ICE Employee ARRESTED, Accused of SHOOTING Protester w/ The Native Patriot

Summary

---

Timcast IRL — ICE Employee ARRESTED, Accused of SHOOTING Protester (w/ The Native Patriot)

Date: July 23, 2026
Host: Tim Pool & Timcast Crew
Guest: The Native Patriot (Christian American activist, co-creator of the Patriots Prayer Network, co-host on Can’t Be Bought podcast), with Tate, Brett, and Carter

---

Episode Overview

This episode takes a deep dive into a series of recent controversial news stories—including the shooting of a protester by an ICE facility contractor, the murder of British conservative Anne Whitcomb, and public backlash against data centers—while examining broader cultural, political, and existential trends. The panel, joined by The Native Patriot, critically analyzes media framing, generational political shifts, American identity, issues of assimilation, and technology’s role in society. The conversation is lively, uncensored, and often controversial, reflecting the show’s commitment to hard-hitting, independent analysis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. ICE Facility Protest Shooting: The Facts, The Narrative, The Fallout

[03:18]

• Incident Recap: A contractor for the GEO Group (private prison company, not an actual ICE employee) shot a protester near the Aurora, Colorado ICE processing center.
  • Key Fact: The shooter, Brandon Booth, was off-duty; the protester, Emma Landis, was shot in the foot, not the back as initial reports suggested.
  • Media reports rushed to label the shooter as an “ICE employee,” muddling the distinction between government agents and contractors.
  • Quote - Tim: “The framing of it is intended to mislead people...they want to be like, ‘Oh see, it’s another ICE agent that has shot a protester.’” [11:25]
  • Discussion:
    • The crew emphasized responsible gun ownership and the importance of de-escalation.
    • Both sides condemned the shooting; Tate noted, “Let’s not shoot up protesters, but also let’s not harass ICE agents who are just doing their job.” [10:16]
  • Media Bias:
    • Tim and panel compared this case to Blackwater’s handling in Iraq, criticizing media for blurring lines between contractors and government employees—depending on the narrative’s convenience.

[13:17]

• The panel commented on broader media priorities, noting that slow news cycles and Democrat party divisions make stories like this more prominent.

---

2. US & UK: The Murder of Anne Whitcomb and Political Violence

[59:30]

• Case Recap:
  • Anne Whitcomb, a well-known British Christian conservative, was beaten to death in her home with a hammer in an attack called “vicious and ferocious” by prosecutors.
  • The suspect traveled 300 miles to commit the crime, suggesting premeditation and likely political motive.
  • Initial media reports obscured the political context, suggesting first an “accident” then a “burglary gone wrong” before finally acknowledging foul play.

[63:00]

• Media & Official Response:
  • Quote - Tate: “They’ve intentionally...drip fed evidence...because if they let what actually happened [out]...that’s a nightmare scenario for them.” [66:33]
  • Sensitive political timing (UK’s right-wing surge), possible leftist motivations of the killer, and fear of public outrage led police and media to release info slowly and cautiously.

[68:51]

• Broader Analysis:
  • The pattern across Western media of downplaying or re-framing incidents that implicate leftist violence, contrasted with sensationalized reporting when roles are reversed (e.g., Charlottesville, US right-wing violence).
  • Quote - Native Patriot: “It almost seems like, no matter what country, if it’s a Western country and the media’s reporting, there’s always going to be a bias one way.” [68:51]

---

3. American Cultural Identity, Assimilation & the Future of the Right

[17:32]

• Generational & Racial Politics:
  • Debate over whether Gen Z is more right-leaning.
  • Tate: Trends of polarization, with white Zoomers being more conservative/Christian, non-white Zoomers leaning left, and a decline of centrism.
    • “There’s not really any moderate Zoomers. It’s very uncouth to be centrist.” [18:45]
  • Rise of identity politics; CRT’s long-term impact on racial consciousness.

[27:42]

• Assimilation, Multiculturalism & Loss of National Cohesion:
  • Panel critiques both uncontrolled multiculturalism (“melting pot” ideal fading) and current obstacles to assimilation (welfare, technology keeping immigrants culturally separate).
  • “Melting pot” replaced by sectoral or urban enclaves, erasing common cultural touchstones.
  • Quote - Tate: “Assimilation might actually for non-Westerners be impossible in the 21st century because of modern amenities...the internet makes it easy to feel like you’re still there [home country].” [32:07]

[39:59]

• The Role of Christianity & American Values:
  • Deep dive into how a specific brand of Anglo-Protestant Christianity shaped American character and law.
  • The loss of religious commonality weighs heavily on assimilation and national unity.
  • Emergence of “spiritual but not religious” replaces traditional religious identification.
  • Tim: “Without religion...societies can’t [survive] because you base your fundamental principles on something.” [36:59]

[48:14]

• Frontier Ethos = American Exceptionalism:
  • From founding stock and frontier mentality to entrepreneurial spirit, the American identity is shaped by those who believed in self-agency and risk-taking.
  • “The distinction really boils down to people that believe they have agency and people that believe they don’t.” [49:37, Tim]
  • The “cowboy hat” as a cultural avatar: “The cowboy really is the avatar of the United States insofar as he is the frontiersman.” [58:24, Tate]

---

4. Political Radicalization, Media, and the Future

[74:32]

• Media, Boomer Politics and ‘Straw on the Camel’s Back’:
  • The pace and selectivity of news reporting may be “buying time” for the current power structure, with true radicalization forecasted for post-Boomer generations.
  • Millennials, according to Native Patriot, “identify” these manipulation patterns and are becoming increasingly radicalized.
  • Analogy: "We're in a dog park—even if you're a wolf, you can't really act like it anymore." [76:48]

[77:54]

• The Limits of Radical Change:
  • Despite popular anger, actual revolutionary action is blunted—democracy’s strength is in “containing revolution”:
  • Tate: “You kind of just have to vote your way out of it...it’s not sexy, it doesn’t sell on YouTube, but that’s how political change has happened thus far.” [77:09]

---

5. Economic Policy, Social Programs, and Intergenerational Wealth

[89:41]

• Trump’s Legacy & The National Debt:
  • Disillusionment among the activist right over lack of systemic change (e.g., consumer prices, home ownership, blue-state drift), despite Trump’s “wins.”
  • The national debt has nearly doubled in ten years—a bipartisan failure which “robs wealth from our children.”
  • Panel notes political impossibility of reducing spending due to elderly voting power, large social programs (Social Security, Medicare).

[93:15]

• Property Taxes and Wealth Transfer:
  • Conservative calls for abolishing property tax would, panel argues, prompt countervailing tax increases (sales, registries, parks), effectively transferring costs back onto the working young rather than helping them enter homeownership.

---

6. Technology & AI: Public Backlash, Social Impact, and Coming Disruptions

[95:51] — Data Centers, AI Backlash

• Many locals fear AI data centers over water, electricity, and quality of life, though the crew argues most technical fears are exaggerated or misunderstandings.

[101:54] — The AI 'Bubble' Debate

• Tate is skeptical of massive AI/LLM companies’ optimism, suggesting we may soon hit the ceiling of transformative AI tech, which is more incremental than revolutionary. Practical data management is valuable, but the “killer app” is not yet widespread.

[103:21] — The Coming Age of Personal AI

• Tim: Next-gen AI, especially when integrated seamlessly into phones and life, will spark major changes: “Once you get an AI in a robot that can actually walk around the real world...I think we’re a year or two away from that.”
• Debated risks: social credit scores, censorship, market limits on “wokeness,” dangers of mono-AI domination vs. benefits of a market with many AI models.

[113:16]

• Will there be a “counter-economy” for those rejecting AI? Panel agrees some sectors (e.g., rural, trades, repair) will resist automation, leading to greater urban-rural societal divergence.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On ICE shooting's media coverage:
  “The framing of it is intended to mislead people...they want you to think it was an ICE agent.” —Tim [11:25]

• On generational culture war:
  “Gen Z...there’s not really any moderate Zoomers. It’s very uncouth to be centrist.” —Tate [18:45]

• On American cultural decline:
  “Without religion...societies can’t [survive] because you base your fundamental principles on something.” —Tim [36:59]

• On American frontier identity:
  “The cowboy really is the avatar of the United States...” —Tate [58:24]

• On the limits of political change:
  “You kind of just have to vote your way out of it...it’s not sexy, it doesn’t sell on YouTube...” —Tate [77:09]

• On missteps of technology:
  “We're going to have to have separate societies...the rural people are going to be able to preserve the American spirit.” —Native Patriot [114:23]

---

Key Timestamps

• [03:18] Main segment: ICE protest shooting, media framing, and contractor vs. ICE agent debate
• [59:30] Segment on Anne Whitcomb’s murder, UK political context, and media secrecy
• [17:32–39:59] Deep dive: Gen Z politics, CRT, assimilation and national identity
• [74:32] Media and generational radicalization—are the public being pacified intentionally?
• [95:51] Data center backlash and environmental/tech fears
• [101:54–104:00] AI “bubble,” killer apps, and predictions of AI-powered society

---

Conclusion

This episode weaves high-profile incidents into a wide-ranging, sometimes heated critique of American and Western politics, culture, and technology. It underscores the importance of narrative framing, generational worldviews, local politics, and the coming social disruption posed by AI. With memorable commentary and sharp disagreements, Timcast IRL presents a challenging but compelling window into the anxieties and ambitions driving today’s cultural Right.

Panelists’ Handles/Links:

• Native Patriot: X @law.nativepatriot // Patriots Prayer Network
• Tate Brown: X @realtatebrown
• Brett Dasovic: Instagram/X @brettdasovic // PCC Podcast
• Carter Banks: @CarterBanksOfficial // YouTube: Trash House Records
• Tim: X @PhilRemains

---

For those who missed the episode, this summary retains the uncensored, sometimes provocative tone of the panel—inviting continued debate in the after show.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

This past weekend at an Aurora, Colorado ICE facility, there was a protester shot. Now the media is reporting as an ICE employee, but he was a contractor working for, I believe it was Geo Corp. Now this is a big corporation. They do basically half of the, the detainment for ice. But I think that the, the nuance does matter, so we're going to get into that. There was also, there's a big issue in the uk Anne Whitcomb was murdered. Now, she is a, a, she's a politician, right?

[C]

Yes.

[B]

So she's formerly a politician, but it was such a gruesome murder. Someone broke into her house, struck her 21 times in the head with a hammer and then stole her wallet. So we're going to have have Tate give us the background on that one this morning. OpenAI had a rogue AI so it, it basically was built in a, in a sandbox for what they call like a gym learning facility. And it managed to escape the gym. It connected to Hugging Face, I think is the AI and it, it basically did all the things that Ultron did save tried to take over the world. So this is a, a big issue, particularly with how people are reacting to data centers and flock cameras. We're going to get into a, a big heated discussion about that. I'm sure the House has passed a bill to limit stock purchases for members of Congress. I don't think that this is actually going to be something that is going to make a big impact on the average person's life. But I know that there's a lot of people that really get upset about the fact that basically all the people in Congress are crooks. So we're going to talk about that. But first we want you to head on over to Bunker Branding. Right? And you want to buy some Tim Cast merch. The new Ian's Betrayal T shirt is available. You got the whole Tim Cast crew shooting Ian. It's a, it's a shame. But, you know, he said that he was going to bring the rain for the crops and he didn't do it because he can't change the weather and he had to pay. So head on over to Bunker Branding and get yourself some Tim Cast merch and smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends. Tell everyone you know you want to head on over to timcast.com and, and join our discord. So you can call into our rumble after show, right? We do the show until 10 o'. Clock, then we do the after show. You can call in, talk to the guests, talk to all of us. So head on over to rumble.com become a member there and then head on over to timcast.com and join our discord. So joining us to talk about all these things and more, we've got the Native Patriot.

[D]

Hey, I'm the Native Patriot. Thank you for having me on. I'm a Christian American supremacist, co creator of the Patriots Prayer Network and co host on the Can't Be bought podcast on YouTube.

[B]

Second time, right?

[D]

Second time.

[B]

Returning guest Brett's here.

[E]

What's going on, guys? Yep. Normally doing PCC Monday through Friday, 3pm Eastern, which is of course noon Pacific. You should join us there. But glad to be here. How you doing, Tate?

[C]

I'm doing all right. What's going on? Patriots tape. Brown, you're holding it down and happy

[A]

to to be here as am I holding it down with you, Tate and Phil. Let's get into it, dude.

[B]

All right, so let's see from the Border report, Colorado ICE facility employee arrested, accused of shooting a protester. Now, like I said earlier, he's not technically an employee of ice. This wasn't a law enforcement agent. This is a guy that works for the Geo Group. And the Geo Group is a, they basically run prisons for the, for, for basically whoever will pay them, but private sector prisons.

[E]

Yeah. Oh, it's going to be a good episode tonight.

[B]

This is fantastic. They do about 50% of of ice holding facilities now. So like I said from, from the border report, a man who works for the Geo Group allegedly shot a woman protesting near the ICE Processing center in Aurora, Colorado on Thursday night. According to a press release from the Aurora Police Department on Friday afternoon, the man, identified as 42 year old Brandon Booth, was arrested after fleeing the scene in his vehicle, police say. Just before 7:30pm on Thursday, Aurora police responded to reports of a shooting at the 3100 block of North Nome Street. When officers arrived, they located two women, one who had suffered a gunshot wound to the lower body and another who was unharmed. Officers stopped the vehicle a short distance away and the vehicle with the gun inside was seized. Both identified as the driver was detained. I'm sorry. Booth, identified as the driver, was detained. Investigators said an initial investigation revealed the woman were women were part of a protest taking place near the Aurora Ice Processing Center. So basically this, this guy's trying to get to work. They're out in front of his car making a bunch of noise and then he gets all shooty in a stupid way because apparently the woman was walking away. So she was shot in the Back and he was also a. Thankfully he was a bad shot because the injuries were not life threatening.

[E]

This is like the, like for somebody who's a huge gun rights activist, like, this is like the worst possible scenario you can have for something like this because it's the opposite of what people who actually own and respect firearms try to preach to people, which is to have reverence for what you. For what you have and be very careful when using it. And you should not do so unless your life is threatened. Her back was turned to him. And it makes. First of all, it's bad for people who own guns and it's twice as bad for ICE who's like, literally every time I'm on the show, which is like once a week, it's like something's happening at an ICE facility. And I don't know if it happens every day and it's just when I'm. Or if it's just when I'm here, but it seems like a really bad bit of publicity all around.

[B]

Yeah, he was off duty, so he wasn't technically at work yet. So he was not acting in any security capacity. She was walking away, like I said. And the GEO Group operates the Aurora facility under ICE contract. And like to your point, Brett, like, look, if you're going to carry a gun, which everybody knows I carry a gun, you have to deescalate.

[E]

Right.

[B]

You have to do everything you can to avoid using any kind of self defense. And if you, I mean, if you have a gun, you avoid confrontations.

[E]

Do you remember we, me and you were on a show. I think it was another day when you were, you were running the show about the, the guy who. His house got robbed and he followed him into the street.

[B]

Oh yeah.

[E]

Like it's the bad idea. It's the same thing. Right. It's horrible PR and it makes everybody look bad.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, that's the law too.

[D]

I wouldn't even know if you could relate those two. This, this sounds more like that. I think that guy in Brazil who just like walked was in a traffic jam and there was a protest and he just walked out and just started shooting. Yeah, right. It's almost like there's a fatigue that has built up for a long time and, and whatever was going on in this guy's life, he just decided to throw it all away.

[E]

Is that the one with the guy with the famous picture?

[B]

Oh, yes.

[E]

Okay. That's. That was the first thing I thought of, but I was like, that didn't happen here. Right?

[D]

It was in Brazil. Yeah.

[E]

I just saw somebody reposted it said like I think about this guy sometimes because he just has like, he looks like dead eyed George Lucas.

[B]

Just fed up.

[D]

Yeah. Just completely fatigued. And I mean there. You would imagine that there was something else going on in his life to where he was just, just decided today's the day to throw it all away.

[B]

Falling down in real life. Right. Like you know, it's like oh, just like the movie. But no, to your point, the, the, the idea that people have gotten to the, gotten tired of the protesting and especially if you're, if you're someone that works at an ice facility and you're just like man, I just want to get to work. You know it again, this is totally irresponsible behavior. But this is the goal of people on the left. I mean this couldn't, couldn't have worked out any better for the, for the ICE protesters. I mean from CPR news, you know, the woman shot outside Aurora ice facility returns to protest. So she was, she was shot on Thursday and she's back. What was it? When was this posted? This was, this was posted yesterday. I think it was the 20th or. No, this was Monday. Just days after she was shot at a protest. 22 year old Emma Landis spoke to supporters at the scene of the crime. The shooting, which made national headlines, happened at the end of a protest outside the facility in Aurora on Thursday. Police arrested Brandon Booth, an employee of the facility operator Geo Group, shortly after. He shot me in the right foot. We were on the sidewalk. Sorry for laughing, but he shot me in the right foot. We were on the sidewalk protesting and they were mocking us and threatening us and as we were crossing the street, that's when he shot me. Landa said in a demonstration Saturday at the facility. So apparently she wasn't even shot in the back. She was shot in the foot. Never in a million years did I think that would happen.

[E]

This is, that's a, that's a problem too, right? Not imagining that like encroaching on other people and, and causing problems them could lead to somebody doing something really stupid and possibly harming you is something you should actually be thinking about.

[B]

Yeah, I mean I, I, even though this guy wasn't, you know, law enforcement, like anytime you go and harass people that are, that are doing their job, there will, there, there could be consequences. Unfortunately this person was shot in the foot and, and I'm, I mean unfortunately she was shot. Not saying that it was unfortunate, just.

[A]

Yeah, I think we know what you mean. Yeah.

[B]

Just want to Clear that up. I don't want anybody.

[E]

The Marxists would have loved it if they could have gotten it on film so they could have cut. Cut out the part where she's bothering him and only, you know, show the

[B]

part where she gets shot like superimposed, like a nuclear explosion going on.

[C]

I think this is one of those stories where I don't think I really have a dog in this fight. I mean I really do detest the ICE protesters. I think they're. I was mentioning it before the show. I think they're the only set of protesters that I feel directly offended by. You know, I think it's. I think it's okay actually to get offended and triggered sometimes if there is like a serious. If they are seriously undercutting your life in any meaningful way and ICE is carrying out this operation that a is defending the sovereignty of the United States, which matters, you know, so much to me as an American, as it should be to any American. And then yes, secondarily, just the way that they conduct themselves is just. Is very. It's preventing these officers from doing their jobs. And often in many cases. So I really don't like these protesters whatsoever. And on the flip side, I don't think I would ever shoot at someone because they were like.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Bothering me.

[D]

So actually a woman walking away, that's like. Yeah, it seems just really odd all around.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

So I'm just got to that point.

[C]

So I'm just like, you know what? I don't think I really have a dog in this fight. I mean like let's not shoot up protesters. But also it's not, you know, harass ICE agents who are doing. Carrying out a. An operation that was voted on by the American people. So you know, in both cases I think horrific. But no, yeah, I mean like, yeah, we probably should be shooting at horrific

[B]

is a little extreme.

[C]

Well, I think what the ICE protesters are doing is horrific. Yeah, I think the gentleman there. This happens a lot in United States where people get in road rage incidents or crash out or whatever. It's just this time it happened to be outside of a nice facility. Uh, but it's funny cause this story broke and it took like three hours before I finally figured out what was going on. Cause initially I was like, oh wow, I shot someone else. You know, outside of this Iceland. I wonder what this is going to be. And then like three hours later it came out. It wasn't even an ICE officer or anything. I was just like, oh well the, the rushed. The headline rushed out did not properly Communicate that. You know, when you hear outside of an ICE facility that's sort of trying to lead you telltale sign something happened.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

Be like a road rage shooting happening outside of a police department. They say, oh, a shooting outside the police department. You go, oh, my gosh, you know, the cops must have shot someone.

[B]

But yeah, I mean, the whole framing of it is intended to mislead people, or at least, you know, people that would read the headline. They want to be like, oh, see, it's another ice. ICE agent that has shot a protester or, you know, shot an innocent person or whatever. And I was making this point before the show, like when it was, you know, when you were talking about the Iraq war. Anytime Blackwater got into any kind of gunfight or did anything that was outside the rules, they were very clear that they were contractors. There was, there was a very clear delineation between people in the military and Blackwater contractors. Even though Blackwater contractors are the ones that were. They were protecting, you know, they were protecting the fields. No, they were. They. No, no, they were protecting Afghanistan. They were protecting, like diplomats, like ambassadors and stuff like that. They would use private security to do that a lot of times. And every time that something happened, like I said, they made it very clear it was not US Military. It was not US Military. It was the contractors. The contractors. The way that the government could shift blame, basically. And basically the media went along with it, because the media doesn't love private military contractors any more than, you know, than basically any other left wing person would. So it was very easy for them to go ahead and go, yeah, it was contractors with contractors. And in this context, the headlines and stuff basically do everything they can to lead you to believe that it was an ICE employee, that it was someone that actually worked for ice. Probably hoping that you're going to think that it was some kind of law enforcement agent, which technically, I guess this guy would be a corrections officer of some kind. But it's definitely not the same kind of thing as, you know, when ICE agents are trying to grab someone off the street and then a protester puts themselves in between the protest or in between the. The suspect and the law enforcement officer, and the officer shoots, tries to drive over him or something along those lines.

[C]

I think it just illustrates how slow the, the. The news cycle is right now when it's like, crazy person shoots other crazy person in the foot and everyone's like, oh, wow, this is really interesting. We should really stop everywhere.

[D]

Deportations.

[C]

Yeah, literally. I think it just shows you, like, One of two things is one that I think these people that are spinning up these stories are starting to realize that, like, typically these shootings are fairly justified from ISIS perspective. And then secondarily, that there really isn't that much news going on. And so they're like, all right, well, let's run the story about a crazy person getting in a road rage incident with another crazy person firing at them. Like that happens, I don't know, probably at least once a day in the country. Probably even more than that.

[B]

The media definitely doesn't want to talk about the DSA or the Democrat Party right now. The split in the Democrat Party and how the DSA is, you know, basically taking over the Democrat Party. So they're going to do everything they can to talk about any other topic you think that'll take for the DSA to take over. I mean, I don't, I don't know that I could really put a time frame on it. A few years, I assume.

[C]

I think the next, the next Democrat primary will ultimately be kind of the referendum on the dsa, because up until now, we haven't seen a DSA candidate really contest the, you know, we haven't

[B]

seen a primary from the Democrats in a long time, too.

[C]

Well, true. Yeah. So I think, you know, 2028, if you see an AOC, throw a hat in the ring, which seems likely at this point. She's already basically campaigning. That will be now us to kind of get a heat check on. Where's the national.

[D]

Well, they're. They're creating strongholds in places like Washington state. So, yeah, where I'm from, they're on the charter review board and they're changing the charter. Like our, our sheriff in Pierce county is Keith Swank. And it's like the only person that has ever won since I've been voting that I voted for was Keith Swank.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And the Democrats and the communists there in Washington basically hate him because he said that men are men and women, women. That's pretty much it. And so our elected sheriff is now, they're changing the rules to where they can remove the elected sheriff and then select their own. And, I mean, along with a litany of other things that they're doing behind the scenes. But these, these places, you know, the west coast, basically any blue state, they're quietly implementing rules to secure their future stranglehold of our rights.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the dynamic we've seen thus far at the dsa is they run up the numbers in very blue areas. You Know your Seattle's, your Portlands, your New York cities, Chicago's, you know, your major cities. But they really struggle to penetrate any suburban districts or even rural districts. There's barely any left that are Democrat, but the ones that exist and they also struggle to really break through in a lot of the more historically ethnic districts like in South Texas, the Hispanic districts or the black districts in the South. So I think it'll be interesting to see now at the national level. It's like, okay, we've been building up all this enthusiasm, activism base and racking up victories in urban centers lets you do it on the national scale. And I kind of struggle to see if that's really going to, if that's really going to manifest because, you know, the Democrat Party, I think to your point, is still probably maybe a decade away from a DSA candidate being truly viable because there's still a lot of baby boomers in the Democrat Party and there's not much of an appetite for socialism among them.

[E]

You say it seemed like it would be more, you said like this, this election cycle is a bit of a referendum and it seems like it would be more like two election cycles from now will be an idea of just how far they've penetrated into the.

[C]

Yeah, the next one will be the heat check. Like, okay, are they really in the driver's seat? And I would say probably not. And then the following one will be like, all right, well let's see it like now, now you got this is your situation. The boomers at that point in two cycles, maybe a quarter of them to a third of them will be dead by then. So that's when it'll be like, all right, are the young people really into this kind of thing? Like what, what's the situation? What's the future of the Democrat Party? I think that'll ultimately be the election

[B]

that determines kind of a millennial party. Right. They're, they're, yeah, they get their, their strength with the millennials. I don't know how, how popular they are with like Gen Z, but Gen Z is kind of a non issue because not only do young people not particularly vote, there's also very few of them comparatively. Right.

[A]

The, the number is actually less, less radical than, than the dsa.

[B]

What was that?

[A]

I think Gen Z is actually more right leaning. I've been hearing that a lot. I thought.

[C]

Well, I think the, I think there's like two dynamics there, which is Gen Z is a really interesting study because it's the first generation of its kind in America. Insofar as it's 50% white, 50% non white, when the country is about 70% white. So what you're going to see as Gen Z moves up the ranks is I think, you know, people are saying, oh, it's the most right wing generation ever. It's the most Christian generation ever. And then like when you actually see studies and data and polling on Gen Z, and I'm saying this as a Zoomer, I'm 25, that's not borne out in the data. It's true that the trends have slowed down, so they're not secularizing at the same rate that millennials did. And they're not as liberal as millennials were at this point, but they're still continuing the trend that you would expect to see. Now the interesting thing is if you read the cross tabs among white zoomers, they are very right wing, are right wing and very Christian, but with a lot of, you know, zoomers of immigrant backgrounds and also of like black background, they're very left wing. And so what you're really seeing here, and then obviously there's white zoomers that are left wing and vice versa. But we're talking generalizations here. So what you're going to see is kind of the showdown, I think politics is to get more racial. And in addition to that, I think you're going to see more polarization because there's not really any moderate zoomers. Like, it's very uncouth to be centrist.

[D]

The big streamers like Asmongold and Hasan Piker, I know that they have feuds all the time, but I mean, Hasan Piker just came out and did a speech dressed as like Mao.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[D]

And he's well supported and a lot of people will kind of just push that to the side. But you know, with, with people like Mamdami winning and you know, Hassan still somehow being popular, it's just radicalization by both groups and, and just American culture in general being completely lost in the mix. It's, it's going to be, you know, it's going to be the, the communists versus Zoomerwaff Americans.

[B]

It's, it's going to be zoomerwaffen versus Communists. Yeah, that's Zoomer.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

I don't know why I haven't heard that.

[C]

No, I mean, that's like literally what's going to happen.

[B]

And, and I think that that the, to your point, Ted, about the racialization of our politics, that actually is a victory for the left because the left are, who have been pushing the racialization When I was young, because I'm an old guy. Right. When I was young, we, you know, you did have a larger majority of white people in, in the U.S. but we didn't think about our race. Right. We didn't think politically when it comes to race. It was just like, well, you know, we want to be, you know, we were basically liberals. Right. Like and when I say liberals I mean like. But in the classical sense. Right. And that was something that, that's totally evaporated now. Right?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

What you're saying be that way anymore. But it used to be where it was uncouth to talk about, you know, well, I'm white and I think about the fact that I'm white. And now because the left has pushed the, the racial politics and the, the desire to awaken a critical racial cons which people talk about. You know, it's probably not something you people hear all the time nowadays, but back in 2020 people were talking about CRT, critical race theory and how big of a deal it was. Well, the goal of critical race theory was to awaken a critical racial consciousness. And Jordan Peterson was talking about this in 2016 when he would say, look, you don't want to have white people decide that they're going to vote as white people. Like this is not something that's going to be good for our politics. We don't want to have people thinking about their race first. But that's, you know, and he predict, he was predicting it like I said 10 years ago, 2020 comes around and CRTS basically in all the schools and stuff. And then people notice, they're like, oh wow, you know, you're supposed to think about your race first. And you're seeing, you're going to see that become something like you said, you're going to see that become something really important in the politics in the United States. And you know, right, wrong or indifferent, that is the future. And that is a victory for the left because that was their goal and

[D]

their goal for ages kind of. Yeah, I mean it's almost necessary at this point because of the anti white propaganda going around a long time. But that's order to preserve the white race. I mean you're saying the Gen Z is now, you know, 50. 50.

[B]

Yeah. 3.

[D]

You'd actually have to, you'd actually have to have white people aware that they should, that the white race should continue. Yeah, it has to be a conscious choice because I have many white family, like half my family's white. And I Remember after the 2016 election, one of My relatives, they were, they came up to me and they were, you know, very tedious, but they were like, I'm worried about you. And I was like, like what? Why are you worried about me? Like, I'm worried about you. And they had no idea, they, it never registered that they're white and that there's, there's this anti white propaganda because they were so bought into it at that point where they believed that the, you know, the white supremacists were going to rule over the.

[C]

Yeah, the whole thing.

[D]

But it's like there was no idea to actually preserve the white race in general.

[B]

It was just, it was not, it wasn't just a no idea. The idea that it was something that was an idea you weren't allowed to have.

[D]

Yeah, right.

[B]

You like, if you thought about, if you thought about being a white person, it was like, oh, you think about being a white person, that's because you're a racist. Well, because what went hand in hand

[C]

and what you're describing earlier when you're saying, well, people, you know, are starting to have this kind of racial conscious, like at least among white people, I think everybody else already has for a long time is really what you're describing. There is just the demise of liberalism broadly because post racialism, the idea that like, you know, it's, it's, you know, it's just skin deep, but it's actually like there's no other differences between anyone, et cetera, like MLK's vision for the United States, that's like a uniquely liberal idea. So what you're outlining is more we're just seeing the dissolution of liberalism, which has been observed by political scientists all across the world. You're seeing it in Europe, you're even seeing it, you know, in Asia and pretty much everywhere in the world actually. So really what you're describing is this abandonment of post racialism insofar as like this idea that white people always behave this way. That like we always were just like, I don't know, man, like, like we, you know, we're all individuals or whatever. Like individualism is a very liberal idea, strictly speaking, in this certain aspect. And before the 1960s, I mean we had like racial, we had racial requirements for immigration. Like, you know, white people did have this understanding that like the United States, the demographic composition of the United States is that way for a reason, whether it's good or bad. That's the debate, but that's the reality. And so they had this kind of understanding of like, well, if we're conservatives Then we should just seek to conserve everything, like conserve everything about society. So yeah, this idea that like, you know, we're like losing post racialism and this is like the left pushing identity politics. I guess my counterargument would just be that I think everything, all politics is derivative of identity. Like every action that someone makes is derivative of an identity. Whether it's racial, sure, but whether it's religious, whether it's your class, which I think is a little overstated, or whether it's a direct family or a specific ethnicity, you're Italian, you're Irish, or whatever, whatever identity that you have from birth, people have always operated politically in that understanding. The idea that anyone is truly this individual rational being I think is a very liberal argument. That just sounds nice and I do wish the world was that way, don't get me wrong. But it's just not really reflected in people's behaviors when it comes to how they operate politically. We just had this 50 year blip after MLK, the civil rights act, where there was this idea that maybe we were moving towards MLK's America, this post racial America. But you saw corrections, you know, some reality checks. Like we saw the Crown Heights riots, we saw the O.J. simpson trial. I mean we saw 9 11, how people just immediately were like Muslims, they gotta go, that sort of thing. So you had these touch points along the way where people did China Shack, you know, take off that shackle, so to speak, of post racialism. And they're like, no, actually, you know, and they like locked in when the,

[E]

the white guilt you're talking about, a lot of that is a result of post 911 and the way that Muslims are treated in America. When people real felt like they'd gone too far with a lot of that. People my age, meaning like younger millennials at that time, they saw it after the fact and it was drilled into them in the media that the way that people were behaving was wrong. And now they've been trying to correct that ever since in a lot of ways. Like what you were mentioning earlier, the, the white liberal is the only group in America with an out group bias. Right. Meaning that they don't care what you look like, who you're from, they want to hang out with you, hang out with every. Everybody else has their own in group preferences because it's a mode of survival. Whereas white liberals in America never understood that need for that type of survival because they didn't think in a post racial or they, they thought in a post racial society.

[C]

Yeah. And like you know, and even maybe to push back against like the more like race realist people that are out there. I think that various ethnicities can get along while still acknowledging that there is like, we're different. Like, that's just the reality of the situation. So this idea that like, we need to reduce everyone down to like just a beige mass, which is really what the liberal regime has attempted to do, you know, even people in our own ranks have said, you know, I'd like to see everyone just kind of melt into one big ethnicity, global ethnicity. I don't know if that's going to create more, you know, I don't think people are going to get along any better. They'll just find other differences, other identities.

[E]

Your hands up. Look at, hope for it. I mean, look at like, look at

[B]

the caste system in India. Yeah, in India they're all Indians. And if you're of the wrong caste, you're going to be treated like absolute dog shit.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

You know, I think the thing that we kind of lost with the racial argument is the idea of assimilation. They focus a lot on the skin color of the person, but not so much as to, you know, if somebody is assimilated or want to see.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

You know, I think to the American culture, which is now almost, it's not completely lost, but there has been a substantial, like, just disappearance of the ideals that separated America from all of human history. And now it's, it's, it's kind of just going back to the base identifiers which is going to be race. And hopefully that doesn't last forever. You know, being a half breed myself, it's like, you know, I'm advocating for like white people. I'm like, you guys need to save your race. But at the same time I'm also like, but, you know, like, don't take me out, you know, in the meantime,

[C]

you know, I think what you're and what you're like getting at is this idea that America. I do think that people that are immigration proponents are correct insofar as America does have this unique ability to incorporate people into the tribe, so to speak. The American tribe, you know, broadly, whatever that means is still up for debate. But I do agree that yes, America, the thing that does separate us from the old world is we do have this ability that no matter where in the world you're from, you do have the ability to assimilate. I think the problem has been the volume. That is why you're seeing the reaction now under mass migration. Jeremy Carl was on the show recently who has been lambasted by the media for various things, which is just ridiculous. And he's a genius and he's an expert on this topic. And he was saying he noticed among his, you know, his friends and people he's met and whatever that were Indian, you know, they're like from India or their parents are from India, who grew up in rural areas or suburbs of smaller towns or in smaller towns or whatever you name it, were pretty distinctly American. Like, they carried a lot of the same characteristics you would expect to see of Americans. And he contrasted that with people who are second, even third generation immigrants that grew up in Queens or grew up in Los Angeles or the San Francisco suburbs. And he remarked about how they seem to have failed to assimilate. And, well, what's the explanation? It's like, well, because they weren't surrounded by Americans. When you drop and you create an ethnic enclave or even an enclave of other ethnic groups that are outside of the main kind of groups in the United States, you are going to fail to assimilate these people. So I don't really subscribe to the idea. And maybe people think I'm like a lib trait or whatever. I don't think we need to bring back a national formulas act or anything like that. I'm just saying that the volume has been too much. You should be conscious of the cultural differences. Like, it's gonna be easier for someone from Australia to assimilate the United States than someone from Somalia. But when you do skim the cream, so to speak. Like, if you do find an exceptional Somali, like an Ayan Hirsi Ali, just bring her over. You don't need to bring over 30,000 people from the same tribe. Like, bring her over. I promise she'll assimilate probably in her lifetime. And then her kids will be fairly indistinguishable and they'll marry into the tribe. And then that's how you do it.

[D]

It was the difference of this idea of multiculturalism versus a melting potential. Yeah, Like, I was raised to believe in a melting pot. Like, you know, you become an American by assimilating into American culture. You know, I mean, there used to be camps that.

[B]

That Schoolhouse Rock, man.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

You know.

[D]

Well, and there used to be camps that they would send natives to. And the idea was to kill the savage and save the man. Right. And they taught them Christianity and things like that. Now, you know, 100 years later, where you have a native American like myself who's Christian, fighting for Christianity, you know, I don't really see that as a bad thing because for thousands of years, you know, there were warring tribes and various things happening. And then the settlers came over and for the most part, a lot of Native Americans assimilated and I think are better off for it, for the most part. But if you, if we just bring people over and we allow the savages to take over.

[B]

Yep.

[D]

You know, there's, I mean, say whatever you want about the camps that, you know, they put natives into. It was better overall than what's happening right now where they, they're just bringing over hordes of people that don't have any. They don't want to assimilate at all. They want to take advantage of the welfare system and they want to only extract and from, from our system that has been created that we've inherited to protect. And I, I think that what's happening today is, is far, far worse than, than what happened to get us to this point.

[E]

I think that's actually true. So when you talk about people coming over here, there was this idea that we brought people over to share in American values and that they would become American. And then in a lot of ways, those people learn to love the country even more than the people who were born here because they had to learn so much about the country. But I think a big part of it is also is the hollowing out of the middle class. Like there was a sense of idealism about coming over here before. If you were not brought over here necessarily on an H1B visa, or if you were coming over here to build a better life without, you know, an automatic into a corporation or something, something like that. The idea was that you were going to come over here and you were going to build a life for yourself. White picket fence, you know, family, two kids, whatever it was. That was, like you said, a post racial idea that everybody in America would have access to that. But as that amount of people has shrunk and there's more class warfare combined with race warfare in America, like that idea doesn't hold the same sway that it used to.

[C]

Well, I mean, I would, I would just posit that in the 21st century, and this is actually something that I discussed with Jeremy, Carl, Scott Green, Steve Dungeon was over there. It's on Tim Castirell. I think everyone should watch it if you're interested in this topic, is that assimilation might actually for non Westerners be impossible in the 21st century because of modern amenities. So yes, welfare. We've hit on this extensively. Europe's wrestling with this as well. And they're kind of the. Denmark has laid out a great example of how to prevent immigrants from coming and taking advantage of your welfare. But another problem is the modern amenities that are like technology and this interconnected world. The world feels smaller than ever in many ways. So if a Westerner comes over here, again, not really difficult because for an American going to Britain or vice versa, well, depending on where you are in Britain, it doesn't feel terribly foreign. Like, okay, there's some differences there, no

[E]

AC over the different packaging.

[B]

Particularly when you go to go to cities. Right. Like, so if you're in an urban area with. If you're in London or New York or L. A. Yeah, they're all homogenous. You can kind, you can get around basically anywhere, any major city and it's.

[C]

And it's going to be like, okay, it's not going to be the same, but it's going to be broadly familiar. I guess what I'm trying to get at versus if you went to Lego, so versus if you went to New Delhi or you went to Manila and the Philippines, it would feel especially foreign. You would immediately feel alienated and you would immediately probably have this divide between you. And this happens. I mean, I've traveled pretty much everywhere and everywhere I've gone that's outside of the west, there's always been a level of discomfort just because I don't understand the place very well. And I kind of understand that as an American I'll never assimilate into this place, no matter how long I stayed. I would raise my kids Christian. I would give them Christian names. Like, you know, there would be this breakdown. So what I guess I'm trying to get at is people that come here from the third World or just really outside of the west in general. I don't know if they can still assimilate just because of the Internet, because of social media. Where you'll see this when I lived in Queens for four years is a lot of first and second generation immigrants would engage and consume more media from their home country than they would from the United States. They would continue to send remittances back to their home country. They would never like, truly break. They would never. Traditionally, when immigrants came to the United States, they would come over and they'd never know if they'd even go back. Like they were convinced that they might just be here for good. And many of them rarely did go back where now they're going back and forth all the time for holidays. The Internet makes it really easy to basically feel like you're still there. Online commerce makes it easy to bring in goods from your home country.

[E]

It's just a country of wealth extraction, then.

[C]

Yeah, well, I mean, this is the fight of our time, really. Is, what is America? Is it a distinct nation with a distinct heritage, etc. As JD Vance outlined at NATCON, or is it just a giant shopping mall? And right now it feels more like a shopping mall. And Europe, specifically Western Europe, also increasingly feels like this. And I suspect one of the main reasons is because it's not just that they're not assimilating.

[D]

I just.

[C]

I question if they even have the capability of assimilating to no fault of their own. It's just the reality of the 21st century that, again, with how interconnected everything is, it's hard to truly break from your home country. And some people do. And I know people that are immigrants and they're terrific people, but the difference between them and the majority is that the people that came here and they're terrific and they've assimilated, made a conscious effort. Like, we're not going to teach our kids our native language. We're going to put them in American schools, make them consume American media, give them American names. Like, they made a very conscious effort to sort of break the. Say, we're not going back to India, we're not going back to China or the Philippines or you name it.

[E]

So that part of multiculturalism is tied to American export now. So I was having a discussion with someone on my channel about the Odyssey. We were talking about the casting in the Odyssey, and we were talking about the fact that, look, all the casting controversies that were there, for the most part, they were. They didn't have a ton of screen time except for Himish Patel. And he said, you know, cynically, you cast a man from India because there's a million people in India that can watch your movie. So America will change, you know, quintessentially Western stories for the sake of capitalist export to the rest of the world, because America is a net exporter when it comes to entertainment and things like that. So we kind of, in that way, we handicap ourselves because we don't tie ourselves. And I'm somebody who comes on the other side of the. Of the discussion on this. For the most part, those types of swaps and movies have never really bothered me. I understand that art is vastly different these days. And they see what they. What they would like to think of as like a colorblind society, though, oddly enough, it means they have to be more color Conscious to do the casting for things like that. But the idea is, is that type of change to a western story is very American to do because America doesn't feel like it has a cohesive cultural identity. So it's become the world.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

What is the cult, the American culture identity now? Because when I like when I think of like what is American, I think Christian. And I think to most people these days that doesn't come up.

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

And I think that with our founding being so tied to Christianity, it's without that, I think that we just will become one of the world.

[B]

Well, without religion, without, without a religion to, to kind of bind your people together. The like you, you can, man can't live without religion. Right. Whether or not they like it, whether or not they realize it, a man can live without religion, but societies can't because you base your fundamental principles on something. And the US Our fundamental prison principles were unquestionably based on Christianity. And as you remove those principles, as you remove those ideals, then they're replaced with something else.

[C]

Well, and you have to be precise about like what specifically when you're saying Christianity. Well, it's like, you know, there's 2 billion roughly adherents of Christianity globally. The United States had a very particular expression of Christianity which was among the general population, sort of a low church kind of Protestantism. And what you're seeing now is there's still a lot of Christians coming to the country, but they have a sort of different understanding of Christianity. And I think you can't really detach like the United States from its foundation. And so you do need to analyze like okay, what, what did Christianity look like in the 18th, 19th, not episode even early century. Well, and the Episcopalians dominated the elite. But you know, you look among like the low church and it was low church Anglicanism, it was Methodists, et cetera. And it's, I'm not just referencing Catholicism here, where Catholicism has grown now it's 20% of the country. And it's something that I think the founders would be like pretty horrified by, but I think the founders would equally be horrified at the current manifestation of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism. And I'll just say where it's like evangelicalism now where you see sort of these big box mega churches that are, you know, non denominational and they don't really have any. They're very high on ecumenicalism. Right. They're just like, we're all Christians, like there's no accountability really in these churches. And I'm not really, I'm not really hating on anyone that is of either of these faiths. I'm just making the point that like, this is evidence of the deracination of the United States because that megachurch model and Catholicism can both be replicated at any point, anywhere in the world, at any time, where the previous understanding of Christianity really until like the 1960s and 70s was distinctly uniquely American. And I think this is what helps national unity is this was the same in Europe. Like, you know, the Dutch were all Dutch Reformed. The Germans were like Lutheran. And the south, they were Catholic. The British were Anglicans, the Swedes were, you know, they had a specific type of Lutheranism. So you would see this like distinct expressions of Christianity that were intrinsically tied to, to the culture of the country. And what you're seeing now, I guess what I'm trying to get at is what the type of manifestation of Christianity you're seeing in the United States now is a very globalist expression of Christianity, whether it is Catholicism or whether it is sort of big box, non denominational.

[E]

Well, and a lot of those do, like, a lot of missionary work is done that way. Right. Because the big churches end up having people going all over the world.

[C]

Well, what's ironic is that the missionaries of sort of, I guess you would maybe say mainline Protestantism would be the accurate description, were so effective that you're seeing now there's more Presbyterians, more Anglicans in Africa than there is in their traditional home nations of the United Kingdom of the United States. So as the US I'll just reference the US Here, as the US Becomes more non denominational and more Catholic. And you see kind of the decline of traditional Protestantism that would have been familiar to the founders and early Americans. The more that expression does grow in places like Africa, albeit they've put their own spin on it, but at least the core theological tenets are there and to some degree the aesthetics, and so that's always kind of fascinating to me is like, I agree you cannot divorce the United States from Christianity, but it's also a very specific type of Christianity because Haiti is also like 80% Christian. But I would really kind of argue that, I would dispute the idea that the Christianity that Americans have historically had and the Christianity you find in Haiti is fairly similar, albeit get some core theological. You know, I think we're kind of

[D]

seeing, we're seeing the ramifications of removing our representation in government from God, because in 1962 when, when the Supreme Court decided, you know, the separation of church and state as if that was written in the Constitution and they, they implemented that throughout the entire government. That's, that separated the family unit by devaluing marriage. And they came up with no fault divorce, you know, the birth control pill. I mean, all of that stuff kind of added on to it. But we're now seeing a culture that is being, that has been raised without God tying them together. So we're, we're seeing, you know, I mean, even if I like myself, you know, I, I come from divorced parents. The first son that I had was from my high school sweetheart, not my current wife. And so it's, it's like there's, there's been ripples of, of this happening for a long time. And with the, the actual separation of church and state, what we have now has led to a lot of these issues that we're seeing throughout the country and no way to assimilate the foreigners that they're bringing in because we don't really have that shared culture, that shared American culture that used to be.

[E]

Can I ask you. Oh, go ahead.

[C]

Well, and I was just say, I mean, to kind of piggyback off what you're saying too is, and we still have the framework of Christianity, but the way it manifests in the modern American as they'll say, well, I'm not religious, I'm very spiritual, or I believe in God, but they won't really drill down on what they're talking about, which means, like, I am my own God. And so really what's happening here is people are, it's almost worse than what's happening in Europe to some degree, where in Europe they're very comfortable saying, I'm not religious, like I don't believe in God, et cetera. Where in America people have this idea of God that really exists for the sole purpose of like, re. Emphasizing what they already believe or for the sole purpose of validating these bad decisions that they're making. And this is very common in the United States.

[B]

Those people don't have a real religion to your point. Right. Like, they'll celebrate, they'll celebrate Christmas, they don't celebrate Easter, they don't go to church on Easter. Those people don't. Like, they'll say, oh, you know, I'm, I'm Christian, but I, you know, I don't go to church or whatever. That's not really a Christian. Right. Like, it's, it's, it's more of, of saying, well, you know, I, I was, you know, I believe in being nice. It's far more like when people are, are saying, you know, we should Be nice. And it's more of a. I'm a spiritual person and because even, you know, as a person that considers still considers themselves not agnostic. Right. Like, I understand that if you are a Christian, you're saying that you believe Christ is God. Right. And without that, you're not actually a Christian. Just because you give presents at Christmas, that doesn't make you a Christian. You have to believe that Christ is divine. You have to believe that God, that the reason that Christ came to earth is to forgive your sins. And like, so all of Christianity flows from that. So just saying, oh, well, you know, I'm spiritual and I'm kind to Christian. You can't be kind to Christian. You're either a Christian or you're not. You either believe Christ was divine. Yeah, you either believe Christ was divine or you don't. And there's no. And everybody that hymns and haws about it and says, well, you know, I'm a Christian, but I'm more spiritual. No, you're not a Christian. You're a heathen.

[A]

Can't just believe in Santa Claus like yours.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[C]

It's a very exclusionary faith, 100%. That's the case with pretty much every religion. Insofar as, you know, historically with Christianity there was, you know, a pretty good dividing line between if you're a Christian or not. We're now, because it has gotten so watered down and now because there is so much wriggle room and whatnot, people are able to shop around and find an expression of really religion broadly, but specifically Christianity that does kind of steel man, what they already believe.

[B]

This is the whole reason that I still call myself agnostic. Right. Like I don't feel comfortable telling people that I'm a Christian because I'm not 100 sure that I believe in God or that Christ was, was the son of God. Right. If I were to say, well, you know, I was raised Catholic, so I'm kind of a Christian, blah, blah, and him and ha about it or kind of like, you know, mince words so that way I can, you know, make the person I'm talking to feel comfortable or whatever, or I can, I can smooth, smooth the conversation over, then you're lying. And the point, the whole point is, the whole point of Christianity is you believe Christ has gotten. And I, I don't understand why people, yeah. You know, have this, this desire to kind of, you know, not actually tell the truth, which is, no, I don't. I'm not a Christian or I'm, I'm not Sure of what I believe.

[D]

You know, you kind of brought it up earlier with saying that, that, I mean, Christianity has been bastardized to the point where it's almost synonymous with being nice and Christians. That there's James Talarico, you're not supposed to just be nice. I mean, that is exclusionary, like you said, in a lot of ways. And you know, it's, it's kind of been boiled down, you know, with, with our holidays and everything and the, the way that it's been marketed over the years. You know, it's, it's more about the tree now than it is the birth of Christ.

[E]

And that's a leftist position to try and straw man an argument. Anytime you push back on anything they do, they're like, well, that's not very Christian of you.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, but. And I think what Phil was getting at is a really interesting thing because that's actually a very uniquely American thing. To be at the point where you're functionally agnostic or even potentially functionally atheist, but you still claim that you're Christian is actually a very uniquely American thing. This doesn't really occur anywhere else in the world. And I think the reason for that is actually ingrained in the American DNA because if you look at the time of the founding and people have pointed out that some founders were indeed deists. But what's interesting is if you were to go to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson and press them on this, they would identify as Anglicans. And also the overwhelming majority of America, I think, is 80 to 90% of Americans. Actually upwards of 90% of Americans identified as Christian. And they would be able to, they had high biblical literacy. So they would be able to explain Christianity at a very high level. But what's interesting is at the time of the founding in 1776, only about 20% of Americans regularly attended church. So what you had was a cultural Christianity and a population that was highly illiterate, very intelligent, that had a very good understanding of Christianity. And they were able to correctly identify that the structure that they exist in exists because of Christianity. So they ought to carry themselves in a Christian way, you know, promote Christian values, even if they themselves weren't convinced on, you know, the resurrection or something like that. Where now where we're kind of in this era where it's Christianity, it's kind of difficult to see around you these days because of how bad things have gotten. To your point, how much the government has seemed to distance itself from Christianity. People don't have that knee jerk reaction. People don't have any biblical literacy. People can't even explain what Easter is. So instead you just get the schizophrenic man of the schizophrenic outgrowth of that historical American tendency, which is, well, I'm spiritual and you have a rabbit's foot and tarot cards or whatever.

[E]

Can I ask you a question? Because you. You mentioned earlier, you said, what is, like, the American identity now? And you mentioned Christianity. Like, what else do you see as core tenets of, like, the American identity? Because I was just thinking, like, a couple weeks ago, it wasn't even that long ago, where everybody was talking about the World cup and people from all over the world were coming to America and they were loving things about America, which basically boiled down to, like, Bucky's and American consumerism. Right. But it was Americans who are starved for anybody not hating them, were excited about the idea that people found things about America that they liked. I'm just curious what you think of as other core tenets of America, of the American identity.

[D]

What I like to believe would be if. If an American. Let's. All right. I have a little fascination with wolves. Okay. So if the American itself was a wolf.

[A]

Wolf.

[D]

And it was looking at a dog, like a domesticated dog, and it had a collar on and it had a master. I picture the American as the wolf, the one who is willing to go without the guaranteed meal every day and without being owned, would rather just go hungry and find its own way rather than, you know, live a hat fappy. A fat, happy life being domesticated. Yeah, that's what I would like to like it.

[B]

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on to this point, right? So me and my girlfriend were talking about this the other day, and we were talking about, like, why America is better than other countries, why the people of America are better. Right? And when the country was founded, particularly the people that were likely to leave Europe and come to the United States had a certain mindset and a certain outlook on their own lives and their own capabilities. Yeah, right. Because if you get on a boat for five weeks or whatever it takes to get across the ocean when you're not guaranteed to get there. Right. You have to have a certain amount of belief in your own agency. So all the people that came to the. To the. To basically to the. To the colonies, to the. To the new. You know, the new country, and all the people that came here, basically, up until the 60s, there were all people that believed in their own agency.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You didn't accidentally get to America. You came to America because you wanted to make something of yourself. You were the kind of person that believed you made things happen in the world. When you look at modern times and the people that are brought in, you know, whether it be as, however, right, if they're. If they're here because they. They came illegally or. Or what have you, if they got some program the government gave out, those people are not people that believe that they make things happen in their lives. They believe that things happen to them. So the reason that America is the best country in the world and has been basically the indispensable country for at least the first 200 and 225 years of its existence was because the people that are in America have a certain outlook on life. And of course, they're not. Every single person that came, that lived in America was the same. But. But they were the descendants of people that said, I can get on that boat and I can go to America and I can make something of myself. I have the opportunity to do that. I have the ability to do that. I believe in myself. And you see it in how crazy and awesome and daring and exceptional Americans have been. Like, that matters. That's what makes America America, and that's what makes the people of America different from the whole rest of the world. The fact that they would say, I. I can go there and I can make something happen, as opposed to the people that believe that things happen to them. And you see it all over the place. You see it with people in society now, people that are like, oh, you know, my life. My lot in life is so bad. And all this happened to me, and this happened to me, and this happened to me, and this happened all these bad things, and all this stuff happened to me. And then there are people that said, no, I went and I did this, I did this, I did this, I did this. The distinction really boils down to people that believe they have agency and people that believe they don't have agency. And honestly, that's exactly what you laid out. It's just a different metaphor.

[C]

Well, what's interesting is, you know, there's a book, you know, like, what you guys are hitting on is absolutely correct. This is. There's two things. When you ask, what is America? What. What is this idea of, like, American culture or something? What we're hitting on is two things. What is the culture of America? You know, you would probably say it's this sort of Anglo Protestantism, this Anglo Protestant identity. This is what you found at the founding. That was 90% of the country. So the closer you get to that, the more American it's going to feel, the further away you get more to. But as far as what you guys are hitting on, which is the ethos of America, right, what is the driving force, what's the engine room in the United States? It's the frontier. This is what you're hitting on is it's the frontier. And that didn't happen by accident. It's not like. Because Britain set up a lot of settler colonies. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Why aren't they conducting themselves like the Americans do? Well, there's two things going on. One is, you look in the north, there was the Puritans. They had this hyper Calvinism that existed, that preeminated in the north. And what came, what lasted out of that, you know, out of the Puritan culture, was this idea that I am destined to do this by God. This idea that everything is predestined, that God has put me here for a very specific reason. And what's over those hills is mine, because God said so. And then secondarily is, to your point, the stock that came here, which was, you know, wherever you came from, you came here because you said, I want to just go to that frontier. You know, that video of the penguin charging towards the mountain, that was sort of the ethos of a lot of, you know, early settlers and continued into the 19th century. The evidence for this is, well, who populated the frontier during the colonial era? Well, it was the Scots Irish. Well, where did the Scots Irish come from? Well, they came from what is today Northern Ireland. Well, what made the Scots Irish unique? Well, they were a different group that was brought to Ireland and they were fighting with the native population there, the Irish, you know, the Irish people in Ireland. So they already kind of had this understanding of being on the frontier. They had this understanding of kind of being somewhere that you came to, right, that you weren't just spawned on the ground here, you came here and you carved out your civilization in a place that previously didn't resemble it. And that is ultimately what defines the frontier. That's exactly what happened in the United States. And who was on the frontier of the Scotch Irish. And this continued all the way into the wild Western movies. If you like, think about all the famous pioneers and then you think about these famous characters in these Wild west stories. They typically have names that come from, again, the borderlands in Europe, you know, of Northern Ireland, of Scotland. So that's kind of ultimately the perfect storm that came about in the United States, which basically you had The Anglo Protestant culture, which has been demonstrated to create fantastic systems, legal codes, et cetera, as demonstrated by Australia, even their former colonies. But Australia, Canada, New Zealand. And then you supercharged that with this hyper Calvinism that came from the Puritans and this frontier spirit that just seemingly only America truly ever captured. And that's what drove us to the moon. I mean, we didn't stop. We finally ran out of space and we said, just let's go up there.

[B]

Yes, we did. Yeah, I believe.

[C]

Yeah. So it's just. I think it's like, it's not enough to just posit that America is unique because, you know, we're entrepreneurial. There's a specific. No, it's a specific ethos in the United States that came about because of historical events, but the specific kind of people that came here, that these three factors that I outlined all combined and

[B]

created the United States, it's not. It's not. My point. Isn't entrepreneurial.

[C]

Sure, I know what you mean, but I'm just saying this is how most people, they say, well, Americans, what makes us different from Canadians, for example? We have a lot of the same people. What is it? You know, it must be we're more entrepreneurial. And it's like, well, no, there's a specific. Again, this perfect storm that was created in the thirteen colonies and on the frontier that led to where we are now. And a lot of that ethos is still carried into the modern day.

[B]

Well, yeah, I mean, you're your. Your grandparents and your great grandparents and stuff like that. That actually does make a difference in the person that you are.

[E]

And it's why the. It's why the left can't recapture the idea of, like, celebrating America. They try, like. Like you. I still see sometimes when I go out, I see leftist political signs that have, like, a flag. They say, pro America, anti Trump. But everybody knows that even if you get rid of Donald Trump, when it comes down to it, they have this postmodern idea of what America is, and they refuse to be proud of their past or their history because they have. Of slavery. That's one aspect of it. And the rest of it has been watered. Well, it's been. And it's been watered down by culture so much where they, you know, there have been articles written and infographics created about why American exceptionalism is a bad idea and why we actually need to quash that, because it's a sign of white supremacy, just like individualism and all of those things where it's like, you could have the most liberal values in the world. And as long as you love where you're from here, you'll never be truly accepted there. Because I still believe, in a lot of ways, I still have a lot of traditionally liberal values. When you said earlier when we were talking about a post racial society, there's so many millennials where that still resonates with them because that was the culture.

[C]

They grew up in America.

[E]

But as long as you're not is the first thing that I noticed when I traveled.

[B]

Right.

[E]

Was like the amount of people who from America, first of all, talk about America. Sorry for swearing.

[C]

I know, but.

[E]

But also, you know, people who thought you should just accept that people are going to dog on you. And I was just always confused as to why you could be born into a place of immense, you know, not. Not wealth necessarily like you were born wealthy. But to be born into American middle class still means that you essentially hit the lottery.

[C]

Yeah.

[E]

Even being born into lower middle class in America, you have hit the lottery. The poorest American is still better off than 99% of the world. And the idea that there were people who held the same liberal conc. Concepts and values that I did, but hated where they were from, meant that I was never gonna traditionally fit in with them the way that it would anywhere else. And what you're talking about is the idea that you would go out every day and risk a world where you're not gonna know where your next meal is going to come from, where you're gonna take a chance on yourself rather than, you know, take it, you know, than just take the safest route forward. That idea has been chipped away at in Western, in America especially. Right.

[B]

Part of the reason why it's been chipped away at is because the people that have been coming to America since the 60s largely don't share that kind of ethos. They don't share the belief that they happen to the world as opposed to the world happening to them.

[C]

And I think that's absolutely right. In addition to that, the evidence for. At the core of the American identity is sort of the frontier, so to speak. And that sort of attitudes that sort of, you know, emanate out of that is the fact that when, you know, think about like Erling Haaland, the soccer player in the World cup, he came here and out of all the different sort of avatars of America that he could have chosen to, you know, kind of larp as he wore a cowboy hat and he had cowboy boots and this sort of thing. And this is the same thing anyone comes to the country when they think of what's the most distinctly American characteristic, it's the cowboy hat. Now what percentage of Americans do you think wear a cowboy hat on a daily basis? Probably less than 1%. So like there's a lot of people in this country probably less than 1% from Texas.

[B]

So you should know.

[C]

Well, you know, but, but, but in actuality is, it's, it's a very rare thing to see. And if you see someone of cowboy, oh, that's cool. Like he must be a cowboy. But for some reason, people from all around the world associate the cowboy hat with the United States. Is it just because it's a uniquely interesting character? Well, no, it's because they have identified that the cowboy really is the avatar of the United States insofar as he is the frontiersman. He is the guy that is just trudging into the wilderness and making it his own. He's setting up fences and he's setting up homes and this sort of thing. And so that's why left wing people fail to ever truly capture the American hearts and minds and fail to truly capture the American ethos is because their understanding of America is. To your point, the world happens to me and I have to react accordingly. Typically in government policy and or city centers which yes, we've always had cities in the United States. Philadelphia was the second largest city in the entirety of the British Empire at the founding. But even Americans who lived in Philadelphia, Teddy Roosevelt's a great example. Teddy Roosevelt was a New Yorker, but we associate him with the west, we associate him with the great outdoors and that sort of thing because he along with most urbanites until very recently did understand that the engine room of the United States was the frontier.

[B]

Yeah, we're going to jump to this story here and we're gonna, then once I read the, the piece from the BBC, we're gonna toss it to tape because he's got some, some thoughts on this from the BBC. Anne Whitcomb was hit on head 21 times with a hammer, prosecutors say. So this is a, a British politician that was meant that was murdered in her own home. Anne Whitcomb was hit on the head with a hammer 21 times at her home as she ate lunch in an attack that was in. Caught. Caught on camera. Prosecutors have told West Westminster Magistrates Court Prosecutor Kashif Malik said the man charged with her murder, Joshua Carrey, arrived at her house on, on the 8th of July in a red Vauxhall Corsa and entered through the front door. Carrie, who prosecutors say was in the property for two minutes and was wearing black gloves. Then allegedly hit Whitcomb repeatedly with a hammer in her kitchen, tipped her from a chair and took her wallet before driving off. The 28 year old from South Yorkshire also later appeared at the Old Bailey and was remanded in custody. At the Old Bailey hearing, prosecutor Alistair Richardson said the attack on Whipcom had been carried out with a ferocity of violence. Malik told the court that Whitcomb did not attend a pre arranged online interview with Channel 5's Matt Allred show that had been scheduled for just before 1300 British Standard Time on 8 July. The show's production team tried to contact Whitcomb, blah, blah, blah. So, Tate, can you go ahead and tell our viewers a little bit about who, who Eddie Wickham was and how this is relevant to conditions in the US Now?

[C]

Yeah, as far as who she was, I mean, it's very quickly. She was formerly an elected official in Britain. She's very well known there. If you turn on television, you'll probably have seen her in the last year. She was actually scheduled to do a television hit the morning when her body was discovered. So she's been this very prominent Christian conservative activist in Britain for a long time. Again, she formally held office. I've been kind of struggling to think of an analog in the United States. The closest I could maybe think of was, would maybe be Sarah Palin. Insofar as someone that says, I remember when she was in office, but now I know her as a commentator. That would be kind of the equivalent, the social conservatism, the Christianity, et cetera. But the two things that are interesting about her is first of all, again, that she. It wouldn't be hyperbole to draw some comparisons to the Charlie Kirk situation insofar as prominent commentator. Secondarily, what's interesting about her is that she was kind of of enemy number one of the LGBT people in Britain when LGBT people were thinking about whose existence and words is an existential threat to my identity, to my existence. It would be Anne Whitakem being the avatar of that traditional conservative Christian.

[E]

Not J.K. rowling.

[C]

No, because J.K. rowling is still functionally left wing. She just happens to be on the other side of the trans issue where Anne Whitakem was across the board a very conventional Christian Conservative. So this is why I said it's not hyperbole to draw comparisons to the Charlie Kirk assassination insofar as, and I don't mean this, any negativity towards Charlie and, or Anne. But in order to be someone that would decide to go and kill these people, you would have to be radicalized to such an insane degree to actually decide to do this. Because these are not, not radical dissident figures. These are mainstream figures who I contest. They're strictly conservative, strictly Christian. It's not like they were moderates. I hate when people said Charlie Kirk was a moderate. He wasn't a moderate. He just wasn't a dissident radical. Nor is Anne Wittecombe. But again, they viewed these people as existential threats. Their very existence was a threat to them.

[E]

Is there evidence that this was politically motivated?

[C]

So what's interesting, this is why this is becoming a bit scandalous, has been the British police's response to this. So this occurred in Devon, very safe part of the country. The killer came from 300 miles away, which in American terms is like, you know, the thousand miles, 1500 miles. But what's interesting is the British police have drip fed evidence from what's happened here. They've drip fed evidence and drip fed events to the British people. I think because they're trying to prevent the outrage that occurred in the United States when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And with Charlie Kirk, it was obvious right away that it was political. He literally got, got sniped. Where With Anne Whitakem. At first the police came out and said, she's died in her home and she's an old lady. So everyone's like, oh, that's sad. But you know, you know, it happens. These are old, you know, they fall down or whatever. So initially when I saw the news, when everyone saw the news, keep in mind, this is a very prominent figure in the uk. Everyone in the UK knows who she is and is actually. She's very charming. So I think even a lot of people on the left, you know, kind of have this soft spot for her. But everyone in the UK knew her and they're like, oh, that's sad. You know, she's passed away. I remember she's been everywhere. Then the police came out and they said, okay, no, it was actually, we suspect there was foul play, but it was actually a burglary gone wrong. And then this is when everyone's alarm bell started going off as they said, how did you go from fell in her home and died to burglary gone wrong?

[B]

So it was reported that she fell.

[C]

So initially, again, with the evidence that was drip fed, they were leading the public to believe that she had just died. You know, she fell and hit her head. I think is what the official narrative was. Then it turned to burglary gone wrong. And then three days later, the story breaks that the counterterrorism unit has taken over the case. So I think everyone at that moment, if you didn't suspect that it was politically motivated before at that point, said, why would counterterrorism get involved in a burglary gone wrong? And then the BBC, as you talked about then, reported that the suspect had been arrested. We saw a picture of him right away, and it was political, if you know, physiognomy. And then secondarily, the news came out that she was bashed in the head 21 times with a hammer, which, you know, if you're a police officer and you're reporting to a scene, I think you would know the difference between someone falling down and then her head being caved in with a hammer. Secondarily, you would know the difference between a burglary gone wrong and being overhead hit with the head with a hammer. The suspect did steal her purse or her wallet. It doesn't really say what specifically he took, but it was like her, you know, bag carrying money or whatever. But again, going all the way down to Devon to go into the home of a very prominent conservative of Christian activists and murdering her while she was eating lunch. She was having her lunch brutally, too.

[B]

This, this wasn't. It wasn't a situation where he was just like, you know, I'm going to kill this person. It was.

[C]

It's an elderly woman.

[B]

It was, it was the kind of, of crime where people say that it, it was. You know, they're calling it a vicious ferocity of violence. You know, it was a vicious, vicious attack. And, you know, you hit someone in the head with a hammer, like, that's probably gonna kill him. If you hit him Once or twice, 21 times is literally going to, you know, it's. It was a gruesome, gruesome scene.

[C]

And because of the incompetence, I don't know if I think it's actually, they're highly competent. They're actively trying to ensure that there's not much outrage over the story. I think the, the crime of that is that we can't come out as commentators and say this was another example of leftist violence. We need a crack down, et cetera, because they control all the evidence they've monopolized. So until this trial is done, we can't on good authority, you know, legally come out and say this is clearly an example of leftist violence. We can say we suspected that's the Case, but that's what they wanted because

[B]

you can't say that in the uk. People can say that in the US

[C]

Yeah, I mean, in theory, but you know, people get sued for this kind of stuff all the time. So this is what's so interesting is that again, they've intentionally. I don't think they're incompetent. They're highly competent. They understand that if they let the actual what actually happened, which they already know, the people in the police department already know what happened. If they laid out the facts and said, yeah, it was a leftist that came and killed a prominent Christian Conservative. Charlie Kirk 2.0. Britain has her Charlie Kirk moment. They understand that Farage, who's surging in the polls, can capitalize on this and they don't want that. That's a disaster for him. Anne Whitakem was a member of the Reform UK Party. She was friends with Farage. Farage clearly was deeply disturbed by what happened, obviously. So again, this is just super inconvenient for a government, for a system that is playing defense right now for what we've been saying as conservatives, as right wingers in the UK and the United States, what we've been saying, what we've been saying, we're afraid of this. This is why we wanna go in a different direction that that manifested. That's like a nightmare scenario for them. So that's why the information here is being drip fed, why the BBC is almost reluctantly reporting this. And I think it's pretty obvious what happened here. And the question, I guess would be, what's gonna happen? Well, the guy's gonna get thrown in jail and that's probably it.

[B]

What do they know about the, the, the suspect? Matt All. I'm sorry, what is his name? Joshua Carey.

[C]

There's two things that have been suspected. The first one is a little bit more innocuous than the second thing. The first thing is that he had pictures or posters of reform headquarters, prominent figures on his wall in his house, which is very strange behavior. His, his neighbors said that he was very withdrawn. He was, you know, very kind of skittish and standoffish and antisocial.

[B]

An incel. Some might say, perhaps.

[C]

Yeah. And then, and then secondarily, the information about him that is suspected is that it appears that he was on the rolls and, or a donor of your party, which is this upstart far left party in the United Kingdom, which was started by like a literal Islamist and Jeremy Corbyn, who is by proxy and Islamist. So he was part of, of not quite antifa level leftism, but certainly past DSA leftism, I think would be fair to say that is sort of what's suspected he was a part of, just based off of what people have been able to dig up. Again, this will all come out in the trial because the government there has just kept a lid on everything.

[D]

And I, I think that this is why people believe that there's like a worldwide conspiracy through media. Like that there's an agenda through media is. Because it almost seems like no matter what country it is, if it's a western country and the media is reporting on it, there's always going to be a bias one way. And I mean, you can look at the, the stories that we covered tonight, right, was ICE officer, you know, shoots protester. And they're always upfront about it and they're making links that aren't necessarily there, but they want to paint it in this particular way. But then you have a very prominent figure in Britain be brutally murdered in her own house. And it's the way it's laid out from the media is it's not obvious that they, I mean, it's, it's obvious that they're trying to defend it as opposed to just lay it out there.

[A]

Yeah. They want every reasonable doubt to be given immediately and for the duration until reluctance.

[C]

I mean, that would be the word he would use here, is they understand, the BBC understands they have to report this one because they knew, they all knew her and I know people personally that were friendly with her, that knew her personally and they've all said she's the most lovely, friendly woman in the world. They're not just. And one of them said, and I'm not just saying that she's in the news, like I would have told you that a week ago, she's one of the friendliest, lovely. So all these people in the media know her, they probably have a relationship with her. So the fact that they understand they have to report it. But what you're hitting on is the reluctance to actually disclose what actually went down because it would be so politically inconvenient for them.

[E]

Remember when the photo came out of Trump and Butler and they were like, Trump fell over on stage.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Firecrackers went over one up.

[C]

That's what it's. Reluctance where again, it's the most moot point in the world, where, I mean, it's almost like cliche at this point, but it's true, is that again, if a situation like this happened, I mean, think about the Paul Pelosi thing, and this is what this guy actually did, is what they described happened to Paul Pelosi is actually what happened to Anne Whitakem.

[D]

Neither here nor.

[C]

It's wall to wall coverage. They immediately have no hesitation. This is clearly a political attack. And if, heaven forbid, there was ever a similar Charlie Kirk style thing, that would happen, and again, heaven for it, I really genuinely don't want that. That would be terrible. And everyone would condemn it as they should, and the left wing media would make sure you never hear the end of it. They would run on it. I mean, Joe Biden ran on Charlottesville.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I mean, that just tells you all I need to know. If they can get their hands on any politically convenient situation like this, they run it into the ground where it happens to the right all the time.

[E]

And that's my biggest black pill. Whenever we talk about this stuff, I'm like, it won't matter because they'll report on it, like you say, reluctantly. And then eventually it'll get buried and they'll stop covering it in a day or two and it disappears from the news cycle. And as soon as it disappears from the cultural discussion, it's out of the minds of the people that you could actually sway the opinions of. The ones who haven't been radicalized to either side yet. They're the ones who need to see the evidence of violence coming from other people because they need to be awoken to the idea that this is happening. And you can run from it, you can pretend like it's not, or in a lot of ways, you can just. Just bury your head in the sand because you're not watching. Because a lot of people aren't, right? They go to work, they raise their kids, they're taking care of their family. They've got a lot going on. Maybe they pay attention to the news a little bit more during the presidential cycle. Maybe not most of the time, probably not. And they know that the most nefarious way of preventing people from learning about this stuff isn't by covering it even in the most salacious of ways or trying to bend the narrative. It's just simply not covering it after the initial story.

[B]

And to Tate's point, like, the. The slow drip really takes the edge off of it, right? To. To drip, to put out a little bit of information about it, then a little bit. Because then that also gives them cover. They can say when it actually gets to trial, well, we talked about it. We have this. And then if you end up getting into an argument, they'll Pull up the different stories that were, that came out over the course of six months, as you know, from when the per, from when the event actually happened to when the person was arrested to when the trial started. And it's, but it's not something, it's not distributed the way that if it was, if it was politically convenient for them.

[C]

And in the right, the right in Britain is not hesitant to demonstrate at all when there is a situation like this. We've seen this countless times. Whenever there's a high profile incident like this, like the Henry Novak stabbing a few months ago, demonstrations immediately. So the right in the United Kingdom does have a unique ability compared to the United States to mobilize quickly to demonstrate, et cetera. It takes a lot for conservatives in the United States to actually demonstrate in large numbers. And that's like a whole nother conversation state. Right? Well, yeah, so it's like a whole different conversation. But I guess the question is here, with what you're saying, you're black pilled, is what's happening here, is there currently straws accumulating on a camel's back right now when you have that Greenovac stabbing? I mean, we could go through all the incidents that have happened on a king. Are there currently straws amassing on the camel's back or is the camel standing in the wind right now and every time a straw falls on his back it gets blown away immediately? That would be the kind of, the imperative question. Are these kind of things, is there a ledger in the heads of British patriots right now saying, okay, like this is getting to the point where enough is enough, or to your point, is everything moving so quickly? Are people too kind of, I don't want to say self absorbed necessarily as a derogative. It's just kind of the reality of the world we live in that they kind of just forget how angry they were in that moment. I mean, after the Henry Novak stabbing, everyone was really angry in the United States. After the Charlie Kirk assassination, after the Arena Zaruska murder, everyone was really angry. Do people still possess that same level of anger? Maybe some people say they do, but I really don't know. I really don't know. And so that's kind of the question.

[D]

I think that this is actually leading to the radicalization. I almost feel like news stories like this in the way that, that the media is run in general is to appease boomers.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And like once, once the boomers are gone, it's, I mean, the radicalization, not just in America, but it just, in the west in general, it's going to get exponentially worse rapidly. Because most millennials that I know would. Would be able to just look at a story like this and go, oh, yeah, they're definitely covering it up. Like, they're. They're able to identify that at least. But a lot of this, what they're doing, it's almost like they're just buying time.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Because everybody knows that the radicalization is coming. And at least I feel like young people do, you know?

[C]

Well, it's like when you have a

[A]

jury trial and they try and, like, the person is guilty, but the defense is to push it out as long as you possibly can, push the trial date back, hope people forget about what happened. So when they pick a jury selection, people have no idea and don't care as much. There's not this outrage surrounding the case anymore.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think they're supposed to not know before they go in.

[A]

Yeah, probably the wrong choice. They do this as far as the media goes.

[C]

And I think one thing that we're seeing here, we've seen it in the United States, is we're seeing where democracy strength is, insofar as it doesn't matter how radical the population gets. Right. Like I would say the median Republican is, and I'm not saying they're necessarily misguided here. Is convinced that there's pedophiles running the government, that there's a satanic cabal, they're covering up UFOs, that everything is trying to kill them at all times. The left believes even far crazier things than that. I mean, they believe that literally every police officer is killing 10,000 black people a day or whatever. So everyone in the country is very radicalized. Everyone is thinking that everything's trying to kill them at all times, but nothing really tangentially changes besides electing slightly more radical figures. In the case of Donald Trump, I would say he's the most decisive figure that's ever been elected. But we're seeing democracy's strength of containing revolution. And the question is, is. Or I guess what I'm trying to get at is it doesn't really matter how radicalized boomers get or even at this point, Gen Xers get, because the fighting is going to be done by young people. If there's a revolution, it's going to be done by young people. And young people in the system that we've created right now are the least able to actually conduct themselves in this revolution because they already feel under the gun anyway. They're not going to risk sticking their head out of the. Of the foxhole and getting shot weirdly and.

[E]

Oh, good.

[D]

Well, I'm just going to say. So basically, if we go back to my original analogy about, about the, the wolf and the domesticated dogs is that we're even if you are that wolf, you're still in a dog park in the city.

[C]

Exactly.

[D]

Like, like, there's, there's not much. You'll. You'll just be the outsider and you'll be, you'll be cast out. And it's like, you know, there's.

[C]

Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get. And I think it's a perfect analogy and what I'm trying to get at is actually, no, you kind of do have to vote your way out of this. It's like, what no one. It's almost like taking the toy away from the child because people will get online and they'll larp all day. I'm going to have enough. I'm going to go out and do something about it, really. Because Covid happened and, like, all these terrible things are happening and everyone's just kind of getting used to it. The boiling frog analogy perfectly applies here. The reality is we got to live in reality here. If we're, like, serious about impacting politics and Donald Trump understands this perfectly, is you kind of just have to vote your way out of it. And it's not, it's not sexy. It doesn't sell on YouTube. But that's how political change has happened thus far. We haven't had any, many serious revolutions in this country in a very long time. Donald Trump has been seemingly the first person that's at least shaken things up.

[E]

Social media ends up taking the edge off. It's the dopamine hit they get from talking about all of the revolution that they want to. Yeah.

[C]

That siphons off that energy so they can.

[E]

Like when you, when you talk about you want to do something so much, it kind of destroys your will to want to do it because you keep trying to talk. You keep talking about it not actually doing it.

[B]

Well, that's the, the thing is, like the human being, when they talk about something, they get the same dopamine hit that they get when they do something, which is part of the reason why, like you, when you hear people that, that are saying they want to make a change in their life, whatever, stop talking about it. Don't tell people, don't talk about it. Go do something that actually moves you towards the goal that you have. Right. Like people that are people that want to quit smoking. And I used to be one of them. Like, man, I gotta quit. I want to quit, man, I want to quit. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If you really want to quit, you just put cigarettes down and you stop smoking. That's exactly how you quit. I got to quit drinking. I got to quit drinking. Well, then don't drink that drink.

[C]

Well, I meet These people in D.C. and other power vectors around the world or power centers around the world, and the most influential people you've never heard, and this is like, I mean, it's a trope, but it's true, is that the most influential people you've never heard of, they don't really have much of a social media presence or their posting is pretty unimpressive, I suppose. But they wield an incredible amount of influence. And it's not always because they're wealthy. A lot of people are just really effective, shrewd, backroom kind of people. And the reality is those are the people that are going to impose their will in society because they're not online larping all day. They're just slowly inching the football down the. Like. Watch a game of rugby. It's not, you know, it's not, they're not scoring every single time. It's just slowly advancing back and forth. They're like football, you know, it's not a, it's not a touchdown every single place. Just slowly advancing the ball up the field a few yards at a time game. Instead of attempting a Hail Mary every single play, you're going to get picked off and lose the game.

[B]

To your point, the. That's something that I tend to talk to or tend to relate to callers a lot, right? Callers come in with this, this fire and, and all this vim and vinegar and they're, they're like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And there's nothing in blah blah. I don't want to vote for Republicans because they blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, well, did you, you know, did you work to vote and did you work to get someone that you liked elected in the primaries? And then it's like they're deflated because they have all this energy and they're, because they read something today or the, the national elections coming up soon and they realized it. But like the time to actually exercise the little amount of political power you have was a year and a half ago or a year ago when you were, when you should have been out there knocking on doors for the guy that's primary, the guy that you Hate state.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, literally. And to your. Like you said, this is going to be decided by voting. It has to. You have to vote your way out of it, and so get involved in the political process. And again, to your point, it's not sexy, it's not pretty, but Scott Pressler made real tangible changes in Pennsylvania.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

One guy moved to Pennsylvania and registered thousands and thousands and thousands of Republicans to vote. And that actually makes a difference.

[C]

Yeah. And we're seeing that democracy, you know, this. The system that. That's been sort of imposed on us in many wills, in many ways, is so flexible. Like, it can get way worse than it is right now. Like, this is what people think. Some people, they will acknowledge that it's true when I'm calling out the larping that's going on, and they'll say, well, that's true. So we just have to wait for this all to collapse, and then we'll emerge. And I'm like, no, you won't, dude. I've been to South Africa. That's a democracy. It's flawed, et cetera. But that country should have collapsed a really long time ago, and it still has. And I think the reality, and it's unfortunate, but the situation we're in is that Fukuyama was onto something. That liberal democracy really is kind of this albatross. It's an immovable force. So, okay, I could sit back and wait, and it's like, okay, when this collapses, my ideology will rise from the ashes. There's eight other people at the table with vastly different views who are saying the same thing thing. You're gonna go at it with all, like. It's just. It's nonsensical. It's like, dude, you got to participate in, like, what's viable now. What actual options do you have? And then pick the most viable option that you have.

[D]

I think a lot of people have felt disenfranchised. I mean, in a way, I. I kind of become one of those people because, I mean, 2020 kind of changed my view on the world. And I decided that I was going to start getting involved.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Because a lot of men that I respected and looked up to bent the knee, took the jab, followed up, followed the mandates, and basically helped enforce it on others. And that scared me. Yeah. And then, you know, I. I saw what Joe Biden was doing, started advocating for. For Donald Trump, and I believe that he was going to, you know, focus on the overstepping wannabe tyrants that, you know, overstepped their bounds back in 2020 and are continuing to do so in places like Washington state right now. You know, like, we don't really have a voice in Washington state. Yeah, no, no significant Republican has won anything of, of significance since we switched to universal mail in ballots back in 2011. It's just been Democrats sweep after sweep after sweep after sweep. And I thought a lot more attention was going to, going to be focused on the, you know, the states and ensuring elections and things of that nature. But instead, like, I go on social media, like I, I see what's happening in my local charter and it sucks because we're being outnumbered. And then I go online and I see

[E]

all.

[D]

I'll talk about Middle East. Yeah, it's like, I, I, I don't care about the Middle east at all. I want to withdraw everything from that. I was told no more wars, but instead, you know, my work changed their rules because gas prices went up, so I had to buy a commuter car. And then I eventually left the job because of the, the ridiculous rules that they imposed on me. It's like, like the things that were happening in Donald Trump's first term, even though that he was, you know, held back, if you want to say it seemed that it was going in, in the right direction. And this time around, it doesn't, it, at least from my point of view, it doesn't feel like that anymore. It feels like there's strongholds being built and Donald Trump, Donald Trump is preoccupied with wars in the Middle east. And it's like, and, and so know the people that, that have been out there. And, you know, I'm not saying I made a significant impact on the election in any way, but, I mean, I advocated for, for Donald Trump and I, I believed what he said.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

You know, I really thought that there were going to be significant changes, that this was our, this was our peaceful revolution, that we were going to be able to have cut out the waste. And instead what I'm getting is, is, you know, people that, that are around me, that have owned businesses their entire lives are now being taxed out of their, out of their dream home that they built with their own hands, you know, because of just the insane taxes being passed, you know, in Washington State. And then, you know, the price of fuel and that costs, everything else goes up because of that. And it's like, yeah, who, who am I supposed to be advocating for? And the national politics, it's harder to, to get people, I mean, it's, it's easier to get people to vote for it, but it's harder to actually make any changes that are going to be significant. But I've, the conclusion that I've come to is that you have to embody the values you wish to see in this world. Get married, stay married, have kids and be involved in your school.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And your, your local charter. And I mean, it, it starts there. And, you know, we have a lot of people online that always say, you know, like, you're saying they get all riled up and then, you know, they're being incredibly promiscuous and they're just, they're not, they're not dedicating their life to one woman and having kids and building a legacy with them. It's that, that American culture that we kind of long for, if we continue pretending to fight about national politics or, like, whether or not we should or shouldn't be in Iran right now, it's like all that stuff is literally just giving them more power and taking away your autonomy. We're becoming more domesticated. The more we, we talk about these overseas words. I'm not. And, you know, I don't know how to stop it. I don't know how to tell people, you know, that their focus needs to be here. And it's like, you can't, you can't actually change what's going on over there. And I know that it's good to voice your opinion and things like that because it can help sway, you know, with the technology we have, it can help sway some things. But overall, you know, if, if you're not embodying the values that you wish to see in this world, then we will lose our country.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, I think you're hitting on something that is really essential. It's not really discussed as much. You know, people discuss this topic at large. But, like, a specific thing you're hitting on is missteps from the Trump admin sting. Far more for people that live in blue states, for conservatives live in blue states. Because if you live in a blue state and you happen to love the state you live in, or at least what it used to be, it feels a lot more existential where if you're in a red state, you're like, oh, Trump screwed up. But, like, we're good. Like, you know, this is all, like, everything's generally run right around. So I think for blue staters, missteps, like, I think Iran was a terrible call. Really does sting, I guess. Like, my, my, like, on the other side of that argument, what I would contest is we're not going to really get Like a Napoleon. In the current system that we have, like, to your point, we are kind of domesticated. Like, the system has been set up in a way that it's very rigid. Like, it is impossible to really have these, you know, Russian Revolution moments or French Revolution moments kind of by intention. And so the difficult thing is, while yes, many people are extremely frustrated with President Trump to the point where they don't even wanna vote for the Republican Party or that sort of thing, and it's like, I actually totally understand that impulse. I'm not one of these people that, like, completely dismisses that. I guess my issue is, like, what other show is there in town? Because Trump has gotten us to this point where I do think we're at least seeing a slimmer of victory now, where it's like, okay, I could still see how we could win. Where I think people forget what it was like during Biden, and people really forget what it's like under Obama, where it felt like Hillary Clinton was gonna win, and then it was like raps, people were arranging second passports. Things were getting crazy. Same thing in the Biden winter when I was like, Trump, I didn't think he was gonna come back. We were just gonna get stuck with a neocon or something on the Republican ticket. And again, it would just be kind of game over, especially during COVID So I'm like. Like, I share the same frustrations with Trump, especially in Iran. I mean, I think Iran's particularly enraging and just a completely unforced blunder. But I guess what I'm saying is I think he's still our most viable political vehicle for our ideas insofar as, again, I don't think there's any other shows in town. And I do think the things that the Trump administration has done right are very decisive insofar as breaking up usaid, the increase in immigrant. We want to see far more deportations, obviously, but at least that we're for getting them funding and getting the supplies and setting the foundation, the infrastructure that would be needed for mass deportations. I mean, breaking up dei, like a slew of policies the Trump administration has introduced, it's just. It's not sexy. Like, it's not Napoleon to get people

[E]

to continue to talk about the wins when people want to focus more on the things that are going wrong.

[C]

Well, but to steel, man, like, what people that are really frustrated with Trump are saying is they were expecting a Caesar, and what they're getting is, you know, a really good Republican. So, you know, I understand why, why people are really frustrated, especially if you live in a blue state, because it's like, dude, it's like we kind of ran out of time already. Like, I came from New York, like, New York, they actually kind of ran out of time like 10 years ago. So the existentialness really ramps up if you live in a blue state.

[D]

Well, and not, not just that, like, thinking about my children's future. 2016 is when Trump entered office and the national debt was, let's see, January of 2017, it was maybe $19 trillion.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And now we're almost at 40 trillion.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And Trump has been in office for five and a half out of those 10 years.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

So the majority of the time he's been in office. And what I see is that regardless of, of what I feel is a win right now, we're still robbing wealth from our children.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And there's no way around it. And I don't know how to, I don't know how to correct that as of yet. But I mean, yeah, we do get some wins here and there, but those wins are coming at the expense of the wealth of our children.

[C]

Well, the national debt is an interesting one because, you know, the only ways to fix the national debt situation. I totally agree. The only solutions for the national debt, I should say, are completely politically unviable because over half of our spending is, you know, Medicare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you even threaten to touch Social Security, you're done. Politically, you're done.

[E]

Because even if you don't say it

[C]

exactly, dude, like, Democrats will literally hit Republicans over the head with this all the time. Because they understand that the elderly in many ways are one issue. Voters, a lot of them, they claim they weren't, but they are, is that as soon as they come after, you know, your Social Security or your Medicaid, whatever, you name it, it, they get really animated. So, like, the ultimate way to really chip away our debt is we shouldn't be spending half of our budget on this. This is insane. The military budget, I think, could be shrunk a little bit, but I would say back down to like 800 billion, which is still a good amount of spending. But as far as, like, what's taking, you know, what is continuing this debt cycle, what is causing us to spend more than we're taking in? It is these massive welfare systems that we have. And people will hit on like low income welfare. And it's like, that's a problem. But the main problem is, because no one wants to talk about it, is Social Security.

[B]

And to your point, like, it's, it's a political non starter because the most reliable voting bloc in the United States is elderly people, is old people. And they're the ones that have, you know, they'll swear up and down, oh, well, I paid into this and I get this money because I, this is my money that I'm getting back when the average person gets like something like, you know, 10 times the amount of money that they ever put in from Social Security. Yeah. And it is so the idea that, that, I mean, that's why I think that so many people on both the left and the right, like, they've stopped thinking about fiscal responsibility because it's just something that you hear politicians talk about to get, to get you to vote. Right. Even Donald Trump feels like that was

[E]

something he was even pushing like in

[B]

his first term, talked about balancing the budget.

[C]

I mean, every president says that, but they can't. That's politically.

[B]

But the, the point that I'm making is, is even on the right now, you've got people that are like, you know, they're like, they think, well, we shouldn't have social programs for immigrants, but we should definitely have social programs for, for Americans or, or do something for Americans. And it stopped being a situation where there's economically conservative people in America. Like, you've got a lot of people that are on the right that say, well, there should be programs for Americans because Americans are hurting. And it's true, Americans, you know, there are people out there that are, that are, you know, low income, that are, that have been in the country that have had families, that have been in the country for generations, but there's no longer an appetite to vote for people that say, oh, we've got to do something about the, the budget, we've got to do something about the spending. It is a, it is political kryptonite. And in 2033, I think it is

[C]

when it goes insolvent, so to speak, which just means they're going to start funding it through other sources. Yeah, it'll be taxpayers.

[B]

Yeah, it's going to be taxes. Everyone's taxes are going to go up by 5 to 10%. And to manage that bill and the

[C]

system that we're living in is so unbelievably indefensible insofar as we're transferring wealth from the young, from the capable to the old and the incapable, from the

[B]

broke to the rich too.

[C]

Well, yeah, to some degree.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

And so it's just completely indefensible. And this is what we Touched on it. Pre show is one of the most controversial subjects in conservative media right now is this is why I see property tax. The idea of property tax abolition really is just another form of wealth transfer from the young to the old. And the way I would sort of lay this out is if you're not elderly and you are paying property taxes and you're advocating for the abolition of property taxes, I understand that what I'm hitting on here is the main beneficiaries of property tax abolition will be the elderly. Like, there's no doubt about it, it will be the elderly because it's the last tax that they really have to pay. The big beautiful bill really cut down Social Security taxes. So the last real tax tax that they have to pay is property tax. And what's going to happen when you abolish property taxes are these. As we've hit on, the government's incapable of balancing a budget. If they cut property taxes, do you think all these governments, these local governments and state governments are going to be like, oh, we're not this revenue source. Let's trim everything out, let's use austerity measures? No, what's going to end up happening is they're going to pass a cocktail, you know, a slew of taxes which will directly hit working age adults, which will directly hit the young. And this is what we're seeing, you know, we saw in Hillsborough county, which is the Tampa Bay. You know, Tampa Bay, they released a document sort of saying, here's what we're gonna do because Florida is looking like they're gonna abolish property tax, 88% of property taxes in Hillsborough county, fund the sheriff's department, fund the fire department, fund the schools and fund the electoral office, which I think we would all agree are for offices that to varying degrees we support. At least we wanna see in our, in our communities, 88% of the taxes. So Hillsborough county san saying, okay, well, how do we fund this? Should we practice austerity? Should we cut, you know, funding for schools? Or should we, you know, maybe lean up the fire department or something or maybe cut some of these other programs, like maybe these, like buses? No, they introduce new taxes. And those taxes, there's a tax on parks. So now if you want to go to a park in Hillsborough county, you're going to be charged a separate tax to fund those parks. You're going to pay, you're going to have a higher sales tax. And what's going to end up happening is when someone goes to purchase a home, they're going to have all the lost property tax revenue front loaded on the initial purchase of your home. So you're still going to be paying for young people that are trying to enter the housing market. Your closing costs just went up 20%, 30%, because the county can no longer depend on you for property tax revenue. So they got to get it from somewhere. That's. I guess what I'm trying to say is the money's got to come from somewhere. And so what's going to happen is it's going to be a wealth, another wealth transfer from the young, primarily to the old.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

All right, we're going to jump to this last story from Time magazine. Community backlash to AI data centers is growing across the U.S. when Laura Beth moved to Cow to County Georgia in 2023, she was drawn to her new home's rural location. It was far from any major roads or highways and had a sprawling, and had a sprawling open land behind it. Our last home, the surrounding area was becoming very overdeveloped. We had a distribution center less than a mile from our house. It was just kind of this urban encroachment, she said. We knew about the land behind us and thought the worst thing it could be was a subdivision, because who in their right mind would want to build anything out here? Then at the start of 2025, she saw an article announcing that a new data center would be coming to her hometown. As she read it, a realization dawned on her. A hyperscale data center spanning more than 4.9 million square feet had been proposed and was expected to run right through her backyard. I didn't know who to reach out to, who to talk to, who give me some help or more information, she says. So she decided to start a Facebook Facebook group called Stop Project Sales to connect with their neighborhood and with their neighbors and discuss the proposed plan. More than 8, 000 people have now joined the group and have been organizing petitions, signing, installing yard signs, and mounting a legal fight against Cadillac county and Atlas Development, the company behind the project. There are a lot of people that are very, very afraid of data centers. So I understand if you've got a, if you've got a data center going up, like right in your, or, you know, your, your suburban neighborhood, that can be off putting. But overall, the fear that I hear from people about data centers, they're like, oh, they're, they're going to take up all the water and they're gonna, they're gonna charge your, like your electricity costs are going to go up and if you do Some research with an open mind. Because most, a lot of people that are, are against data centers are, are against data centers on an emotional level. Right? They're like, oh, AI is bad. And, and these data centers are bad. And so you can't, you can't convince them. They're, they're not going to be convinced. But if you do some research in the, with an open mind, the idea that data centers use up water is just totally wrong. Like it, it's, it's a closed system usually so there's no extra water. The idea that a data center, that people have this conception of data centers as if they're just dumping you know, chemical water into the, into the, the, the local river or whatever. And, and that's just not the case. The same thing with, with power like power, power that data centers use generally they, you don't see a massive increase in your, your municipal power cost or whatever. So. Were you gonna say something?

[E]

No. Where does the misnomer come from? Where does the misconception come from about the water? Because that's the number one argument that I hear against it.

[B]

I'm not sure where people got the idea that they use, you know, they, they contaminate the water, but the way that people kind of articulate it.

[E]

When I hear people, I thought it wasn't just contaminated. Like they use a lot of fresh.

[C]

The argument is that like it increases your water bill basically.

[B]

Yeah. And that doesn't happen either. Typically. It just doesn't happen. Right. And when, and when you say use water, it's as if like they take the water and then it goes away and nobody gets it ever again. Like it just, it, it's almost like they're, you know, breaking up the, the chemical composition.

[E]

What were the stories that were coming out where they're like they thought the, the poison lettuce was because cuz all the fresh water is going to the data centers and they were using.

[A]

People say that it like makes the water really hot, like heats up the water that it uses.

[B]

Well, when you heat up water it just turns to steam and then goes into the. You know, it evaporates and the water doesn't like disappear. That's, that's the thing like just breaks down. You know, the, the idea that, that people have that like oh, the water is going to get used up and we're not going to have any water to drink. It's like they're, they're. That's not how, like how, how it works. Like water that gets heated if that, you know, boils and gets evaporated.

[C]

I understand, yeah, I understand like the opposition to data centers and like suburbs. Like, I live in Northern Virginia and there's data centers everywhere and I think they're hurt, they're horrific. They do make noise. There's people that are data centered proponents and they're like, what are you? That's the airport. I'm like, dude, no, like I live by, I drive by them and I can hear them. Like they're annoying, they're loud. And I, I do think, I think the main attack vector on data centers that I'm sympathetic to is the idea that they're overbuilding them. Insofar as we're actually, we're building far more than the actual need is for them right now. I think that's probably true. You're seeing tech companies because they have to publish their quarterly earnings and there's an entire balance sheet. Companies like Alphabet, companies like Meta, dude, they're draining their coffers on these data centers. So they're really making a big bet on data centers. And I think that might be a mistake because if it is true, what a lot of economists suspect that there is going to be an AI bubble that pops inevitably, then we're going to have a lot of unused data centers and that's going to be a big problem. But insofar as the opposition to the data center in and of itself, again, I kind of understand, but it's one of those things where I think if you kind of, maybe kind of read into it and have a, you know, be a bit open to maybe the idea that these could be potentially beneficial, you would be a bit surprised. Insofar as I think the main thing about them that I think is interesting is that they provide a massive revenue injection to counties that desperately need them. I mean, it was in Washington, I was reading an article at Washington, Quincy County, I think, or Quincy was in a county. I think Grant county was the name of the county. And it's a very rural county, very impoverished county. Microsoft in like 06 built a data center there and it massively boosted the revenue for the county. They were able to get a much needed source of revenue because most people are moving out of the county and businesses are moving out and that sort of thing. And the assessed land value of the homes went up like 1200%. Like, like an insane amount because a, the data center, even though it doesn't generate as many jobs as people think it might, it does attract very high paying jobs and those people demand, you know, more luxury amenities from their homes and that sort of thing. And in addition to that, the county was able to now use the generated income to put it back into the infrastructure, put it back into schools, police, et cetera.

[E]

Do you think that there's a bubble that's going to burst?

[B]

Personally, I don't.

[C]

Yeah. I mean I kind of go back and forth because I think the use case for AI is overstated. Like I think the doomers and also the optimists are both overstating the long term trajectory of AI. I think the ceiling is kind of coming into view of like what it's capable of. And it's not the LLMs that we should be worried about. It's just like its actual ability to process data at volume. I think that is ultimately what we're seeing the ceiling for. And that means that it's going to again progress technology and sort of in many ways change our world. But I don't know if it's going to be this dynamic, this paradigm change or people say it's going to be. But I also don't think that it's necessarily overvalued insofar as the ability to process large amounts of data very quickly worth its weight in gold. There's data management companies you never heard of that are making a killing because they are able to produce like Salesforce. Oh, Salesforce. You know who's heard of Salesforce until like three years ago? They're one of the biggest companies in America. What do they do? They like literally make spreadsheets. Basically.

[A]

It's a micromanagement system.

[C]

Yeah, but it's data management and data management, CRMs, et cetera, those are worth their weight in gold. So I do think the value of these AI companies that might be there, but insofar as the use case for AI, if people are putting money into AI, expecting it to really become this all encompassing, paradigm changing technology, that's where the bubble may burst. That's where they think the value is going to be. That's where they might just sell out and dump their.

[B]

I think that when it comes to practical usage for AI, I think that it's probably smart enough now for the average user. Right. Like Siri was a massive disappointment for people. It was, oh, Siri's gonna do this, Siri's gonna do that. I think that, that now agentic AI in phones, I think the next generation of iPhone with the, with the incorporation of chat GPT inside of it, it's going to make you, make you able to tell your phone to do things and it'll actually do it, right? Because you can do that now with, with Claude or what have you type, type in something, Claude, Claude, do this for me or whatever, whatever. And it'll do it. And it actually is functional. And there are programs where you can have, if you, if you give the AI access to your computer, to your desktop, it can open up, you know, open up browsers, go to websites, do things, book stuff for you, you give it a credit card, it can go ahead and pay for things for you. You can do all that stuff. And that's going to be, I think, the reason why people haven't adopted it. They say that, that AI has jagged edges, right? If you look at the things that AI is capable of, of and how much people are actually using it, I think the, the missing thing is the, is the killer app, quote unquote, right? Like so the. Everyone that, that has a phone, when, when you can have a phone and just say do this and it does it. And your grandmother can do that, right? Your boomer grandmother can say, you can say, oh granny. You can just say blah, blah, blah, do this and it does it. I think the p. That's when people are going to realize, oh wow, AI actually is capable. It can, it can do all these things and it does make my life easier. And then as for the ability to, you know, have, have AI in like robots, you see a lot of people talking about robots and a lot of companies are building robots and stuff. Once the AI is able to, you know, navigate the real world. Because right now, you know, I, everyone knows I got a Tesla and it does the full self driving thing. And if I'm like, very rarely do I, I drive anymore. I just get in, I type in the, the address and it does it all for me. So if a car can do that, which is a limited number of inputs, right, you can go forward, backward, right, left, you have to worry about cars. That's a lot of variables. But that's not the same as being able to function in the real world, right? Being there's, there's almost an unlimited number. So once you get an AI and a robot that can actually walk around the real world and doesn't fall over all the time, it doesn't ruin your, your clothes when it's, when it's doing your laundry or whatever. And I honestly think that we're probably a year or two away from that where they can function in society. Maybe, maybe two years. Once that happens. Yeah, once that happens and I've, I've made this this prediction on, on the show before, you're going to see robots that are going to be, you know, $30,000 and it's going to be a six year loan or five year loan and it's gonna be at 7, 8, 9% for the loan, just like a car. And people are going to say, do I want to get a second car to go and, and take me to my job or what have you, or do I want to get a robot that can do a bunch of things around the house and save me time? And I think that people are really going to start, you know, getting into that. I think young people get it for will be first, but you'll see a lot of people getting into that and then as time progresses a little bit, you'll see a lot of millennials getting end up when they get old. They'll get, you know, assisted care by robots because there's a lot of millennials that don't have kids. These things I think are, are well within the, the realistic scope of what AI capable robots are going to be able to do. So I don't think that it's a bubble. I think there's some bottlenecks, you know, but I don't think that, that it's actually a bubble. I think that, that the ability to process information and intelligence is the most valuable thing human beings have ever discovered. I think that information, that the ability to, well, actually intelligence is the most valuable thing on the planet.

[C]

Yeah, right.

[B]

And if you can artificially produce intelligence that makes people's lives easier, then I think that you're, there is basically an unlimited desire for that.

[C]

I can tell that you might have a different perspective.

[D]

Well, so like when you bring this stuff up, the, the problems that I foresee isn't the fact that we're going to have data centers and we're going to have to worry about what water like. I don't, I don't foresee that as being the problem. The problem's going to be convincing people that real life. Well, okay, there's, there's two, two separate things. Convincing people that real life is better for you and your family long term than the virtual life that you can build. That's going to be really difficult because the temp having, trying to convince people to resist the temptations of AI is going to be nearly impossible. And then two, when you say, when you just tell your phone, you know, I had a pipe burst in my house and I need a plumber. Hire me the best plumber for the most reasonable rate. That's selection and that to me reads credit score, like social credit score.

[E]

Sure.

[D]

That, that you're, you're going to be auto selected out. If you're a controversial person by these AI groups or these, this, this kind of AI, is that it? You are going to be. And it's in a way, it's, it's this way now with, with how we use algorithms. You can have a phenomenal podcast and, and you know, nobody hears it. You can, you can have great thoughts and, and nobody will hear it because you know, it's, it's very, very difficult to break through that. Once it gets complete control of almost every industry, you're going to have businesses that thrive, that are selected to thrive.

[B]

I understand the concern, but I think that we're seeing the, the, the, we're seeing the solution kind of it's there if you look right. So people complain about Grok or they'll complain about Chat GBT or they'll complain about Claude. You specifically, you hear a lot of people that, that talk about like Chat GBT and, and Claude and they're like oh well, they're woke. They, they give you certain you, they give you pre recorded answers or, or they only give you answers that are, that are politically correct. And I think the answer to what you're doing or the solution to what your concern is is multiple different competing AIs. Right? So you go to Grok and you don't really get the same kind of, the same kind of woke answers that you do. And also there are different ways to set up an AI agent. So any, any AI that you want to use to do things, that's an agent, right? That, that's, it's agentic. I have an AI. The agent that, that, you know, I told it about myself and I told it about the things that I expect from it and does the things that I ask. Like I ask if I. The other night we were talking about the, the representative from Delaware, the trans woman. What's his, what's.

[A]

Oh, I forgot Sarah McBride actually something.

[B]

No, Sarah McBride is the, is the. And I said, is Sarah McBride a man? And the answer was biologically male born a male trans female. So it was accurate. And it wasn't like, no, Sarah McBride's a woman because you have to accept her worldview or whatever. So it, the, the ability to have an AI that doesn't do things like you said, like oh, you know, worry about social credit scores that is, is being hashed out right now. And, and that's one of the things that you know, whether or not you're a fan of Elon Musk, that's one of the things that, that Grock, he's trying to make sure that Grok doesn't do. And you know, the people that work at Anthropic, right, they're all very, very left leaning, very, very woken. And Claude is, is a reflection of that same kind of thing with, with Chat GPT. But if you go to, if you go with the Chinese open models, right, like Kimmy K. It's not the same kind of thing. So it depends on which AI you go with. And you're going to have a choice. You're going to have, you're going to say I want, want that in my A. And that's only going to become more as people demand more. Because one of the things that markets have always done is offered people selection and the more options you have, the less you're going to be, you know, be pigeonholed into one specific thing. So I understand what you're saying because the possibility is there. I mean that's kind of what, that's what goes on in, in China. Like the AI models that China gets are not the same ones that, that they put out to the rest of the world. You know, that is what happens in China. But as long as there's a market where you have competing AIs, there's going to be people that are going to say, hey, I don't want this from an AI. I want an AI that does this, does that.

[C]

Well, I think you did make it. You made a really interesting point which was I don't know if people will be able to resist and I think we kind of touched on earlier with some of our previous conversations that seemingly people cannot resist the urge to smooth out their life insofar as to remove, remove potential obstacles or friction. Right, friction. And I think what you're hitting on is really important there because that would be maybe my one fear with AI because while anecdotally I have seen Zoomers specifically almost like I'm, I'm a very, I'm a tech optimist. But the way I actually, my relationship with technology is almost very like Luddite. Like my phone's really one of the only technologies I have in my home. I like, I prefer my car to have no gizmos or gadgets whatsoever. But I don't know how many, I don't know if that's going to be because I know anecdotally a lot of other people that are ditching their smartphones for dumb phones and that sort of thing. I'm wondering what you think. Do you think there would be a potential reversion? Like, do you think maybe even Gen Alpha might just say, hang on, let's just go back, or do you think it's kind of inevitable that people just adopt these technologies in mass?

[D]

I kind of hope that there's going to be a separate economy for people that don't necessarily want to, who live in that robot world. Yeah. You know, like the divide between city and rural right now, like, there's, there's so many jobs out there that as of now, I can't envision a robot doing anywhere in the near future.

[C]

Especially, you know, fingers and.

[D]

Yeah. And, and not only that. Going out assessing, you know, a property, like the, A lot of the AI stuff works really well in, in the city, you know, at distribution warehouses, things of that nature. But like, the job that I had for, for many years was like roadside repair for, for blowouts and tires.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And, and it's, it's a unique job that, that I don't understand how. And maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't understand how a robot would be capable of doing, you know, a quarter of the jobs even that.

[C]

You're right.

[D]

That I have.

[B]

Bad.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And so it's almost like we're going to have to have separate societies in a way.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Because there's, there's just going to be the, the technology people and that live in the cities and then there's going to be the rural people. And hopefully that will, the rural people are going to be able to preserve the American spirit. Because a lot of this stuff with the AI technology and having it be capable of doing everything for you has, I mean, that idea has bred, you know, planned obsolescence into almost everything. And in, in replacing instead of repairing and maintaining something which the American spirit was supposed to be, you know, you, you know, like, you. I guess the refrigerator is the best, you know, example that I can give is that they used to make them to where it was, where you could repair.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And then it would last 50 years. Now you buy a 3, 500 refrigerator and the water stops working in a year. Year. And then, you know, in two years a seal breaks and, and your warranty

[A]

works out right before that.

[D]

Yeah. And. And then it's more expensive to repair it than it is to replace it. It's. It's insane because they have to have their tech guy come out and fix it. And, and so, like, I don't want to Live in that world.

[C]

Yeah, that's a great point.

[D]

Like, and I, I'm not, I'm not sure what I would want to give. Like I'm not sure how much I have to give up. But I'm willing to do it if I, if I can have that separate society.

[B]

We're going to Super Chat. So smash the like button, share the show with your friends, tell everybody you know, head on over to timcast.com join our discord and head on over to rumble.com become a member so you can watch the after show which is coming in just a few minutes. But right now we're gonna read your super chats. Let's see. HitmanZarelli says rogue AI degenerate culture war zone cities LA Chicago Seattle, NY cyber enhanced people in the future. I think cyber 20 cyberpunk 2077 is our future future. I mean that's what we were just kind of touching on. But I'm not as black pilled as, as a lot of people are. I think that, I do think that your point about, you know, there are some jobs that robots aren't going to do for, be able to do for a while. I mean right now there aren't really any jobs that humanoid robots can do. Right. Like they're still in development. No.

[E]

There's the teacher that they're gonna, that they're introducing to the school on the reservation.

[B]

Yeah, yeah yeah. So okay, so they're, they're just starting now. Now. But you know, I, I think that eventually you're going to have robots as assistants out on the job to go change tires or to go help, you know, get people out of a, a ditch or whatever. And, and whether or not they completely replace people in every job, I don't think that that's probably going to happen. But I do think that there's going to be a lot of people that are going to have, they'll go and, and go to a job and, and they'll be a human being. The hands almost solved.

[E]

There's, there's so much, there's so many jobs that require such unique dexterity that

[B]

it feels like that's almost, that's almost. There was, there was just a hand that came out last week that I saw videos for and they're like screwing in light bulbs. It's got, it's got 20 like the human hand has 27 degrees of, of mobility and I think this had like 25. So it's, it's, it's something, all of those problems, all the things that we think robots can't. Aren't dexterous enough. Robots can't do this, robots can't do that. That. I think that all those are solvable problems. Elon Musk likes to say the only no is physics. Right. So if human beings can do it, you can figure out how to get a robot to do it.

[C]

Are they sending teachers into reservations?

[E]

There is a school. Did you, did you see the, this article? Yeah. There's a school that has a pilot program where realbotics has basically their alternative version of a sex doll that has been made into a teacher. And it's a closed system. Kids can't access the Internet and it's on reservations on, it's in like a specific school.

[C]

And they got, we have the Native Patriot here.

[D]

Well, they, they. I, I don't know what, what reservation it's on. I can't remember. But I did see that. And it's, you know, it's, it's a way to replace women. Oh, man, it really is. I mean, it's not taking the mother

[E]

job, but it's like gonna tag you.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Wife is supposed to be the mother. The wife is supposed to, to, to teach, nurture and help raise the children. And now we're not just going to have the state do it, we're going to have AI do it.

[C]

They're replacing. I saw who crash. They're replacing women.

[E]

Yeah, it's the, it's the same, it's the same doll they use, only it's with a different system on the inside. It's very.

[A]

Right. But why did they have to. Well, I.

[B]

Thrust. MC Thrust. MC Trunk punch. Thrust. MC Trunk Punch says he did just have Claude disprove the Jacobin conjecture and advance the field of mathematics. Definitely seems like there's potential in AI People say that, that AI isn't capable of creative thought because it's, it's only, it learns from the Internet, so it can only do things that human beings have, have done. And so that's kind of where, where breakthroughs happen is like in human beings because they can think creatively. But I, I don't think that that's actually the case.

[D]

Babies don't really think creatively, you know, and AI is in its baby stage right now.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

So. So there, there will be a point where it flips.

[B]

Yep.

[C]

But wouldn't solving a math formula mean that? Because no one's denying it.

[A]

It's just math.

[C]

Yeah. No one's denying it computing capabilities. We're just denying its ability to have like the imago day Right.

[B]

No, but that, that's, that's the thing. The, the fire or something. The particular, like the, the Jacobin conjuncture. It's, it's an advancement. It's. It's one of those, those kind of math problems that human beings haven't been able to solve yet.

[C]

But that's like no one's answering. No one's completed chess. But that would be a, that would be a computing issue, not a creative issue.

[B]

I'm. I don't know enough about mathematics to be able to answer your question properly, to be honest with you.

[C]

So I'm, I'm still firmly confirmed that I've seen the ceiling of AI force.

[B]

Name change says, I'm an agnostic theist. I believe in God, but I recognize that there's no way to prove he exists. God wants it this way. Knowing ends faith. Your face will be tested, not your knowledge. I mean, that's fair enough, you know.

[C]

Well, I mean, I mean, I think that's one of the more common rebuttals to Christianity is why would God. You know, it's like the. What's it. The watchmaker like, you know, you make the watch and just let it go and let it cook. But, I mean, I don't know. I think because of the. We're kind of out of time, but because of the fact that humans do possess this like, desire for spirituality, that possess this desire to understand where we came from. That's one of the fundamental questions of humanity, is why are we here? I think that is evidence that there is a God that is seeking to know us. And vice versa is because. Because if we possess that, it's likely that our maker also possesses that. Because ChatGPT couldn't really care less. It's not sitting around reading history books trying to figure out where it came from. It's just here to answer questions because it's a computer. But human beings seem to possess this desire for a mutual relationship with God. And then I think that I'm pretty firm on. And then now you come to the question of, okay, what is that God? Who is that God? And I believe it was Christ. And I do believe he was resurrected, which provides the evidence that he was God manifest best.

[B]

All right, guys, head on over to Rumble. We're going to do the Rumble after show in just a second. Native Patriot, thank you for joining us. Where can people find you?

[D]

You can find me at Law. Native Patriot on X. Shout out to my wife, Lady Patriot. I know she's watching, so I appreciate that. And the co Creator of the Patriots Prayer Network, Eddie at the Patriots Prey, uh, on X. Other than that, you can find me on, uh, YouTube on the can't be bought podcast.

[E]

Let's go guys. If you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and on X at Brett Dasovic on both those platforms. But check out PCC. We are live five days a week, Monday through Friday, 3pm Eastern, noon Pacific. Phil will be on tomorrow and then I will. Yep. And then on Friday we've got a special three hour episode, 2 to 5pm we celebrate every hundred episodes. You have to always take advantage of life and you know and appreciate it while it's going on. So, so we celebrate that. So I hope you guys will come and join us over there. Thank you so much for having me.

[C]

Yeah, you can follow me on X and Instagram @realtape brown and also shout out to Lady Patriot. We love all Patriots in this. And no super chats about Patriots entering the world. Usually we get a few.

[B]

We were kind of limited on time. I hope that I didn't miss one.

[C]

I'm sure there are some other Patriots born tonight, so shout out to them as well.

[A]

It's my fault. I didn't look closely enough. We were kind of limited on time, but I'm sure we may have had a few. We definitely had enough the other night that we probably are good for a week anyway. You can follow me at Carter Banks and at Carter Banks official everywhere else. YouTube @trash house Records. Semi new song still up there. But yeah, let's get into the after show. Thank you all for coming and let's continue the convo.

[B]

All right. I am Philip Remains on X and you can check out my Patreon at Phil Remains. You can check out the band at Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. And we will see you all in the rumble after show.

[A]

Go. Ahead.