime. Never. The other thing that I would say is this, you want to know what the political elite is. It's not in the federal level. It's not in the state. So when you have, and I'll give you a perfect example of this. First of all, the left does it to the federal government all the time with things like marijuana legislation, right? Regardless of if you feel about it, that's them standing up to the federal government. But when you have the Biden administration, when Abbott goes down to the border and says, National Guard, Rangers, what not, we're putting up our own stuff, we're gonna do this. The federal government sued in court, got the decision they wanted out of the Supreme Court that they actually had constitutional jurisdiction over the border and immigration. And Texas response was like, move us. - Yeah. - And what the federal government had to decide at that point is how bad do we want to potentially get into an altercation over this issue at this time with state truth? - So that's the Obama administration and the Texas to where you know. - Yeah, and for the record, like, I agree. I guess what I'm just contesting we should. and I'm not saying you guys are saying this, but some people in the audience feel this way and conservatives broadly, we shouldn't rely on that. Because this is what happened in South Africa, and then they're like, all right, well, we'll all retreat into the Western Cape. The Western Cape, you know, talking about federalism, the Western Cape is well run. They have a party, you know, there's nine provinces in South Africa, eight ran by the ANC, and Western Cape is ran by the DA. So they're like, okay, well, we have federal, we're okay. But once the federal government is out of control, right? Like we cannot, we can no longer impact what's happening with the South African federal government. It's kind of over it 'cause they can just send the military in. They can just send this that in the other. And so what I'm saying in the United States, thankfully we're not in that situation. Thankfully it's still 50/50. Thankfully we still have that winning. I'm just saying we shouldn't rely on that. We shouldn't seed the ground. And tear it in Washington right now. And to your point, like, I don't know you guys agree with that. I'm saying a lot of people in the audience are like, well, let's just go into the woods. It's like, well, but to your point, like Trump did win. So like the idea that the idea that people have that this idea of, I'm gonna grab my SKS and run in the woods, right? Like that's not, that is a long time away because we still have access to political power. It's not like we don't have any recourse. - Same in Britain, by the way, they still have this as well. Like there's no reason to black pill. I guess what I'm pushing back maybe I was kind of speaking over one's heads is, I guess what I'm sort of attacking are these people that just think they can like build up a giant armory and then they're going to-- - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. - The people I know look, I'm gonna go off-grid. I'm like, oh, it's easier to take your stuff that way. 'Cause you think you're by yourself doing anything, you're on crack. But no, I am not a black pill or at all. Like-- - And I'm not saying, and I was just saying, right. - Yeah, my big thing is like, look guys, we still have the ability to actually push political power right now. You can't sit, like nothing makes me more inferior. As someone that loves Virginia and now no longer lives there, nothing makes me more inferior to the fact that when some seers had 300,000 fewer votes than Glenn Youngkin because a bunch of Republicans in deep red areas of that state said, oh, I'm just mad, they didn't do enough. And there's no difference between the parties. What do you think now? - You think there's a difference now? - Oh, yeah, oh, no, you're gonna hate you. It says he wants the cold-servative families to have the genitalia. - And to Nick's point, or that he was, we were making earlier, like it's just a matter of like the fact that guns, that we are an armed citizenry, it does make it more dangerous and more difficult for the federal government to actually come and kick indoors and ignore this. - What do you think, what do you think? What do you think a Joe Biden presidency or God help us Gavin Newsom or an AOC president? What do you think they would attempt to do if you didn't have that? - Oh, they start arresting everyone. - And this is a million guns. - And to this point, and this is why I want to go back to my original point is I'm like, I agree, but also when you're talking about demographics, there's only so much guns, do, because the Californians were all armed and then they got flooded with the third world. And then suddenly, they're out of contention forever. It doesn't matter how many Republicans there are armed. Gavin Newsom can basically do whatever he wants to those people. And if the pressure cooker goes up high enough, they'll just leave. And so again-- - Because they can leave. - Because they can, but there's always, this country's huge, there's always going to be places people can leave. And then once they're backed up against the corner, it doesn't matter, they're out of power forever. It's South Africa, where instead of us like going out and taking our country back, we'll probably just build walls with guard wire on top and put solar panels on top. So I agree that guns protect us from the excesses of like liberal power. Like the UK isn't a worse situation. Even though demographically, they're better off than we are. People don't like to hear that. - No, I don't. - But the main reason the UK is worse off than us right now is because the citizens have a lot of tools that are supposed to weather it is firearms, whether it be federalism. What I'm just contending is that we shouldn't rely on the fact that just because we're armed doesn't mean that everything's just wrecked us in terms of-- - We'll throw to that constitutional conversation we're having before. I was making the point that we effectively don't have a constitution. I think a good example is what we just watched with Hassan Piker. There is no unified American political body. Doesn't exist. And these are the people that will say, I believe in the constitution. The moment they have power, they're going to kill you. They are cheering and clapping for the death of Charlie Kirk. They're celebrating it. What do you think? What do they do if they get power? Well, they're gonna start arresting people. They're gonna start removing influencers. The constitution is tissue paper to these people. They don't care. - Yeah. - Well, my wife actually said this one. I thought it was the best way to say it. She goes, "The left quotes the constitution "the way atheists quote the Bible." - Indeed. - That's a great way to do it. - It is never about reverence for the actual document. And in fact, the only time they quote it is when they're trying to stay our hand. - Yes. - Because what does the constitution fundamentally do? It limits government power, which means it's a horrible thing to have when they're in power and it's a wonderful thing to refer to when they're not in power. And that's how they treat it. Now, again, the pushback I would give you on the idea that we don't have a constitution. We've never had a completely unified body politic. I mean, you look at the way that-- - I can't believe it, does he? - Well, you look at the way that Jefferson and Adam's treated one another and the way they thought about it. There's always been fighting. - It's called it to the pedophiles. - Yeah, I mean, it was horrible. - I heard math for a dittical, right? Like, there's always been fights. - She might have been true about that. - Yes, yes, but-- - That's a red bull. - Yeah. - If you took them both privately and said things like, is there a god they'd both say, yes, if you said, should, like, the things they decided-- - They wouldn't agree on who God was, but-- - That's true. And that's true, because Jefferson was particularly interesting for that time. But for them, ultimately, the point is, if you take a son piker and put him next to any random moderate American, you're gonna be like, this guy is a psychopath. He's wearing a Mao outfit. He held up a little red book, celebrating it. I mean, this is a weapon in the massacre of tens of millions of people. That's very different to, you know, I mean, we had duels back in the day. Like, people, what went, my disagreement is that, yes, people disagreed, yes, to an extreme degree often. But the funny thing is they agreed so much more than we do today with each other. That's what's worrying to me. - Well, I mean, again, we had some pretty significant disagreements in the past. I mean, I think of the 1860s, right? But I guess what I would say is that, to me, that does not mean that we don't have like a constitution. We do, in fact, that's the thing that I think most of us are trying to, it is a rallying point. And it's one of the things that creates a distinction. It's one of the things that creates a distinction is the sort of people that actually venerate our founders that actually believe in a unique American culture and want to defend it. Versus people like Hassan Piker, people like AOC, people like Bernie Sanders. These guys have zero love, zero love for the United States. - And tens of millions of followers and voters are through the Democratic Party who want the constitution abolished and replaced with the parliamentary system. - That doesn't mean that I don't have a constitution. It might mean that they don't care about it, but that's fine, that's a distinction between them. - You can have one, but then the United States does not. - Okay, again, if your standard is, everybody in the country has to believe in the thing. - The founding fathers agreed. The first articles of the constitution, the structure of government. - No, no, wait a second, wait a second. But that's not necessarily true. You look at the people that vehemently disagreed with the constitution, but they knew what it meant is my point. - Sure. - Not that they wanted it to be. I mean, first of all, you had one side saying no written constitution at all. - Yes. - Well, other side saying no because you don't get tyranny. - That was the same. - But when it was ratified, they understood what it meant. The constitution represented something that they may or may not have liked, but they agreed with what it means. - But even then there were disagreements. This is why you had Jefferson and Madison writing the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Because they disagreed about things like Marbury versus Madison or Maryland versus McCullough. And what was the extent of federal authority? The alien and sedition act. - Right. - Was that right? - And there was actually, with that, some people got arrested and they got overturned a few years later. My point is, when they ratified the constitution, the negotiator resulted in them saying, these are the rules that we will abide by, which of course did explicitly state there's judicial oversight, checks and balances as well as amendments to the constitution because these arguments will exist. But I'm saying, they all worked under the constitutional umbrella, arguing with each other. We now have a third of the democratic party. This is representing what, 20 million people that are saying, given the power they will abolish the constitution outright. - Yeah. - They are, as you pointed out, they're only using it to stay our hands, quoting the constitution in the way atheists quote the Bible. - Yeah. - We can put it this way. There exist, there are two countries in the borders of one nation. There is the multicultural democracy in the constitutional republic. The constitutional republic of the United States has a constitution. The multicultural democracy does not. Within these borders, the people that occupy this space vying for political power, the ability to control the military mechanisms and law enforcement do not share a constitution. And well, and if you go back to the revolution, I mean, you made the point earlier, the New York and South Carolina, weren't necessarily aligned with the elite that were sort of conducting the American revolution. I mean, yeah, like 50% of New York were loyalists at the time of the revolution. Additionally, people don't remember this or recall this. I mean, 5%, that's a lot of people, I mean, today that would be a massive amount of people, 5% of the United States at the time of the revolution left after the revolution in what's a Canada or other British dominions, because they quite literally disagreed with the framers of the constitution. They said, we disagree with this entire thing. We're leaving, we're loyal to the crown. That's pretty radical. And so again, like to the point, I think maybe the men both positions here is like, even at the time they did have these disagreements over how the constitution was framed. If that was applicable to them, they just left. I guess what's different about this current iteration of people that are maybe sticking their thumb and the eye of the constitution here is that they fundamentally aren't Westerners. They fundamentally disagree. the entire point. What was happening at the time of the revolution was a family dispute, right? These are Englishmen disagreeing with other Englishmen. We were off, I mean, you gotta remember, the American experiment, sort of so to speak, was off the back of the English Civil War. And there was sort of house disagreements at the time. What we're seeing now is not a house disagreement. What we're seeing is a, someone breaking into the house or something else. - It's a subversive element. - And the American Civil War was a faction of states attempting to separate themselves from the constitution itself. That, so I wanna clarify this for most people because when people take constitution, they're usually referring to the Bill of Rights. I'm talking about the literal first articles talking about what Congress does, what the executive branch does. The Confederates were like, "We no longer want "to be a part of that." Out, right, we are separating ourselves from this. Right now in the United States, you have people like Zoran Mamdani who explicitly defy it, say they will defy it, do whatever they want, and their ultimate goal is the abolition of it. - Yes. - So, I gotta be honest, what's the functional difference? They're not engaging in a physical, kinetic conflict? - The Confederates said, "We want nothing to do with your constitution." - I do think, no, I do think, I do think that's actually relevant. Like if Zoran Mamdani said, "Look, there are still limitations "on what Zoran Mamdani can actually do. "How do we know?" Because he hasn't gone and seized all the means of production yet because he absolutely would if he thought he had sufficient power. - It's not the constitution that's stopping him from doing it. He would not abide by those rules. - Okay, but wait a second. It's at some point I feel like this is almost engaging like a totem. Obviously, the constitution itself is words on parchment at the National Archives. The authority behind it is to the degree that people believe it, and that soldiers will fight for it and defend it and go follow lawful orders. That doesn't mean that people don't attempt to subvert it at times. That doesn't mean that what's out indeed. - Yeah, so that's what I'm saying is like, I don't think the mere presence of the DSA means I don't have a constitution anymore or the United States isn't in a constitution. - I don't think it even means the United States isn't in a constitution anymore. Because I can still appeal to the constitution. I can still appeal to the constitution in order to reign in DSA excesses when they talk in federal jurisdictions controlled by liberals. As we've already seen in time again, when Trump does something purely, let's talk about DACA. - Sure. - Obama, through executive order, and one could argue the president could do this, instructs immigration enforcement not to deport DACA, creating this de facto name. Trump then says, you can executive order in, I can executive order out and what happens? The commie judges in Democrat jurisdictions go, no, you can't. That is in clear defiance of the constitution. They don't care what the rules are. So we in the Constitution Republic abide by this document that we hold sacred, that has evolved in some ways, some ways we don't like some ways we do. And they are saying, you are stupid for following rules that we can break whenever we want. So my point ultimately is this, obviously there exists something we call the constitution that is utilized in law, but it is only adhered to by those who believe in it and the communists to operate in many of these federal jurisdictions, the entire West Coast, for instance, don't live by those rules where they are. When if you go to Seattle, you are under their communist interpretation. And so let me put it this way. We had an interesting conversation about this last week. Let's say that 50, 50, 60 years from now, five of the justices are Muslim. A man in Chicago scream something blasphemous about the prophet Muhammad. He gets arrested for it by the local police force for blasphemy, they say it's hate speech. He appeals and says this is free speech protected by the First Amendment. It goes to a federal court, whichever way it doesn't matter 'cause it looks at another appeal. Then it finds its way out to the Supreme Court where half of the court is Muslim. - And we know how we'll decide. - How would you believe they would interpret it? - Oh, they're gonna reinterpret the First Amendment to mean whatever they want. - Or they're going to interpret it from the originalist text and say, the founding fathers did not believe the First Amendment allowed you to blaspheme explicitly. It was illegal to blaspheme at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment and it wasn't until the 1950s, in fact. - It wasn't until the incorporation doctrine and all of a sudden the Bill of Rights applied as limitations to the States. They used to just be limitations on federal power, not state power. - So they would, and I would argue that this is entirely in line with the founding fathers' vision, say, no, blasphemy is not protected speech, therefore your conviction is upheld. Now let's say simultaneously a man in Chicago screams something negative about Jesus Christ. He gets criminally charged for blasphemy, it finds its way to the Supreme Court. How will they rule on the issue of blasphemy pertaining to Jesus Christ? - Probably not the same. They would argue that laws criminalizing blasphemy apply only to true deities and prophets. And Jesus Christ though a prophet was not a deity, therefore it's not blasphemy to assault. - Yeah, this is the point I make about what it means to have a constitution. What constitutes your body of politics? We wrote ours down and we try to live by these rules. But when you look at what the Democrats and liberals are doing in these federal courts and what they're doing at the local level with police, they are not abiding by these rules. When you take a look at the supremacy clause, when you take a look at how the federal government was trying to enforce laws in Portland, what were they doing? The police were effectively helping the far left fire bomb a federal building for three months. So I look at all this and I say it's interesting because I was talking about marketing earlier today. And in the digital era, something has happened. And the real estate where our philosophies and our politics exist are no longer physical. They're now a hybrid between the physical and the digital. And so it used to just be who has the physical control of the space. Literally you could walk in a building and be like, I'm the king now and people would be like, damn, he's the king now. Like see, it's a kind of weird if you think about it. That doesn't exist anymore because of digital communications. So now, I look at, look, imagine this. Imagine a map of the United States and there's red and blue pockets. It's not just like the voting map. When you get granular, you can see there's pockets of influence in various areas of various cities and various states. And we're not talking about a political, we're not talking about political parties anymore. We're talking about different countries. Portland is dominated by a multicultural democratic country that does not agree with our world view, with our moral frameworks. They don't, they believe in Washington, they passed a law that if someone kidnaps a child for a sex change and brings them to Washington, they are legally protected for having done so. I mean, we can talk about all the unconstitutional, unlawful things that happen in all those places and nothing is being done about it. If the federal government tries to enforce immigration law, what do they do? The police back off and say, we will not provide, let's talk about what happened in Chicago when that lady rammed the ice vehicle. Local police refused to deploy to provide assistance as far leftists showed up, shots were fired, some, I can't remember exactly how it went down. I don't want to, okay, but the important part to remember here is that's not unconstitutional. What's that? Local police are not required by the constitution to enforce federal law or assist. Sure, but my point is just, this is a snowflake in an avalanche. No, but I guess my point is that the important distinctions do need to be made with respect to jurisdiction. Now, I agree that any time that you have a local jurisdiction which obstructs federal law enforcement from doing their job, which I think clearly happen in Minneapolis and clearly happen in Portland and Seattle, you don't just do the whole like, well, you know, we're really upset about that. No, there should be federal prosecution because that's a violation of federal law. My point is not that local police should or should not do anything. My point is that in these states they view the federal government as an invasive force. Jordan Mamdani vowed in his election that he would use the weight of New York law enforcement physical violence against the federal government to stop them from enforcing federal law. When you have mayors of, the mayor in our larger city say the constitution and the votes of the American people mean nothing, we will use physical force against them if we must. We are not talking about the same people anymore. We are not talking about a unified country that adheres to the same rules and laws. So again, I'll stress. Of course, there is a constitution that exists. It's physical, it's digital, we understand what it means. But I am saying we do not have a unified body politic. There is no constitution. The founding fathers had a document they'd argue about. Jordan Mamdani doesn't agree with that document's existence and sites it only to exploit you. And the moment they get a 51%, they will rip it to shreds unconstitutional. So, okay, here's a part where I think we completely agree. I agree with everything you just said about what they would do provided that they attained power and that they're still trying to do it within the constitutional system which currently exists. Absolutely not. The federal courts have already done this. Okay, fine. What I'm saying is that they are not doing everything that they wish they could do right now because there are still limitations with respect to what they can actually accomplish, right? Related to the constitution, related to their critical mass, the massive population and their ability to use the source. But part of the problem is that they don't represent everybody. There are still enough people in this country that actually do believe in the constitution that are willing to enforce it with violence, like legitimate uses of violence, in order to rein them in. Now, again, you and I do not agree on the fact that they don't, they don't revere it, they don't want it. They are merely using it as a process in order to attain power so that they can one day subvert it. I don't think that means the constitution doesn't exist. I think what we do need to start recognizing is that we have a subversive element within this country that has attained using our system, political legitimacy. And the question is, is what do you do about it? And the problem is, is that most conservatives, their answer as well, we'll just have to vote harder, and the point that a lot of us are trying to make is, ah, we may be getting to a point where that's not a sufficient remedy. And so the question is, is if you do want to maintain, so like if you do want to maintain, will say the spirit of the United States Constitution of the culture which informed it. If you do want to do that, the question is, is how far are you willing to depart? Well, not violating the core principles. How far are you willing to depart? Lincoln said that, you know what? The Constitution's not a suicide pact. And so he suspended habeas corpus. He did all sorts of things that technically would be considered violations of the Constitution. Technically, Article 1, habeas corpus lies in Article 1. And he suspended it through an unconstitutional action. Then had his opponents either threatened with arrest arrested or outright removed from Congress. Then the loyalists voted that he was allowed to do it. Yes. But what's remarkable here too is even when we go through American history and reciting these examples as they were simply arguing over the dissolution of the United States government or the United States as we understood it. The difference between them and what's currently existing on the left now is they're arguing for a complete dissolution of the American people writ large as in the people are heritage, etc. So while Lincoln was saying, you know, the very, you know, fabric of the United States government, maybe even the Constitution itself was under threat, etc. And he pushed pulled prodded. What's happening now is quite literally they want to wipe the American people off the planet. And that's the fundamental difference between basically everything that happened for the 1960s and now the Confederates were trying to break away. Yeah, they wanted they wanted rule. These people are trying to destroy us. Yes. And so again, my point is we in the Constitutional Republic clearly have a constitution. But this this country is now split. There are two countries in the borders of one nation. We do not share a constitution with these people. We just don't. It's it's and it's not even look again, go to Seattle and the judges are not going to rule in the Constitution. They're going to rule on on racial communist views. And they've been doing it. Like, like, wait a second, wait a second. Nobody in Seattle. And this is my point where they know the Constitution still has nobody in Seattle has confiscated everyone's guns, right? They haven't closed all the churches down. They have. Now, why? Because if they did, if they did, it would be a clear violation of constitutionally protected rights, which would then be enforced or theoretically could be, you know, we can make an argument about COVID and they did. Okay. But this is the problem with that too. We all remember the early days of COVID. And there's a lot of things we could look at and be like, hey, that was garbage. I also remember the point where we didn't know if this thing was going to kill everybody, right? And so you had states like Florida, but like, you know what, we're not doing this crap anymore. States like South Dakota that said, we're not doing it in the first place. And the United States like California that just carried on forever. So I get it, I get your point. I'm not disagreeing. I'm not disagreeing with the front of point. I am saying that I don't think that means none of us have the only people that have a constitution of the ones that actually revere it. Constitutional authority can still be applied and is still applied. Maybe not to the degree that you either you or I would be satisfied with, but it is still applied. I think the more important question, here's the most important question to me. It's not this, it's not this more nuanced debate on, do we actually have a constitution? We actually have a body politic. I think we absolutely 100% have a subversive element within our country, which has gained an incredible amount of power within our culturally shaping institutions or political institutions. And the real question that we have to ask is, does the constitution afford us the ability to be able to deal with that internal threat? Now, and that is the, that's the argument that we have to actually discuss. Because here's the question, okay, great. If you acknowledge, no, if you say no, now the question is, is, okay, what measures do you want to do? What rights do you want to suspend? What constitutional elements do? And that, that is an interesting question. And one, I'm willing to have, that's a discussion I'm willing to have. Because I don't accept this idea that the only thing that we can do is vote harder. But the same token, by the same token, I do, I don't want to fall into authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I don't want to fall into this kind of, we're going to have left-wing social, we're going to have left-wing economics with right-wing social policy. I think if the government today, blaspheme made illegal blaspheme against Christ, would you consider that authoritarian? On the federal level? If the federal government Supreme Court ruled blanket, like literally right now, they said, if you say ill or, or you deny Christ, that is a criminal, criminal act, you can be charged for it. Would that be a authority? No, because I think, I think authoritarian is actually rooted more in, in the question of who controls the power and how the laws are actually made. Let me put it differently. I don't want to see an oversensualized, an oversensualized power in the hands of a couple of people. They're going to rule as oligarchs. I don't want a dictatorship. I don't want that. Let me draw a distinction. You can have a authoritarian without totalitarian. Agreed. So my point is, let's say that there is no strong, hyper-centralized government, but a unified law enforcement apparatus that exists individually in various cities and states. All agree. Anybody who blasphemes against Jesus Christ should be arrested. I think that you could come up with something like that in a way that would not be authoritarian. My view on this is clearly, Jews and Muslims would be alike. This is authoritarianism. We're not living under a boot. There's a growing number of Muslims in this country. But I also don't think that I don't think we're sitting under any pressing threat right now that Christians are going to rise up. That's their main priority is we want to make sure that's my point. My point ultimately is that authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder and the diversity of a population's politics. If every single person in this country right now woke up and had an epiphany and became Orthodox Christians, there would be no authoritarianism if they banned blasphemy against Christ because they would all be like, but no one would. It just doesn't exist. I get that, but we get into some of these, we get into some of these arguments and I'm not I'm not sure how relevant they are to the the present situation. Like that's what I'm trying. I'm trying to connect the okay, we acknowledge that there seems to be a there seems to be something that the Constitution theoretically didn't account for. Like so let's look at the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic actually had the position of the dictator and so you see this with Cincinnati. That's why we have Cincinnati. That's why George Washington at the order of Cincinnati. What it's what happened? Well, you had people that were rising up that wanted to overthrow. So what did they they bring Cincinnati back in from the farm? They say we're going to give you dictatorial power for six months. You need to put down the revolt. Cincinnati does it then voluntarily hands back power and then goes back to the farm. They actually did I think twice. Yeah. Right now later later on in Roman history, you had Selah who attempted to do the same thing. Selah actually takes power. He marches into Rome. He's the first one to march the legions in the Rome without the approval of the Senate. Right. And then what does he do? He sets up a whole new series of laws of restrictions. Why to prevent any Selah from ever happening again because his whole idea was to restore the Roman Republic. And then what do you get with him to generation Caesar? And now the Republic is essentially gone and we're moving into the the principle. I think so my question is always with this. And again, some people don't want to maintain our constitutional republic the way it was established. They don't even want to they don't even want to like revert back to whatever the 19th century. That's my question is okay. You know that China operates police departments in the United States. The Chinese Communist Party has their own police departments operating in the United States. Okay. Okay. And and and how do they operate because the like Chinese police. So the Chinese police department can come and arrest me. Oh, no, no, no, exactly. They can be after Chinese because they exist outside of our constitution. Okay. As citizens in this country with private funding operating on our streets with vehicles, lights and sirens. They run police departments and their and their responses. We're a private international affairs issue. Yeah. And what they do is they go to Chinese people from China who live in America or descendants and they can use the weight of threats against family in China. Yeah. To control them. Yeah. And we're just like, okay, these people clearly are operating in our country. There's also Sharia patrols. Yeah. happening in places like Dearborn and other cities. You actually have a Jewish patrols happening in places like New York. You have Muslims coming right on scene. You'll never be able to ban Sharia because of the first minute. Indeed. Yeah. My point ultimately is that we are seeing the emergence of various extra governmental pockets happening all over the country. We live next to these people. They clearly don't agree with our governmental system. They don't operate within it. Well, the other thing the other thing that needs to be understood and this is a big part of the argument and and I will see, you know, the classical liberals fighting with the post liberals and everything else. And I feel like so much of it is talking around one another. I was speaking at ARC. Okay. And I don't think they were expecting me to say what I said. I said, you guys are all standing here trying to defend Western civilization. I'm here to defend Christendom. And the reason why is because it is great to have a first amendment, a second amendment, a third amendment. It's great to have a constitutional order. But these things are built upon something. They're built upon shared beliefs and values. Adams himself said our constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is totally unsuited any other. Why? Because you cannot completely contain or control a country or a body politic exclusively through law. There has to be something that actually unites those people and a shared set of actual values that will cause them to self-regulate. And so really why the laws exist are to explain what happens when members of the body politic operate outside of the social order, which already keeps them in bounds. And I don't think laws exist either. Okay. I'll give you an example in West Virginia. Uh, cohabitation is illegal. Nobody's enforcing it. Okay. You can solve it. This is, but, but the point is this. If I open the, the, the code book of West Virginia, it's meaningless reading this informs me in no way of what will happen. If I do something bad in West Virginia, I'm only informed by the TV, by news reports, and what my neighbors are willing to get offended at. If you go to West Virginia and you bring your girlfriend and move into an apartment, nothing will happen, despite the fact it's overtly illegal. It's literally codified illegal. It doesn't mean laws don't exist. It means it means as we define laws as explaining what will happen. happened to you when you do things that it says not to do, that's, that's, that's not correct. Okay, but nobody wants to, okay, first of all, if, if the complaint is we have too many laws on the books that are meaningless and stupid and should be removed, fine. But there was a time I'm willing to bet where cohabitation laws would have been enforced. Okay. So how would, so someone walking, someone who's never lived in Idaho before goes there and says, I don't know their gaming laws. I don't know if you can turn right on red. I'm gonna pull up the code book. I just give it a quick glance. Will he be informed as to what laws are enforced against? No, the assumption will be that all of those laws potentially come with penalties. Well, we just, we just don't know for sure. Okay. And so he's informed by culture and how the, how the city or the government reacts. Obviously sure. Culture informs things that like, I'm not arguing. Here's my problem. It's the extreme language being used. Laws don't exist. Yes, they do. Laws exist. They're enforced all the time. However, the laws, the laws which make the most sense are those ones. The reason why we call it English common law. Why is it English common law? Was it because a couple of nobles got together and said, okay, I've decided these are the rule. No, what you had was a series of traditions. And if you got an issue with the way I've described it, it's fine. But my point is when I say laws don't exist, I'm saying that when we say, what is a law? Yeah. And someone says it is a rule imposed on society through various means, some through democratic means, thumb through, through a dictatorial or, you know, authoritarian, but it effectively describes what you can, what typically what you cannot do and the penalty for such. Sure. Then I would argue, what, I mean, is it like 70% of the laws are not really laws then because those things written down don't actually mean anything. So my point is not the obviously laws get enforced. But the other issue is that sometimes there's enforcement against things that are not even laws. For example, often if, so we had a guy arrested for disorderly conduct for hate speech. And they said, but they do it all the time. Yeah. In these, where it should be completely prepared by the Constitution, and there is no codified law people have been arrested for hate speech. And they don't say hate speech is a disorderly conduct. Look at a Shiloh, Hendrix. A guy was filming her and she yelled at him a nasty word. She got criminally charged for it. That law is not on the books. How did they enforce it? In fact, it's protected by the First Amendment. How were they able to criminally charge an arrestal man for something constitutionally protected and not in law? Is that what was it? Minnesota? Yeah. But the only thing I would say is that, okay, but that's not a demonstration of why laws don't exist. It's a demonstration that laws are what people choose them to be at any random point. And the books don't, I don't even think it's what people choose at any random point. Because even then, like, again, the police are not kicking in the door right now. But that's an exercise of volition and for it. Okay, but the point that I'm making is unless you explain specifically what you mean, are there some laws which are bad laws that are not enforced? Are there some laws which remain on the books which don't enforce? Are there other laws or are there other ways to interpret the law which law enforcement takes way too much leverage with in order to get the result that they can clarify? Sure. I've written law is largely meaningless to informing an individual of what society expects of them. That's a better way to phrase it. So, what I'm trying to say when I say I don't think laws exist is I'm simplifying the idea that when someone says a thing like we're going to write this thing down typically only when they immediately do it as it followed. And then after a certain amount of time, it may or may not be. So just to clarify, how do you define a law? It is a subset of rules that are held largely in the abstract, which may or may not be enforced against in various jurisdictions. They differ even when written down. So my point again is if a person moved for the first time to a state and said again, you know, I think in New York, you can't turn right on red. And so people might say don't know that. Sure. And you get tickets all the time. So they're like, I better look these things up. You will not be informed by reading the code book. It doesn't explain to you the culture, what they're willing to enforce against. For instance, New York doesn't enforce assault. They don't enforce assault. So if someone hits you, the police will not show up unless you can prove physical damage. So literally, you could be at a bar and a guy punches you in the stomach. And then people call the police. The cops are like, what happened? A guy punched a guy and I'm like, we're not enforcing against that. The distinction. Okay. Here's the distinction. It's not that like if you pull up the camera and the guy actually got assaulted and it could be proved. Well, then look, no, I'm not kidding. I in New York, they say no. You're telling me anywhere in New York state they do that or you're telling me that in New York city or city, okay, having that's my point, right? My point is is that I'm not disagreeing that there's problems with respect to the practical application of the law. I'm also not disagreeing that there are time. There are, for instance, my father was LAPD for 20 years, right? And he would tell you that there were certain people when they broke the law, they threw the cuffs on when they took me to jail. And there were other people when they broke the law, they treated him differently. Why? Because in the neighborhood, he was working as a police officer. He knew the people there that were actual troublemakers that were like literally hurting people. And then he might know a 15 year old kid that joined a gang, not because he wanted to, but because he would get his ass beat, right? If he didn't, where the right colors when he went to school. And so do you want a law enforcement officer to be able to use discretion with respect to how rigorously the law is enforced? Now I would argue, no, I say you do. Now, the question is within boundaries, what boundaries, cultural boundaries? So for instance, I don't want necessarily both people going to jail for the rest of life and having a criminal record. I might want law enforcement to be able to use some degree of discretion, because the bottom line is if you also get a criminal record for something stupid when you're 14, right? That could put your life in a very, very different trajectory. That works really well in a homogenous society. Yes. It does not work all today. No, when you have in Minnesota, a woman being arrested for something that doesn't exist and codified. But do you see that's that's that's my own constitution. That's my point. When I talked about this whole idea of Christendom or I talked about this whole idea of pun, what is what is the larger cultural thing that your country is built upon? And again, you don't need racial homogeneity. You do need cultural homogeneity. And the biggest problem is that we, so it's not that the constitution doesn't exist. It's not that law doesn't exist. What has happened is that for the first time in US history, we have had massive multi-cult, by design, multicultural infusion without proper assimilation. Well, but we don't need to argue the semantics. I think we agree. My point is in Minnesota, when we got arrested for something that wasn't a law and is constitution protected and she was convicted and she's going to serve a penalty for it. There's no constitutional protection that she's going to, she'll try to appeal. And then you're asking for federal intervention, which may come. But as a state, Minnesota is clearly operating without outside the confines of codified law and the constitution. So we should grab a couple of superchats. We can settle the John Lennon's imagined. We stand. We got, we got Brett Davis. He says, welcome to the world. Kenneth James born Saturday last of our seven kids. He'll kind of get a heavy metal. Yeah. Yeah. Eat your head. Welcome to the world. Thinker for a life says Muslims hate dogs because they believe dogs block a law. And they do. Please an experiment, Tim. You another host for a month, sincerely asked Jesus Christ to be in the conversation. No GD for that time. Watch. No GD. What does that mean? No saying gosh damn. Good. Mick B for us has had any of y'all watched Space King. It is absolutely nothing to do with war hammer. But if you like that, you'll love Space King. Episode five comes on the 29th. You should watch the teaser, not trailer. It's a space jammer. No, but I did watch the lanterns show and I'm Luke warm a little bit. C plus it's a little slow. I don't, I don't mind it, but we'll see where they go. I don't mind it. We'll see. I'm, I'm, I'm interested in watching it. I think it's so far so good. There, it's a little hammy like, uh, like the first, the, the bad guy, like they're encountering. Basically, he's a militia guy. And then Hal Jordan is basically a liberal. Yeah. Who has just got a chip on his shoulder about militia is like, you want to fight the government? The guy's like, what? So I actually did enjoy that when he goes to the guy and he's like, he's like, let me guess, you need my, because he's a Greenlander, you need my help. What? The government's about to storm and take your guns and he goes, you think that's why we asked you here? No, it's because there's aliens. And I'm like, okay, that's actually not that bad, you know. All right. Phoenix says, when you have small children, everything is lost, broken or sticky. That's what I said to my wife, one of my, no sticky babies. No sticky babies. So I, I, I am very, I understand like, the one thing I always get, get hurt by was like my friends or other people's kids. They're just covered in crap. It's like, you know, you can wipe them off and let them keep playing. And then you might have to do it a lot. Like I respect it. But that's what I said. I was like, we're going to wipe, you know, our hands when she gets all sticky and dirty and wipe her face. And then she can play again and she gets sticky. We're going to wipe her off. We're going to make sure she's those sticky babies. Wonderful. Indeed. We got more. Mr. Ghetto, George says, keeping with Timcast tradition, please help me welcome my first child, baby, Zina, or 823, nine pounds, seven ounces. Timcast on it says the highest TFR I think. Like we're like aesthetics over here. It's crazy. All right. Shnops says, shout out to Pipi, the most adorable little Chihuahua ever for 12 years. I was the happiest dog owner imaginable. Goodbye. And God bless my special baby. When my time comes, I'll find you on the other side. Rest in peace, Pipi. But you know, there's a really great meme where someone said, if you think about the perspective of a dog, we are these beings that live for several lifetimes with incomprehensible abilities and powers. It's almost like where elves and they, you know, are the humans living among us. So just just remember that your dog gets to live the greatest life imaginable. And they look up to you as some sort of powerful, you know, long lived being that they, they were here. That's why they get hyped up when you like stay. and they're like, "Oh, he's too big." - Well, I think it's funny, it's like dogs. It's like, "Wow, you feed me, you close me, you play with me, you give me attention, you must be God." And then cats are like, "Wow, you feed me, you close me, you pay attention, you meet all my needs. I must be God." (laughing) All right, we'll grab one more, one more. Sergeant Stoic says on the topic of infighting in the US in the near future, Nick, do you see our national infrastructure being slowly and intentionally degraded? However possible, set up for a land invasion, the CA or California, Oregon, Washington, I sure do. - All right, I don't think there's, I don't think there's any way any sort of major strategic authority to the United States pulls off a land invasion in the United States. - Never. - And you've got to go across major oceans. Like, it's just, I don't think China could pull off a successful and fibious invasion against Taiwan. (laughing) Like, much less going against the Pacific or in the Atlantic. No, the biggest problem, again, we'll reference Lincoln, right? His whole thing was as a nation of free men, we spent a newer and forever died by suicide. - I'm far more concerned of us dying by suicide than I am an external threat. - Real? - So it's good. - Right on, well, my friends, we're going to the uncensored portion of the show, so smash the like button, share the show with everyone. Ever met? You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimKast. Nick, do you want to shout anything out? - No, just hey, once again, thank you for watching TimKast. Again, follow me NickjayFratus.com. Thanks again. - Yeah, and I want to give a shout out to my fiance. I got engaged over the weekend. She's watching. She's Nick Freitas fans, so she's probably doubly loving. So yeah, shout out, don't want to name names here, but. - She sounds great. - She's the best, she's the best. And yeah, X and Instagram at Real Tape Brown. I'm going to follow and we'll be back tomorrow at noon for the TimKast daily news live show, Phil. - Sick, I am Phil that remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon, it's patreon.com/Phil that remains. The band is all that remains. You can check out our music on Apple music, Amazon music, Pandora, YouTube Spotify, and Dzer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime, Carter. - Congrats, Tate. - I'm very proud of you, man. Nick, thanks for coming. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, at Carter Banks official everywhere else, and YouTube at Trash House Records for the label. - Yeah, Tate's got the total cheddar victory today on. - Sure dude, it's anything as possible, like in cells, fake cells, everything, just the whole of the line, man. - Full some chungus. - All right, everybody, we'll see you at rumble.com/TimKast. IRL right now, thanks for hanging out. [BLANK_AUDIO]