Karmelo Anthony APPEALS, GiveSendGo DELETES Fundraiser w/ Mike Benz & Rebeka Zeljko

Summary

---

Timcast IRL: Karmelo Anthony Appeals, GiveSendGo Deletes Fundraiser w/ Mike Benz & Rebeka Zeljko

Episode Date: June 11, 2026
Host: Tim Pool (Timcast Media)
Guests: Mike Benz (Foundation for Freedom Online), Rebeka Zeljko (Daily Caller Reporter), Phil Labonte (All That Remains), Ian Crossland, Carter Banks
Theme: Independent news analysis on race, law, tech censorship, election integrity, and the “dead internet” with a focus on recent high-profile controversies.

---

Episode Overview

This episode unfolds a tightly-packed, often heated discussion on the ongoing Carmelo Anthony murder conviction appeal, the removal of his legal defense fundraiser by GiveSendGo, escalating racial tensions in the U.S. and Europe, new allegations of election fraud in California, the realities and risks of “dead internet theory,” and the rapid erosion of copyright and intellectual property laws in the age of AI. The panel moves from incisive media criticism into the weeds of how tech, NGOs, and policies are rewriting the rules on everything from criminal justice to content creation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Carmelo Anthony’s Appeal and Fundraiser Takedown

• Summary: Carmelo Anthony is appealing his murder conviction after being sentenced to 35 years for a fatal stabbing at a Frisco, Texas track meet. GiveSendGo, the Christian crowdfunding platform, removed his fundraiser (raising >$630k) post-conviction and, per policy, may refund donors.

• Host’s Take ([01:00]):
  “There is a massive amount of social media coming from people in the black community saying outright they want to commit violence against white people... This is how insane things have gotten.”

• Legal/Platform Details ([07:24]):

  • GoFundMe removed previous campaigns for Anthony’s defense citing bans on fundraising for those convicted of violent crimes.
  • GiveSendGo CEO previously stated they would not police fundraisers pre-conviction, but post-conviction would act in line with policy.

• Panel Reactions:

  • Rebeka Zeljko ([08:36]): “They bought a house, didn’t they? His family? They spent a good portion of the money from what I understand. So I wonder how they’ll be able to refund that.”
  • Phil Labonte ([10:00]): “It’s mostly a racial divide… The black people that are upset about it, they're very vocal, they're very active on social media.”

• Jury & Race Controversy ([12:32]):
  Tim notes research showing black jurors statistically display more race-based bias than white jurors in trial verdicts:
  “The only racial group that is neutral in terms of guilty or not guilty pleas by race is white people. So Asians… and black people especially… are more likely to say a white person is guilty and a black person is not guilty.”

  • Savannah Hernandez video referenced: Protestors admit supporting ‘their own’ regardless of evidence ([13:04]).
  • Tim’s assessment: “It’s racial. Tribal rules, you know.”

2. Deepening U.S. Racial Tensions & Cross-Atlantic Unrest

• Recent Violence ([16:11]):
  Tim describes a wave of social media videos depicting physical and verbal threats against white people post-Anthony verdict.
• Congressional Reaction ([19:19]):
  • U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett criticized the verdict as excessive, downplaying the lethal stabbing (“He hit him one time”) and applying BLM narratives ([19:19]).
    • Phil Labonte ([19:59]): “The whole bringing up the BLM narrative, which has been patently debunked… Just unreal.”
• International: Irish Riots ([28:36]):
  • Ties drawn to migrant-related violence and political parties stoking unrest in Belfast, with Sinn Fein mentioned as a party now supporting mass migration and, indirectly, fostering nationalist backlashes.

3. Election Fraud & Ballot Concerns in California

• California Ballot Laws ([35:00]):
  Tim breaks down legal “wiggle room” for mail-in ballots, such as acceptance of undated envelopes, cartoon signatures (e.g., “Kirby Star”), and ballot harvesting loopholes.
  • Mike Benz demonstration ([45:07]): Shows how one can register a 103-year-old non-English-speaking Chinese woman with NO ID or SSN to receive a ballot in California.
  • Phil Labonte ([46:46]): “California has made their laws so that most of this stuff is… legal.”
• Signature Verification Farce ([39:27]):
  Official training documents show cartoon symbols as valid signatures.
  • Rebeka Zeljko ([40:09]): “This is a valid California ballot. Signature. They count these votes.”
• Republican Legal Strategy ([35:17]):
  Tim explains an expected Supreme Court ruling (Watson v. RNC) could force all federal elections to single-day, in-person voting, potentially ending long vote-count periods and mail-in ballot collection.
• Fraud Investigations ([48:22]):
  DOJ pursuing some cases, e.g., a woman registering her dog to vote as a protest, to illustrate system flaws.

4. ActBlue Scandal: Foreign Money & Pleading the Fifth

• Synopsis ([49:21]):
  ActBlue CEO pleads the Fifth repeatedly in congressional testimony over allegations of accepting foreign funds and facilitating fraudulent donations.
  • Tim ([51:38]): “She lied to Congress. ActBlue was getting foreign money. They were illicit fundraising sources. We know why she’s pleading the Fifth in this instance.”
  • Phil Labonte ([52:24]): “It’s my opinion that ActBlue and by extension the DNC are breaking a whole ton of laws… DOJ should investigate and they should throw the book at them.”
• Deeper Ties ([54:42]):
  Mike Benz describes how USAID and similar organizations have long funneled money into foreign elections and into domestic political groups.

5. “Dead Internet Theory” and AI Content Flood

• Main Take ([64:16]):
  Tim details the phenomenon where social media is increasingly clogged with identical, often AI-generated or mindlessly replicated videos, destroying the diversity and authenticity that made independent media viable.
  • “People, random people, are being programmed by social media to become zombies.”
• Bot Traffic (>50% Web) ([65:23]):
  Panel reacts to Cloudflare data showing automated bot requests now outnumber human ones.
  • Mike Benz ([71:59]): “The establishment wants to go back to an era where they had only a few finite media mechanisms… How do we bring this back to where there’s only a few channels? Make it so that the only thing that gets promoted is the exact same joke.”
  • Rebeka Zeljko ([68:25]): “So your feed’s just the same thing again?”
  • Tim ([68:29]): “It is. And, and that's... intentional... Instagram rewards repetition.”

6. Intellectual Property, Fair Use, and the Coming Collapse

• Ethan Klein Lawsuit as Precedent ([89:07]):
  Tim frames Ethan Klein’s copyright lawsuit (against streamers rebroadcasting his full video) as a microcosm of the coming end of independent intellectual property rights.
  • “If Ethan Klein actually loses… I can watch Avengers Doomsday in its entirety and just criticize it, and that would be fair use.”
  • Mike Benz: Describes a deliberate operation by legacy media—working with CIA fronts and big advertisers post-2016—to demonetize and suppress “disinformation” by choking off independent ad revenue ([107:12]), restoring gatekeeper power.
• Big Tech’s Vision ([110:00]):
  • “Jack Dorsey, Elon [Musk]… have called for the abolition of intellectual property. They want their, their, their AI models to be able to use and reproduce any and every creative work.”
  • Tim: “The end result… There will be no intellectual property as evidenced by the statements… and every day new precedent is set or new trials are lost on the issue of intellectual property and copyright infringement.”

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (w/ Timestamps)

• Race and Jury Nullification ([13:04], Tim):
  “The only racial group that is neutral in terms of guilty or not guilty pleas by race is white people... black people are more likely to say a white person is guilty and a black person is not guilty.”
• Crockett’s Defense of Anthony ([19:19], Jasmine Crockett via Tim):
  “He hit him one time... he just wanted to get out of the rain.”
• AI Killing Originality ([64:18], Tim):
  “Everybody just making the exact same videos over and over again is you being programmed by the AI to be a single cell in a multicellular organism.”
• Election Fraud: Cartoon Signatures ([40:09], Rebeka):
  “This is a valid California ballot. Signature. They count these votes.”
• Losing IP, Coming Censorship ([110:00], Tim):
  “There will be no intellectual property… and every day new precedent is set or new trials are lost... It’s better to have no IP law than to have all the IP owned by a small group of people and it's going to be one or the other.”

---

Engaging Exchanges & Humor

• On Jury Activism ([14:57], Mike Benz):
  “Black people could just kill people, I guess.”
• Signature Verification Absurdity ([40:09], Tim & Mike):
  “Everyone in this room can draw a picture of Kirby... a million people could just write my sign, write my name...”
• Meta, TikTok, AI, and Dead Internet ([67:43], Mike):
  “Nikita Bier is just fucking with you, man.”
  Tim: “Instagram rewards these specific repetitions. So human beings are basically lining up like lemmings and just imitating each other.”
• Old Men and Skepticism ([87:47], Mike):
  “Isn’t that wisdom? I mean, don’t... every old man who’s like 90 years old is just default skeptical.”

---

Timestamps of Key Segments

• [01:00] – Opening context: Carmelo Anthony case, racial tensions, GiveSendGo ban
• [07:24] – Fundraiser platform policies explained
• [13:04] – Savannah Hernandez’s viral interview about racial tribalism on juries
• [19:19] – Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s viral courtroom comments
• [28:36] – Irish riots & immigration fallout
• [35:00] – In-depth breakdown of California ballot rules, show of “Kirby” signature examples
• [45:07] – Live demo: registering a non-citizen for California ballots
• [49:21] – ActBlue CEO pleads the Fifth over foreign fundraising
• [64:16] – “Dead Internet theory,” identical AI-generated and bot-amplified content
• [79:36] – Prompting AI to bypass bias and give real answers
• [89:07] – The Ethan Klein/Denims lawsuit, copyright and the “fair use” debate
• [107:12] – Mike Benz reveals legacy media-advertiser-government plot post-2016
• [110:00] – Tim’s summation: The death of intellectual property

---

Closing & Resources

• Panelist Plugs ([123:24]):

  • Rebeka Zeljko: Daily Caller, X: @rebeccazeljko
  • Mike Benz: X: @MikeBenzCyber, foundationforfreedomonline.com
  • Phil Labonte: All That Remains, @philthatremains on Twix (X/Twitter)
  • Carter Banks: @carterbanksmusic

• Next: The uncensored, more graphic/explicit portion is available on Rumble.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode is a deep dive into how platform policy, technology, and law are converging to disrupt foundational aspects of democratic society—race relations, elections, and a free press among them. The tone is unvarnished, wry, and at times confrontational, laced with humor and genuine exasperation at the state of media and American institutions.

Whether discussing race, the deep state, the existential threat of the “dead internet,” or the struggle for IP rights, the show contends that centralized power and algorithmic regulation are squeezing independent creators and ordinary citizens alike.

For those following American politics, tech, media, and law, this episode is essential listening—and perhaps, a warning.

Transcript

[A]

A burst pipe, a dead water heater,

[B]

the AC calling it quits.

[A]

Who do you call?

[B]

HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started.

[A]

Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now.

[B]

Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to a renewal price void in Florida.

[A]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with

[B]

a message for everyone Paying Big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month.

[C]

Of course, if you enjoy overpaying.

[A]

No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway.

[B]

Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per

[A]

month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms at Mintmobile.

[B]

Carmelo Anthony is officially appealing his conviction, his sentencing, and we are seeing an insane reaction from. I don't know how to describe it other than a like I don't want to, I don't want to make it seem like literally every black person is saying they want to go kill white people or anything like that because certainly that's not the case. But there is a massive amount of social media coming from people in the black community saying outright they want to commit violence against white people. In fact, in one video, a guy on a bike, a black man literally punches a random white guy because he thought he saw him at the courthouse. In another video, a guy says to go out and kill. I mean, this is how insane things have gotten. Carmelo Anthony is appealing, tensions are rising and GiveSendGo has pulled down his fundraiser and is expected, at least according to a few reports, to refund the money to those who made donations. I don't know how much that would actually be because I do believe they they disperse like these fundraising platforms will disperse periodically. Let's just say racial tensions are hot right now and not even here. Across the pond, Belfast, Ireland is seeing still ongoing riots. Apparently it's not as bad, but they were telling people to get out of the city by the afternoon because they expect there to be more riots. For, for those of you that didn't see the story, Sudanese guy horrifically and brutally mutilated a man. I can't even begin to describe the things that he did, but he had a kitchen knife and he was trying to remove the man's head as well as his eyes, his face. The whole thing is absolutely horrific. And for this, we saw homes being burned down, we saw vehicles getting burned down. It's absolutely intense. And then of course, we'll pick back up in the California Democrat election conversation about how they're cheating. New information, of course, emerging more. There's another report of a California individual being caught with engaging in voter fraud. So we'll talk about that. And then the news that everybody can't wait to hear about. I guess we're still at war with Iran or the war is getting worse. The US has begun striking Iran again, taking out water reservoirs. And apparently Trump's even calling for Fox News reporter Trey Yings from the Situation Room to explain what's going on. This is, this is absolutely crazy. So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more before we get started, my friends. We got some great, we got a great sponsor for you. It's chef iq.com Father's Day is coming up, my friends. And if you don't know what to get dad, this is it. Skip the random last minute gift and get him something he'll genuinely love using Chef IQ Sense. It's a smart thermometer that connects to your phone, tells you exactly when your food is done. It's the perfect gift for Father's Day. And right now, during their Father's Day sale, you will get 40% off site wide with my code TIM. Dads will love it. You can check everything right from your phone. It tracks your cook in real time and walks, walks you through it step by step. Tells you exactly when to flip, pull, rest, serve. It turns I think it's done into I know it's perfect. No more overcooked steaks or dry chicken. Restaurant level results at home. Steak, chicken, burgers, fish. It handles all of it. Works on the grill, oven, smoker, whatever you're using. You don't have to babysit your food anymore. Watch the game, hang with the family. Your phone tells you when it's ready. It's like having a cooking coach right in your pocket. This is the gift he'll actually use every single week. Go to chefiq.com use promo code Tim for 40% off site wide. That's chefiq.com promo code Tim. Don't forget to also go to timcast.com join the community. Everybody smash that like button, subscribe to the channel and join tens of thousands of people hanging out every single day. And as a member, you can call in to the uncensored portion of the show. That being said, joining us, we got a couple of guests coming to hang out. First up, we've got the great Mike Benz.

[A]

Great to see you.

[B]

Who are you? What do you do?

[A]

I'm a guy on the Internet.

[B]

He's a guy in the. I think. I think you're, like the foremost deep state expert.

[A]

I dabble. I dabble in the deep.

[B]

Dabble in the deep. No, but with all due respect, I do believe that when it comes to issues of what we would describe as the deep state, you have uncovered more, you know, more about the networks of these institutions and this power and things like that. So I think it'll be great to have you.

[A]

I'm closer to the NGOs than I am to my own family, so, yes, that's. Yeah, I know them well.

[B]

Right on. And we also have Rebecca Zelko. Hello.

[D]

Thank you for having me.

[B]

Who are you? What do you do?

[D]

I'm a reporter for the Daily Caller. I cover national politics.

[B]

Right on. The boys are hanging out, so. Yeah. What up? Hi.

[C]

Hello, everybody. My name is Phil labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band all that Remains. Let's get into it.

[B]

Yeah. Ian needs no introduction.

[C]

He doesn't. He doesn't. But it's good to have the. The foremost expert on the blob like that. That moniker.

[B]

Yeah. Mike was just telling me that Ghislaine Maximilian's on the 911.

[A]

Okay, can we not do this right now?

[C]

Absolutely cannot.

[B]

Data. Welcome to Crossing. All right.

[A]

I'm a real. Bathroom was miked. All right, it was.

[B]

Here we go. Let's get the news. We got this from cbs. Two big stories. Carmelo Anthony to appeal murder conviction in Frisco. Track meeting, stabbing. They say that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. It took jurors two and a half hours. We've got this new photo of him in his jail smock and his shaved head. Dallas Appellate appellate attorney David Cole, who has handled appeals for decades, said Anthony's team could have several strong arguments on appeal. But any appeal would not be about what the jury heard. It would center on whether this trial was handled correctly. The Collin County Sheriff's Office said Anthony was transferred to a Texas Department of Criminal justice facility on Wednesday after spending one night in Collin County Jail. Now, the big, big component of this GiveSend Go has pulled down, they say. This is From Dallas Express. GiveSend Go has shut down the official fundraiser for Carmelo Anthony following his conviction for the murder of Austin Metcalfe. The move comes one day after Collin county jury convicted him. This we know. With the campaign now shut down following Anthony's murder conviction, the platform is expected to refund donations to contributors consistent with its policy on campaigns involving individuals convicted of violent crimes. No official announcement has been made regarding the final disbursement of the more than $630,000 raised prior to the GiveSend Go campaign being removed. Description posted by the Anthony family read in part as follows. This is the official support fund for Carmelo and his family during this challenging and difficult, difficult time. GoFundMe removed earlier campaigns for Anthony, citing its policy against fundraisers for the legal defense of violent crimes. Per Snopes, donations to those campaigns were refunded and the company issued the following statement saying GoFundMe's terms of service prohibit fundraisers for legal defense of violent crimes. Consistent with this long standing policy, any fundraiser for the legal defense of someone in charge of the violent crime is removed from the platform and fully refunded. So this is interesting. I guess the situation now for givesendgo is he is no longer alleged to be. He is now convicted as. And for that I believe Gives and Go's policies is like if you literally are raising money for a murderer, they shut that down. However, we did talk with GiveSend Go when all this went down and the CEO was saying they don't want to be a platform that polices people's ability to fundraise before conviction because that's why everyone's mad at GoFundMe. And while they certainly did not agree with Carmelo Anthony nor side with them, their issue was largely that they have to be neutral across the board. That's the point of GiveSendo and it's what makes them better than GoFundMe. So now I'm curious how much money was already dispersed to the family and how much money will be refunded back to people who donated? They were donating still as of today.

[D]

That doesn't surprise me, honestly. I mean, they bought a house, didn't they? His family? They spent a good portion of the money from what I understand. So I wonder how they'll be able to refund that.

[C]

They were already. Well, I think they rented, spent all, all of the money and, and if I understand correctly, he had to get a public.

[D]

I think it was like less than half of the donations went to actual legal expenses. I could be wrong on that, but not. Sorry.

[C]

Didn't he have a public defender?

[B]

He had A public defender. But he also, I mean there's, he may have had two defenders. Maybe one of them was, was private. But I think it is fact that he had a public one. But I'll fact check that.

[A]

And the family was wealthy coming into it.

[C]

They, they. Well, they were not destitute definitely. I don't know, I don't know how wealthy or what, you know, someone's definition of wealthy would be, but they were not a poor, what you would consider a poor family. They were at least middle class, maybe upper middle class.

[A]

So our leftist groups outraged over the GoFundMe pulling or. I honestly, I'm so used to being on the other side of this where it's like I, there's like a 13 year old girl who wants to like start a cupcake stand, but she voted for Trump. And so now. Yeah, it's just like alien to process that like something in a situation like this.

[C]

As far as I've seen, there aren't formal organizations and there aren't a considerable amount of politicians that are coming out in, in some kind of protest or whatever. It's most. Mostly a racial divide.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Y. And you know, I don't imagine that it's the majority of black people, but the, the black people that are upset about it. They're very vocal, they're very active on social media. They're. Some people are. There are some assaults that you've heard, you know about. You know, there was a guy, Tim brought up earlier, Tim probably has it brought up, that was assaulted because the guy that the black guy thought that he was on the jury in Florida. Yeah. I mean really? In Florida. Yeah. So I mean you said not all

[D]

politicians, but Jasmine Crockett, she had some things to say about the trial, some

[C]

eloquent things to say, we might add.

[D]

She, she brushed it up. I. Yeah, she, yeah, she was talking.

[B]

She dropped the Ebonics.

[C]

You mean a little code switching going on.

[D]

She was talking to the TMZ reporter today and she was using all kinds of euphemism, saying that he punctured. He punctured Austin, saying that he punctured him with a tool, you know, and he said.

[A]

She said reverse.

[D]

It was only one time. It wasn't like he was stabbing him multiple times.

[C]

If you want to call, if you want to call the knife a tool, I will continue to call my firearm a tool.

[B]

Actually.

[C]

That's what it is.

[B]

I think it may have been a multi tool.

[C]

I could be, yeah, that he had

[B]

like, I saw some reporting that said that he had A three and a half inch blade attached to a multi tool that he unfolded, which I actually think makes worse, because it's harder to pull the knife out on that.

[D]

Yeah, he had a couple seconds to think about it.

[B]

Exactly.

[D]

To kill.

[B]

If he had like a steak knife or maybe like a buck knife or something and grabbed it, you could be like a passion murder. Meaning just in the moment, on the fly, he's like, oh, he grabbed a knife.

[D]

He was like.

[B]

But this was premeditated. Yeah. So the fact that he grabbed the blade and prepared it and then go to the man indicates premeditation.

[A]

So I haven't been. I remember this when this first happened, but I haven't been following it. Is, is there like a close question of fact that the protests are alleging, you know, he's actually innocent? Because. Because it seemed, just from the way it was reported, with no diligence coming into it, it seemed pretty open and shut. Murder. Are these protests, are they are alleging that there's some sort of mistrial and bias or are they just pro murder?

[C]

They're pro murder. Yeah. They're saying that, that it's, it's generally the people that are protesting are racially motivated. And you hear a lot of things like, well, you know, we have to stick together.

[B]

And.

[C]

And he didn't. He.

[D]

And it's an us versus them thing.

[C]

Yeah. And it's, it's in. It's not just for him to have gotten 35 years that it should have been less because it was only his first offense. I mean, it's a murder.

[B]

The issue is this. These people that you see outside and the, the protesters on the Carmelo Anthony side are almost exclusively black, have no idea what's happening in the world. And so the first problem is that when they're asked questions, they say things that are wildly just not aligned with reality. However, Savannah Hernandez has that viral video where she asks the black woman, if the evidence shows that this is murder, would you. Would you stand by conviction? And she says, no, we're gonna stand with our own. They stand with theirs, we stand with ours.

[A]

Prison rules.

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, that's, it's. It's racial. Tribal rules, you know, so we found there's. There's some great studies have been going viral and Matt Walsh has covered this extensively, and he does a fantastic job of this on juries. The only racial group that is neutral in terms of guilty or not guilty pleas by race is white people. So Asians, they tend to say Asians are not guilty when it comes down to it and black people especially, in fact, black people are more likely to say a white person is guilty and a black person is not guilty. Not just that black people are not guilty. So there's a clear racial preference. But the worrying thing about it is they like to do this meme. There's a, there's a, there's a clip in Reacher where Tom Cruise is trying to hide from the police. So he goes to a bus station and he's very clearly evading cops that are driving down the street. So a black guy takes his hat off and hands it to him and another black guy steps in front of him and Tom Cruise puts the hat on and looks down. And you know, people are posting online being like, oh, look at that. You know, the brothers are protecting him from the cops because they know what's up. It's actually not true. The data shows that there is a slight percentage increase that black people on a jury, when seeing a white person accused of a crime, are slightly more likely to say he's guilty than someone who. Well, than a white person would. Of a white person or even a Latino or Asian person would have. A white person.

[A]

I'd be curious to see like a longitudinal study on something like that because that was something that I just remember. I think I was in middle school when the O.J. simpson trial thing happened and I think I saw like some portion of a documentary like years after that where seemed pretty evident that the jury very deliberately like admitted it, basically.

[B]

No, no, no. But today it is known. The jurors have stated explicitly.

[A]

Right, that's what I think, like the documentary was saying that, that it was like the jurors basically, in a non racial context, they'd call that like jury nullification. Like you actually see.

[B]

Yeah, black people could just kill people, I guess.

[A]

Right, right. But, but what I know, but what I mean is like NGOs actually go around, like they went around D.C. like training juries to like nullify like that you have a right to just regardless of what the crime is, say someone is innocent of it because you don't need to follow, like you can make up your own mind about whether or not to vote guilty or not, regardless of what the judge instructs you. Like this is all jury nullification line or whatever. But I'm curious whether that has gone up, down or stayed relatively neutral since. Because when the OJ Thing happened, it, there was, I feel like this sentiment around the black community that like, okay, we're owed this one. And then I felt like that kind of, I'M sure that is statistically true. What Tim said. It felt like it was very much in the room in the 90s when there were all these race riots around Rodney King and all this stuff. And then I feel like it's sort of probably chilled out for a while and then I assume came back in a big way during BLM, like 2013 and Obama era. I'm just curious where we are. Like, I'm curious if it's improved, I guess.

[B]

Oh no. What we are seeing now in response to this is shocking to me. And I was at most of the BLM riots. I mean, I was at the first Trayvon Martin marches in New York City. I was at the Ferguson protest. I was at the Freddie Gray stuff. I was at the activist meetings for these things. And I saw woke and I saw, you know, DEI kind of stuff, but was like, oh, yeah, look, there's a thing, right, that that's how people feel. The videos we're seeing now in response to this where they're like, go kill white people or nuts.

[D]

Well, that's typically any more airtime. But she literally in the hallway was like, he just wanted to get out of the rain. He didn't do anything. And. And then in the end of the video she's talking about, oh, if it was a white guy, I doubt he ever would have even been convicted. It was crazy. She's an elected official. I know she's a bit on the extreme end, but still.

[B]

Yeah, crazy. They said there was no black people on the jury. And I don't really know how that came to be, but that's like the, the closest thing to an argument that they've had that I have seen. But, but they were claiming it was an all white jury.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And then I think the counter was actually it's not an all white jury. Just got no black people on it. Right. But we don't know the alternates are. And so I do think that framing is funny. I don't know if the jurors there were Asians or Latinos on it, but it, considering the counter argument, it would be funny if it turned out it was a multi ethnic jury but without black people. And so black people just said it was all white. Yeah, you know what I mean?

[D]

And they know like bringing that point up, they're almost admitting that like black people would be more sympathetic towards black people if they were on the jury.

[B]

That's exactly what they're saying.

[D]

It's true. But it's just funny to like to hear them admit it almost you know,

[B]

I gotta respect them for it at least. I mean, like, man, imagine someone made a post and they said, if white people start acting the way. If white people start acting the way black people do when a black person commits a murder or is murdered, it's gonna get ugly. If.

[C]

If white people acted the way that these particular people, the ones that are protesting stuff, if they. If white people acted the way that they say that white people act, there wouldn't be any black people. Like, they swear up and down that it's lynching, that, you know, white people are killing them, they're killing black people and stuff. It's just total detachment from reality.

[B]

Let's. Let's pull up this Jasmine Crockett clip. Let's. We're gonna start light with all of you guys. There's been a crazy reaction to the. The results of the Carmelo Anthony criminal trial with Democrats still, some of them trying somehow to defend Carmelo Anthony. Jasmine Crockett starts us off real light and easy. But just wait, because after we play this video, we're going to show you some of the street videos where there are direct threats of violence, calls to commit murder, and overt acts of violence against white people. Because of this ruling, he ended up hitting Austin one time. And it was about where he hit him one time, two inches. This wasn't someone who said, hey, let me stab you five, six, seven times. And so when you're looking at the punishment range, there's a reason in Texas that it goes from 5 to 99 or life. Because you are looking at how intentional,

[D]

like, how bad was this?

[B]

35 years for a kid who had decided to go under a tent that was not his team's tent as it

[D]

was raining and simply didn't want to

[B]

be put out in the rain by some random kid that he didn't know who was larger than him. Listen, a lot of people don't know what it is to live as a black person in this country.

[D]

But just like you can give the

[B]

benefit of the doubt to so many police officers when they go out and they shoot some black unarmed person, even

[D]

though they are trained, the fact that

[B]

there was little to no mercy seen or humanity seen, when they don't know what is happening, they don't.

[C]

I mean, just the narrative that she's spinning, 35 years when he could have had 99, that's actually fairly merciful. The whole bringing up the BLM narrative, which has been patently debunked, the idea that white police officer killing unarmed black men in the Streets in the hundreds or thousands every year. This is all just totally detached from reality. And then to talk about privilege from the halls of Congress. A black woman in the halls of Congress. Unreal. Just unreal.

[B]

The way she just said he hit him one time.

[D]

But, yeah, I mean, with a knife.

[B]

So. So what she is saying outright is Carmel. Carmelo Anthony didn't want to stand in the rain. This is. This is what I've been saying the whole time. Carmelo Anthony went into the tent and it was raining, and they said, get out of our tent. And he felt disrespected. He didn't want to let these dudes make him stand in the rain or run through the rain to a different tent. So according to all the witnesses, the gist of the story is he refused. They asked him several times. He refused. He reaches in his bag, draws the knife, grips it in his hand. Someone actually said, be careful. He's got a weapon. Austin apparently said, he doesn't got a weapon. Dude said, touch me and see what happens. He said, I'm not going to fight you to track me, dude. And when he walked up to him, one witness said, before he could even shove him, because people have claimed he shoved him, this witness said he didn't give it a chance of him because Carmelo Anthony stabbed him before he was even able to do it.

[A]

Like in the throat.

[D]

Only once.

[B]

In the right. The chest.

[D]

In the heart.

[B]

Yes, right. Piercing his heart, killing him. And it's important to understand a couple things. He. He unfolded the blade and prepared it in advance. Premeditation. The fact that he stabbed him in the chest, intent to kill. Chest stabs are almost always lethal. You're going to puncture the lung. And people don't know first day. This person's going to die in a couple of minutes from a sucking chest wound, or you're going to hit him in the heart. And that's what he did. So I think it's. I. I think. Here's my. Here's. Here's my. My. My profile in Carmelo Anthony. Apparently, it started to rain. He tried to go into a dugout. They told him, you can't. You can't go over here. Go somewhere else. So he ran up to a tent. They said, bro, you can't come into our tent. And he's like, you're not going to make me stand in the rain. In his mind, he's thinking, they're disrespecting me, and I'm not going to let

[A]

him disrespect rain or Acid rain. Like, this is just regular old rain, okay?

[B]

And this is what I want. I want people to understand. He was the aggressor, prepared a knife. He could have just stood in the rain. And so this is the distinction. You know, I've told this story before about when. About how New Jersey handles gun laws. They invert it. So when I had a guy try to break into my house, I was talking to the cops, and, you know, one cop was like, if it were me, I answered. If it were me, I'd answer the door with a shotgun. And then I was like, oh. Like, how do I do it? And they're like, oh, well, actually, you have a duty to retreat in. In New Jersey. And I was like, I'm sitting. I'm in my house, and I'm like, retreat to where is my house? And they were like, listen to what

[A]

you're saying down your own toilet.

[B]

They said, this is the funny thing about liberals. The cop said, listen. He's like, I'm not. I'm not advising anything legal, but sounds to me like you want to tell a judge, I would rather shoot a man and kill him than stand outside. And I was like, I get it. That's how these blue states operate. You get a guy breaks in your house, and you are like, I'm shooting him. He's breaking in my house. You will get arrested and charged with felony murder. Murder. And when you go before the jury and the judge, you'll say, he broke into my house, and I was scared, so I shot him. And they will ask, did you attempt to flee? And your response is, no, where would I go? And outside. And, well, I don't know where to go. Outside. And they're like, you would rather kill a man than be standing outside somewhere that's intent to murder?

[A]

Your Honor, it was raining outside.

[B]

Now, think about how the left is handling this. To be fair, I think most people are not siding with him. But people like Jasmine Crockett. Hey, look, she's a. She's a demon. She is siding with them. Her attitude is he should not have been made to stand in the rain. So you got to give him sympathy for stabbing somebody in the chest.

[D]

He was just a kid. He was 17.

[A]

Know what. What district Crockett represents?

[D]

Just, I think, north of where the. The.

[B]

Like Dallas, right?

[D]

Yeah, like, Dallas area.

[B]

Here we go. You guys ready for this one?

[A]

Dude riding a bike, don't be a menace.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

30.

[B]

Hey, wasn't you on jury selection? No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't.

[D]

Seriously. Wasn't even let him.

[B]

He wasn't. He was on jury.

[D]

He's a vet, dude.

[A]

He's a vet.

[B]

He ain't been on jury. He drew a knife. You going to die. You going to die. You on jury. Why you on Jersey? You on jury selection.

[C]

That man was not on a jury.

[B]

You don't jury selection. That, that dude sitting on the ground at some bus stop or something was not a jury guy. That dude doesn't go to jury duty.

[C]

Look at him. He's not going to jury duty.

[B]

I think we got to be careful on this one, but I want to play it for you guys, so we'll try and be careful with this video.

[A]

Ain't no fucking judicial justice for black people.

[B]

How many motherfucking decades and decades have

[C]

to go by where you don't receive that?

[B]

Your justice is fucking frontier justice. This. They kill one of y', all, you kill one of them. Now, I just want to pause real quick. Is he talking about white. Is he talking to white people right now? Because Carmelo Anthony killed a white guy.

[C]

I mean, does he.

[B]

He goes on to say more things. I'm not going to play. Because he gets. He, he, he, like, he, he says things that we can't play on YouTube.

[C]

Someone needs to remind him that an eye for an eye doesn't work out when you're only 13% of a population.

[A]

But where is, like, where's the other eye? Who, who's the. Who's the one?

[C]

Well, I, I.

[A]

They say that, like, some white guy killed a black guy, like, the day before.

[D]

I don't think he knows the facts of the case.

[B]

No, they don't even know they're talking about. This is the whole thing. Like in, in one of the videos, there's the activists outside, and the woman says something like, what am I supposed to tell my kids? You know, I got five kids. And then a guy goes, trayvon Martin. And it's like, what? Trayvon Martin was ground pounding Zimmerman, bashing him in the face, so he got shot. I mean, it's a tragic. It was a tragic misunderstanding between two parties that resulted in a fight, and Zimmerman was getting beaten up, so he shot the kid. It sucks that it happened, but Zimmerman was a Hispanic guy, and there. And so to these people, he's like, justice? What's justice to him? Carmelo Anthony stabs a kid who literally said, I'm not going to fight you, and Carmelo shouldn't go to jail. Think about what that means.

[A]

Yeah. You know, because I feel like race relations have Gotten better in the past couple of years. Again, maybe I'm in. Maybe I'm in a bubble, but it like, okay, so I mean even take like the Trump 2024 election. Trump won a way more racially diverse like coalition than he had previously, maybe just within the MAGA movement. I just see like just a ton of inclusion around the African American community. And there's I think as the kind of Trump equals Hitler, Trump equals KKK stuff has just gotten maybe old and stale and just like.

[B]

Well, actually I think that shows that race relations are getting worse. So we were talking about the other day, like there was a young white woman outside of the courtroom who made to what I would describe as racial statements. She said the people outside were chimping out and then referred to what they were doing as a racial slur activity that we can't say on YouTube. And young people are just unabashed now. They don't care. The reason why no one really cares about Trump being called white supremacist or racist is because Gen Z is like, yep, okay, yeah. And then they start throwing N bombs around. Like extremes have gotten gypsy crusader videos.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[C]

The, the like, like you're saying the, the extremes have gotten worse.

[B]

The.

[C]

The left has been using has been stoking racial tensions since, I mean, arguably since 2010 when it really kind of busted on the scene. I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact media and having a cell phone in your pocket that basically lets you know anytime you get a notification. Right. People see these things brought into their feed a lot. And so the people that are. Are very active online, politically active, which there's a, you know, the Venn diagram for that is probably a circle or very close to it. These people have, have really internalized the idea of a lot of racial strife. There was a lot of talk. You don't hear the phrasing much nowadays. But when people were talking about critical grace theory. This is the goal of critical race theory, right? To awaken a critical racial consciousness to make people aware of their race, not just black people or Hispanics, but make everyone aware and then to set up to figure out the oppressor oppressed narrative in that the dynamic. So that way the people that are that are oppressed will align against the oppressors. In the case of the United States, it's minorities against whites.

[B]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Sinn Fine was the political party of the. The ira, wasn't it?

[A]

Yeah, I think so.

[B]

The political wing. I don't know for sure, but they are also the ones that are like, bring the migrants in Ireland. And right now there's, you know, riots happening in Belfast. I'm going to go with the probably not correct conspiracy theory that they give up the fighting because they're like, we can't muster up, muster up enough support for Irish nationalism. So we're losing. So they create this political, they push through this political party, bring in as many non Irish as possible so that everyone has an Irish racial awakening. And now people are riding in the streets. Northern Northern Ireland and Ireland angry together

[C]

as Irish shouldn't find aligned with the democratic social. They were a democratic socialist party.

[A]

Yeah, well, I mean, it's just also, you could see it as like a continuation of the war against the British Crown in a way you're like importing.

[C]

Yeah, well, I mean, like, like historically the right has been the monarchists and the people that are looking to, you know, keep the established order and the, the left of the people that are against that. And when you've got a group of people that even though Ireland has historically been pretty nationalistic, they look at themselves as opposed to the Crown. They're going to say that they're the left because the Crown is of course, is obviously the right as the monarchy.

[A]

Right. Well, I mean, so I guess part of it is, you know, when it's really hot in the country because there's protests, you know, there's like widespread public disorder, the police are scared, the mayor's office is scared and the like. And for the past couple years there's been threats. I mean, obviously it popped off in Minnesota around like the, the ICE stuff, but frankly a lot of that was the Hispanic organizing groups more so than the black ones. And I don't know if it's because USAID money like dried up a lot of the NGO stuff having trouble fundraising and the like. But the like. I look at this and what's so interesting and like to me unusual about this is you do tend to see this type of like insanity rabble rousing when there's an open question of fact. Even if it's like 95% likely that they're wrong, there's like something they're hanging their hat on, which begs the question of whether he actually did it or not. You know, he's actually guilty. In this case, it looks like everyone knows he's guilty and the question is just whether he deserves 35 years.

[B]

You know, I want to jump to the story we're going to shift into the election stuff. We Got some. The New Republic. Johnson says California election fraud is so bad it can't be proven. Apparently it's more of a vibes based thing for Mike Johnson, they go on to say. Asked whether he thought the LA mayoral election was rigged, House Speaker Mike Johnson did what he does best, steered away from the facts and embrace nebulous speculation. Quote, I'm not saying it's rigged. I'm saying it stinks to high heaven and everybody knows that. Let's remove the appearance of impropriety. What a concept. Let's have votes on election day. On the day of the election, CNN correspondent Manu Raju asked Johnson what evidence there was to support his vague complaints. Unsurprisingly, the Louisiana politician couldn't provide a whiff of it. Look, some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it's impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here. I'm gonna tell you right about the problem is, the problem is that if you are a smart person, you don't run for Congress, you will be successful in other ways and probably make a lot more money. So the midwits run for Congress and you end up, with all due respect, I guess you know, not to be completely disrespectful to Johnson, but with all due respect to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He is ill prepared for these circumstances and perhaps he wasn't smart enough to look into them before making comments on them. It's actually quite easy to answer these questions. So I'll do it for this Mr. Speaker. So if Manu Raju said what evidence was there to support the claim that it is rigged and that they are cheating? How about we go with the Secretary of State's the governmental administration on signature verification and what qualifies as a ballot? We'll go to section 20991 subsection 8, which reads vote by mail. Ball Identification envelope has no dated postmark. The postmark is illegible and there is no date stamp for the receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service. But the voter has dated the vote by mail identification envelope. In other words, ballots can be accepted seven days after the election. Hand back dated with a smiley face as a signature. What evidence do I have? It's in their own laws on the government website. So I'm going to stress this. On election day, Nithya Rahman cries. She doesn't concede, but she cries because she gets crushed. Somehow over the next week, they magically muster up a massive performance boost in mail, in votes. Now, how do you prove fraud when fraud is legal? You can't. There's no fraud. This is legal. So let me put it simply for you. They look at the votes, they say, Spencer Pratt's up by 40k. How do we beat him? We need. So you look at the proportion of votes that have come in. 39, 28, 20. That was the proportion among the candidates, I believe. Then you say, okay, so we need to make 100,000 ballots that go 60% for Nithya, 10 or 20 for Spencer Pratt, and then maybe 10 or 20 for Karen Bass. The way I said it on X, when you are in a rush to get to find as many votes as possible to eliminate the sole Republican, you don't have time to balance the vote count. So here's how it works. First, general ballot harvesting is cheating. It's electioneering. And by all standards of elections should be illegal. You cannot go to a polling location and tell people who to vote for and tell them you will help them vote. But they never created a law to coincide with mail in voting. So you are legally allowed to electioneer at a private home. Tell them, fill out that ballot. I'll fill it out for you and tell you who to vote for. And then put a smiley face on it. And I'll say, it's all good. The best part is the day after the election when they know they need 40,000 votes to beat Spencer Pratt, they can actually fill out a ballot on the spot, write a backdate by hand. And they don't need a signature. They can use Kirby Star from Nintendo. That's an explicit example used by the government, California, to represent a mark. And then when they turn that in, they say, what's the signature? It's a little cartoon character. What's the date on it? They wrote in election day. All good. That's how they are cheating. It's right there on the Secretary of State's website for California. Now, there is something big. I was asked by a journalist today what's the big story that Republicans need to be focused on. I said, oh, it's Watson, vrnc. Are you. Are you tracking this one?

[A]

No, no.

[B]

Gonna be ruled on in a couple of weeks. And if it is expected, the Supreme Court will end vote counting after election day. That's the narrow ruling. If they go broad, they will end vote collecting before election day. And they will say elections must take place on the prescribed day, a single day. But that's for federal elections. If they go real broad with it, they can rule all Elections must follow the formula codified in Congress that elections are to be held on a single day. That means primary elections, which affect federal elections must be single day elections where people know they can come and vote and you don't count votes after the fact. If that happens, Republicans never lose again.

[A]

So what happens if, you know, I'm at work, I have a deadline, I'm, I tell everyone I'm going to do it. Everyone expects and is banked on me having it done by 5pm but I just don't get it done like in this case. Okay, so would that, would there be legal liability for the officials if. Because I could see a situation where they say, we know that's the law, but darn, there were so many and we were so understaffed, we just couldn't get it done. Like I am. I can't imagine that they just call the winner election night just based on the ballots they counted. Because if they did that, then they would only count the Democrat votes first in California. Yeah, but if, but if there's legal liability, like if there's a criminal penalty, if there's 35 years for whatever the head of the local election, you know, commission or the, if there's personal liability, like, it'll be interesting to see if they go broad on that, how that gets like remedied. Yeah. Like how they.

[B]

But you make a good point. There's always going to be some kind of cheating. And I imagine if they do go broad and say elections on a single day, California is going to be like, well, you know, these are the districts that we count first for no reason.

[A]

Right.

[B]

For all Democrat districts.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Or what the Supreme Court may say is that you can only count votes that were, that were received on the day of the election. So it's going to be interesting how they rule on this one. I think what they have to do is end mail in voting. The Supreme Court would have to say, ballots must be received at a polling location on right there and delivered. And. Because that's the only way to get around this. You can count all ballots received on election day so long as they were given to the voter on election day. That's the only thing they. I hope that's what they do.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So then midnight comes and it's like, well, these ballots are from today. You can count them.

[A]

Just, you know, didn't the SAVE act just fail? Like, wasn't there, didn't it just get shot down? Wasn't that supposed to have absolutely no

[D]

appetite for that to get passed in

[B]

the Senate I wonder, I wonder. I wonder though. That's because they know with Watson vrnc this SCOTUS is about to strike it down and they don't need to start a political fight over it or they're going to hold it in their back pocket to see what the Supreme Court does.

[D]

Doesn't seem like they want to have a political fight over anything important though over there.

[B]

So seems like Congress doesn't want to do anything. Yeah, they seem like Speaker Johnson doesn't want to read the news about what's going on in California either.

[D]

The one thing Speaker Johnson did say that I think is true is that you kind of just know that there's something fishy about that whole situation when you see that smell spike on, like what was it?

[A]

Day one, day two, like that feeling probably, like.

[D]

And I think it was either Saturday or Sunday when they had that mail in ballot dump that just surged Nithya Rahman. Like, I don't think it's totally implausible for someone like Ramen, a progressive lady, to do well in la. That does. That's not the implausible thing. It was this sudden surge in support and then Karen Bass's her vote share in the mail and dump didn't really change.

[B]

It went down, went down three points. Yeah.

[D]

Which also, that is extremely interesting.

[A]

So I think she lost her own district to Pratt.

[B]

Nithi Rahman lost her own council district. That's where her name ID is. How does that make sense? Check this out. This is San Bernardino county signature verification training statewide special election, November 4, 2025. This is the special election training under state law. And this is the best I found because it uses Kirby. I mean, certainly there are ones that use X's because there's something in California they call a mark. You can make your mark, they say. But I find the use of Kirby to be the funniest. So we'll just scroll down and take a look at what constitutes a signature.

[A]

You can draw a dick on it and it would just count as a signature.

[B]

Yes, yep, yep, indeed. But hold on, hold on. You have to pre register the dick pic before. Okay, okay, so check it out. Kirby Star. Look at this, look at this. They're actually putting Kirby Star down. Some probably ultra lib nerd video game person did this. Here's my favorite. We scroll down and they give us an example of making your mark identifiable and with unique similarities. And no letters, pictures or symbols can be used as valid signatures. Since we have this symbol on file, it is considered valid. Now here's what's Funny. The top picture is Kirby waving. The second picture is Kirby jumping.

[D]

Totally different.

[A]

What?

[D]

Not even.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

No way.

[B]

This is a valid California ballot. Signature. They count these votes. I'm gonna read that.

[D]

Mike's like, I gotta come up with something else.

[B]

I don't get. The signature thing's kind of weird because it's all trust based.

[A]

Like, who, who, who could.

[B]

A million people could just write my sign, write my name. And no question it was. Everyone in this room can draw a picture of Kirby. You know, maybe signatures were kind of fading out of.

[C]

You know, your process is, is questionable when you've lost Ian Crossland.

[B]

What about a thumbprint? Some sort of, some sort of biometric. I don't know how a human would verify that.

[D]

There's a ton of legal stuff you can sign. Literally just typing it out with, like, the cursive font as well. Like, they'll let pretty much anything slide with signature, bro.

[B]

This is absolutely wild. Because here's the thing. Like, a signature is supposed to be unique to you, and they're hard to replicate. So you sign your name in a certain way that people have to practice to try and copy. And someone who's truly trained can look and be like, that's not the same signature. These are, these are, these are, this is a picture of Kirby from Nintendo. That was, like, from 100 years ago when your signature. No one ever saw it because there was no Internet, there was no tv.

[A]

So it was pretty unique to you.

[B]

But now the point was, if you had some kind of deed or card on you that showed a signature. So let's say you and I did a contract. I would sign it and then maybe even do a wax seal with, like a stamp on it, because your stamp is unique. But let's say I sign it later on when I'm showing that, they'll be like, is this you? You'll sign and show your signature to prove that you were the one who originally signed it. It would be hard for a stranger to copy your signature. They couldn't do it. A picture of Kirby. Come on. Everyone in this room can draw that.

[A]

Isn't there that allegation that Hunter Biden was, like, mad as landlord and like, signed the paperwork with, like, his own poop or something? Did you guys hear these? I didn't hear that theory do that. I think it was, I remember there's this dispute with, I think it was Sean McGuire versus is Hunter Biden on this? And there was like, this allegation. I, I, I need to confirm that. But like, this Is incre. I mean, okay, because I already thought the vote, the signature thing was completely. Yeah, because it's already such a like. And who's gonna like.

[B]

But the thing about this is the absurdity of it being Kirby, but also the fact that they are showing explicitly they are different Kirbys. So it's like. Is one the printed version one's the signature. What you know, what you do. But here's the point. Here's why you do this. If you are doing. James o' Keefe went and documented this. There's a known phenomenon. I don't want to, you know, I don't want to try and diminish the work that James Okeefe did. But he went down and he caught these petition. Petitioners who pay homeless people to sign to get people on ballots, to get referendums and things like this. If you go to a homeless person, you're gonna be saying like, look, listen, if you write a unique signature, we're not gonna be able to replicate it. We need these to pass muster. So do a smiley face. That way when we. When it comes time to collect these ballots and forge them, put a smiley face. They're completely different pictures, but they look the same.

[A]

They're being coached to do that.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. James o' Keefe has on video. Here's where it gets crazy. So the New York Post found 185 homeless people registered to a homeless shelter where they don't live because it's a homeless shelter. Right. Here's the crazy part. 185 mail in ballots are going to drop in the lap of that homeless shelter. This shelter actually received $600,000 from Nithya Rahman, though I don't think she gave him the Grant for voting. 185 votes doesn't move the needle. But when those ballots come in, who's tracking them? What if someone forges those ballots? Maybe if you try to investigate the fraud and you show up to the address on file and they say it's a homeless shelter and you say, how do I find Rick Smith who voted here? They go, good luck, he's homeless. And that's it. Cold case. You will never be able to figure out who he voted for.

[A]

And they. 185 votes doesn't sound like much in one shelter. But what if they're doing this at 100 shelters?

[B]

There's a lot of people in LA all of a sudden now there's a

[A]

lot of money that goes on an election and that money comes from the people who are the politicians who are Granted, like the grantors on the Nithya

[B]

Rahman signed a $600,000 grant to the homeless shelter. I'm gonna say it again. We gotta have blockchain voters. I'm trying to send this link Mike gave me to us, but it's for some reason not.

[A]

Yeah, and you can also just look on X if you just type like speak, read Chinese with three explain three question marks. I was.

[B]

What is that?

[A]

So speak, read Chinese, speak slash, read. That's one word. Chinese with three exclamations on X or 3, three question marks here, I'll just. Yeah, on X. Sounds cryptic.

[B]

Speak, slash, read.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Chinese question mark, question mark, question marks. Is it. Who posted?

[A]

You want to just retweet it? I'll go to your page.

[B]

Angel of Death, I think.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So this person.

[B]

Did you want to just retweet it? I'll go to your page.

[A]

Yeah, here you go. Boom.

[B]

On Twitter, you probably are at Mike Ben's cyber.

[A]

Yeah, So I just RT'd it and I got it. So I was streaming earlier this week talking about this, and this person actually went to the California page. Registered to vote as a 103 year old Chinese woman with no Social Security number. No, like if you click on that second screenshot there my. Am I good? Oh yeah, I see. And this is what, what she filled out. Date of birth, 1923. So she's 103 years old. She has no driver's license, no ID card, no Social Security number, only speaks Chinese. But. But just said that she lives in L. A, so no documentation beyond that. And then if you go to the next one like, or the one after this, you'll see like, basically you can do it without signature. And then boom, she got, she just put a random address and there's going to be a write in, absentee mail in ballot that's just going to be to her as a, as a 103 year old Chinese woman with no. So you could do. I mean you could just have a smiley shop factory line and just create these.

[B]

Well, there's, there's, there's video of James o', Keefe, his undercover reporters talking to a homeless guy. And he's like, my name's Teresa. And he's just writing down. They're filming these petitioners and they're paying the homeless two to three dollars to sign these, assign these things.

[A]

They're paying them. Yeah, well, yeah, that's got to be a crime.

[B]

And when they went to the police, the cops were like, I don't know Anything about it. It's probably a civil thing.

[C]

They were given, like two or three bucks. So it's just like, you know, lunch money.

[A]

It was a real show of force. When the feds took action on what Nick Shirley did, that was a. I mean, so much so that California did this. Stop. Shirley. Nick Shirley. Like legislation, right? I mean, if we see arrests on the. That James o' Keefe video, if that's, you know, as valid as it's being described, I mean, that would. That would at least send a message.

[C]

I mean, look, I don't know what the mechanism to do that would be because the states, California has made their laws. So that way most of this stuff is illegal, is legal, and the federal government isn't, you know, doesn't have the power to. To regulate state law. You know, Congress has to do it.

[B]

What Johnson should say, when someone at cnn, you know, I will say this if asked, if they say, what is your evidence that you know is rigged or there's voter fraud, I'll say they've already uncovered that there are ballots that were received after the election with no postmark and the signatures were doodles. And when they go, what? Where is it? I'll be like, here, let me show you. On the Secretary of state's website, saying to do it. Their only response is going to be, oh, well, that's allowed. I'll be like, really? Okay. I call that cheating.

[A]

Right.

[D]

There was a California woman who was charged with something just like that. This is from the DOJ website, saying that she worked as a longtime signature collector for ballot initiatives, and she has been charged with paying individuals, including homeless people living in the skid row area of downtown Los Angeles, register to vote. This was in May.

[A]

That case. In May.

[D]

In May. This is the DOJ website.

[B]

There's a woman who registered her dog to vote and then voted for her dog intentionally to prove a point about California. And they charged her with felonies.

[A]

Oh, they only.

[B]

They only found out because she admitted it. She came out and said, I did it.

[D]

She memed it.

[B]

Yeah, she memed it. She was like, my dog's voting. And they were like, oh, and the vote counted. Yeah. Reminds me of the Simpsons when Bart gets a credit card for his dog, Santos El Helper. And then it was a joke, but I guess you can say Simpsons predicted it and dogs are voting.

[D]

From what I understand, though, U.S. attorney Bill Saley. I think that's how you say his name. He announced last week that they're doing some investigations into the election fraud. I haven't seen updates from that. Granted it was a week ago, but it seems like some of the the Trump admin allies are taking a look at it, which is, you know, we'll see what happens.

[A]

This is also why we can't have a popular vote because they will just have a factory in L A that would just print enough to win the federal election.

[C]

This is why we need to limit the franchise as much as we possibly can. We need to change laws.

[B]

Let's jump to the next component of this in the New York Times, ActBlue CEO invokes the fifth repeatedly in testimony to Congress. How about we just play it? You can hear for yourself how damning it is. Ms. Wallace Jones, in 2023 I sent you this letter with five straightforward questions with a goal of confirming that foreign funds are not in our elections and that ActBlue had adequate fraud prevention measures in place. Quick context ActBlue is the fundraising platform for the Democratic Party. They had been accused of not only accepting foreign money for Democrat nonprofits and politicians, but also fraud. Someone was fraudulently or many people were donating in the names of the elderly and people who otherwise did not make these donations to bypass federal election donation limits. You replied a month later with a four page letter describing your fraud prevention policies and procedures that have that you had in place at ActBlue. But according to the New York Times, your response to this committee may have been false and misleading. Ms. Wallace Jones, when you signed this letter to me, did you believe that this letter was false and misleading?

[D]

On the advice of my oh, you

[A]

can't plead the Fifth on that.

[B]

I respectfully declined to answer this question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Ms. Wallace, do you see the Asian lady in the back? Look at this lady right here. Look at this lady. Watch her constitution. Ms. Wallace, everybody is that woman. Do you believe was it was it brought to your attention that this letter that you sent me was false and misleading? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Well, I think it's important for everybody here to know that according to the New York Times, you've been aware for quite a while that the response you made was likely false or misleading. Did you ever consider correcting the record for this committee when it was brought to your attention that your letter to me was false and misleading? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully

[A]

he's got a stop line question.

[B]

Go.

[A]

Ms. Wallace Jones, what is your name?

[B]

Pursuant to the attorney client privilege and my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. It's pretty interesting. So now you're following the advice of your legal counsel. You know, I'd say this normally. I'm very adamant that we do not use the invocation of the Fifth Amendment to imply guilt or anything. The issue here is that the story's out. We know the New York Times has said she lied to Congress. Act Blue was getting foreign money. They were illicit fundraising sources. We know why she's pleading the Fifth in this instance.

[D]

Yeah, it's funny, like, when people have congressional hearings, they'll usually show up with an entourage so that at least the people directly in frame aren't, like, distracting and making expressions like that. It didn't seem like she thought that far ahead this time around.

[C]

No, I mean, look, I think that the. Considering that there is a story out there that, you know, implicates Act Blue, there's. There's got to be an investigation. It's my opinion that Act Blue and by extension the DNC are breaking a whole ton of laws when it comes to funding and when it comes to, I mean, obviously to. To elections in general, DOJ should investigate and they should throw the book at them if they find anything, because that's the only way you stop this stuff.

[A]

Right?

[C]

You have to make the penalty bad enough so that way people are like, no, it's not worth it. And considering the amount of money that's out there to not only to get people into office, but that can be siphoned off into people's pockets and kickbacks and stuff like that, it's got to be a pretty steep penalty to make that kind of reward seem unappealing.

[B]

I think it depends on how if, you know, if they know that the money's foreign, because sometimes foreign companies will create a shell to funnel money through to a.

[A]

To a movement.

[B]

And so, like, if they're intentionally taking foreign money, that's hit them hard with the book. But if it's like they got scammed by foreigners that want to use them

[C]

as idiots, then, well, I mean, that's why.

[A]

That's why they don't know. This is the allegation about what USA was doing. By the way, if you look at the John Solomon report on the intercept around a plot from USAID to do the same thing, using funds for Ukraine to be redirected back to the dnc. So if that happened there, how many other countries and funnels are being used to do that? And it coincides with this massive drop in dnc. I mean, they're going after Ken Martin and the DNC machine right now for not being able to fundraise like they normally do. What changed? It's like. Well, we, we cut, we cut the money funnel for the front end of the, of the funnel for the laundering.

[C]

Look at the elections in South America. Yeah, I mean like every country that has an election, they're the far right candidate is being elected. And coincidentally there's no more USAID to funnel money. And to, I mean usaid, I know that they're not, they're not like a part of CIA, but I'm sure that they've worked hand in hand, you know, down.

[A]

You're a lot more charitable than I am.

[C]

Well, okay, so be my guest. Please expand.

[A]

I testified for five and a half hours to the Brazilian Senate Foreign Relations Committee on exactly how USAID effectively rigged the 2022 election. With Bolsonaro there. Like here's, here's a great example. So USAID tripled the amount of foreign assistance it gave to Brazil the year after Bolsonaro won. Now this is not because there were some raging wildfires or like some tsunami that hit Brazil. They hated Bolsonaro. They called him the Trump of the tropics. They wanted him out. He was basically doing all these things that messed with George Soros investments in Brazil and a bunch of other big democrat mega donors. And so they tripled the spend from like I think it was 30 million the year before to 90 million just in a year and then flooded the zone. They paid for the media in Brazil, they paid for the disinformation, fact checkers, people to all like go after the Bolsonaro social media accounts. They funded the university system, they funded the unions. I mean even the Department of Labor International affairs sent $20 million to the unions around Lula there. And they do that everywhere. You look at what happened in El Salvador when they cut US aid, all the opposition to Bukele just immediately evaporated. All the protests. It's like there's nobody. Cuz it's not just that like people are paid to protest. I'm sure that that happens. And it's almost like paying a homeless person to fill out a vote or something. But what you see is actually a lot of times people get involved in these protests because they're sponsoring organizations. They work for an ngo, that NGO gets money from USAID or from a government grant and the NGO institutionally announces it's going to boycott. So if you want to get promoted within that NGO or that university or that government bureau, you take to the streets and protest, you occupy federal buildings, you stand in the middle of crosswalks and railways to shut down the economically destabilize the country. And what you're seeing now is in country after country after country, every single place that was propped up by USAID is now going the other way. Because as soon as you make it a fair fight, who wins.

[B]

Yeah, you think that this new world. Because what I think is happening is the New World Order has now been supplanted by the new New World Order, which is like a Trump led coalition instead of a USAID led coalition. Do you think that that will end up happening, that we will still coalesce around a new world order, but just going to be better than the old, worse one?

[A]

We're seeing a realign, a realignment of alliances right now. Like right now there's a lot of hostilities between the US and the EU on a number of grounds. And this has been exacerbated by what's happening in Iran. And you're now seeing something that was, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Marco Rubio, for example, helped. I don't know if he sponsored, but he certainly backed the legislation to NATO proof to Trump proof NATO in case Trump, I think this is in 2023 there was like a federal legislation to make NATO kind of unleavable in a rogue unilateral action by the President. You can look this up on Google in two seconds and just to fact check what I'm saying. But what's so funny is now you have the Secretary of State and Trump now suggesting what is NATO actually for all the things that they were afraid of, over. Now we're saying we're seeing that because of the conflict with NATO and the EU around Greenland, around Iran policy. And so what you're seeing is this kind of reformation of alliances and even what's happening right now with this sort of Israel US Military fusion thing is there's sort of this move to try to supplant the traditional five eyes or the US European relationship with a closer US Israeli relationship. Obviously that's happening at a time where a lot of this is being argued and debated domestically. But you're seeing this kind of reformation of alliances where there is this bleed left, right. Like Soros is very anti Netanyahu. Soros was very much for the Iran deal. They wanted to profit off of the hydrocarbons and deal make versus the sort of Israeli foreign priority, foreign policy priorities and the Republican Party sort of alliances with that. But you see this, you first of all, like State has supplanted the State Department is supplanted a lot of the functions that USAID was doing. But we're also seeing a lot of diplomacy, soft diplomacy being replaced by hard diplomacy. Like think about the way you would traditionally go about removing Maduro before what Trump just did. So what, what you would traditionally do is you would, you would establish a blob in Venezuela. You would have the National Endowment for Democracy, you know, basically create little cell networks within the professional class of doctors, lawyers, businessmen, agricultural labor workers. You'd, you'd have USAID give a bunch of grants to, you know, university centers and phil philanthropics and human rights groups. And then eventually you'd get 100,000 people who were on payroll and who would all stand to profit from a regime change and would all do their part. And they, they top of that process takes. But the problem is Venezuela has kicked out USAID because of a number of fights that they got in, particularly around 20, 19, 2020. They have put up a firewall around a lot of that. So it's been kind of ineffective. We've had to go to Colombia or Turks and Caicos or Nicaragua and kind of like migrate people in. And even then it's been slow going. So instead of having a blob, you sort of have like a military mob that is, that is replacing what is traditional. Like so in a way it's, it's more honest but, and direct. But it's also a very new way of doing things versus what we've been doing for the past 70 years because we created this whole thing. You know, we had the Department of War from 191789 to 1948. We just changed it back. We called it the Department of Defense as a, as a lie as to be consistent with our BLOB apparatus that we're not, you know, militarily, but now that we are leading with that, Venezuela, Iran, and it's, it's making the Pentagon, which has a much bigger budget than USAID ever had, have a, have a more dominant role not just at the military level, but in a diplomatic level because the military is now threatening to do directly what USAID would typically threaten with economic sanctions or like what Biden did with the billion dollar US aid loan to fire the Ukraine. You know, Viktor Shokin prosecutor, he said, you know, if you don't get rid of the prosecutor, by the time I get on this plane, you're going to be out a billion. Now it's like, okay, if you don't do this we're sending in SEAL Team Six and we're kidnapping your president.

[B]

I think one's more effective.

[D]

It did have like a more honest vibe, that whole thing. Because Trump was like, we didn't like them and we wanted their oil. And it was like, oh, well, at least you just said that.

[C]

That's an upgrade.

[D]

It was like in our hemisphere. So it was a lot easier, I think, for some Americans to get on board with that sort of thing, even without like priming people and being like, by the way, this is why we need to do it.

[C]

I think the American people were. Got on board with it because it was so effective. Because if. Yeah, well, I mean, yes, it was, it was sick. Yes.

[D]

40 minute in and out.

[B]

But.

[C]

But the American people will tolerate, even people that, that say they don't want to see the US US foreign policy being exercised with the military.

[B]

Right.

[C]

They will tolerate strikes where Americans don't die. They will tolerate actions where Americans don't

[D]

die and where it's in their backyard.

[C]

Yeah. And. Well, yeah, but I mean, so like, just for argument's sake, if the, the Iran war that's still going on, if it had been, you know, two weeks and they actually achieved all their goals, the American people would have been like, sick.

[D]

Like last summer.

[C]

Yeah, I mean. Well, I mean, last summer. Last summer kind of. They didn't really do it though.

[D]

It was short though.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

A little bit easier.

[B]

12. The 12 Day War.

[C]

Yeah. Like the American people will be like, okay, cool. It didn't drag on. Americans didn't die. I'm cool with it.

[B]

I've got. We got two stories that I don't know which one we should play first. Normally the way I like to do things is that stories lead to stories. One story is a man who is talking about dead Internet theory and he's showing this plague of AI auto replicated videos. We could start with this one and talk about Det theory. Or there's the Ethan Klein lawsuit, which I believe is intended. The court systems are trying to drive us towards the AI Det apocalypse. What should we start with? Internet theory is here. Or Ethan Klein's got a lawsuit which is going to contribute to the dead Internet and the psychosis of the American people. I think we should start with Dead Internet theory as a whole. So maybe you can explain like. All right, I saw this video. This is from Dylan talkshorror. Shout out to Dylan Talks Stories. Small, small, little Instagrammer. But this video freaked me the f out. And here's the thing, I want to say this. Maybe he Faked this video. I have not seen something so egregious as this is about to show us. However, today I made a video where I pulled 22 links off of Instagram of the exact same joke over and over and over again. It's a video where people will. They're like me when I'm 30, but I forget that I'm not 18 anymore. They walk down the stairs, jump the last two stairs, and then the next scene is them transparent as a ghost, and they turn around and see their dead body. I have probably seen. In all seriousness, I'm not going to exaggerate. I said yesterday 5000. It's actually the number's probably closer to maybe like 175 or 200i identical videos. Now, I understand what memes are, but memes are iterations on. So I highlighted today, there's a video where a guy's doing. He's doing chin ups and he says when you try to go for that extra chin up and then he turns into a ghost and dies. That's a meme iterating off of a

[A]

joke, a trend sort of thing.

[B]

Exactly. Everybody just making the exact same videos over and over again. Is you being programmed by the AI to be a. A single cell in a multicellular organism. Watch what this guy is showing. And I hope this is I again. The Internet could be fake, right? But check this out. We got to unmute it, yo. Because that shit is so fucking real. And it's just. It's insane. So this is a video. It's about the woman who walked into the water with the two dead fish. But just watch this.

[A]

It's crazy, y'.

[B]

All. As soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was Yemaya,

[C]

y'.

[D]

All.

[B]

As soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was Yemiya. So for those that are just listening, what he's doing is he's scrolling through reels and it's the exact same voiceover with a bunch of different videos. Now, the allegation is it's all AI generated.

[C]

Turns around, she's two dead fish in her.

[B]

As soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was. As soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was the Yemaya in addition, as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came there was a video. So there's current. So there's currently a video that's going viral. And it. So there's currently a video that's going viral. And it. If you think the dead Internet theory. So then he shows other videos. Now the people are saying in the chat, what people do is they rip the video and then lip sync the audio to steal the content. So one of two things is happening, and I think actually probably both. What he's arguing is that it's like AI, They're. They are fake generating these people. They are generating people talking and putting them over these videos because the Internet is fake. I want to pull up another story for you guys from NBC. And this one we've known about for some time. But now it's official. Bot web traffic has overtaken human web traffic. Data shows Cloudflare says 57.4% of requests are now automated bot requests, while 42.6 are human generated. So the reason why I want to highlight this is that I made a video today. I snapped. I just lost it. I've been talking about how I'm sick of seeing the same video over and over and over again. People, random people, are being programmed by social media to become zombies. So yesterday, after the show ends, I go home, I make my beam dream. No joke, I drink it every single night. And they're not even paying me to say that. Not this time, at least. And I got my phone, I'm on Instagram, and I swipe, and there it is again. There it is again. A guy jumping off a counter, being like me, think me being 40, but forgetting I'm not 18 anymore. And then he turns transparent, turns around, and there's a body. And I was about to block and I went, I'm going to save the link. So I copied the link, saved it. Naruto Communications. Make a list. Scrolled. Got another one, saved it. Scrolled. Got another one, saved it. I got around probably 50 or so of these videos back to back, almost nonstop. And I just have this huge list of all the links where they are functionally identical videos.

[A]

Nikita, beer is just fucking with you, man.

[B]

What's up?

[A]

I said, nikita, Pierre is just Instagram.

[B]

Okay, so what's happening is these people, influencers, don't know what to do with their lives. They've got no functional training. They want to be influencers. What's the technique? Find a viral video, remake it what's happening is Instagram is, is rewarding these specific repetitions. So human beings are basically lining up like lemmings and just imitating each other. Be it lip syncing, AI generated or otherwise, the Internet is entirely fake. You watch a joke video on Instagram, I guarantee you it's a knockoff or it's AI.

[D]

Do you think you saving the links to all of those videos or like interacting with the post makes the feed?

[B]

Saving the link tells Instagram to show me more of the same.

[D]

So your, your feed's just the same thing again?

[B]

It is. And, and that's, but that was intentional, right? So, but like, so the other day, I'm scrolling and I see this stupid joke. And like the first time I saw it, I left. There's another one where it says this text and it goes, only getting up three hours of sleep doesn't faze me. And then they'll like throw a beach ball and giggle and then they'll hit someone in the head with it. And then it'll change to the guy on the ground dead. And the beach ball will actually be like a can of propane or something. And that's the identical videos over. So I, so I'm scrolling and I see a guy doing, you know, snowboard tricks. I scroll, I see a poker hand with Negreano. I scroll, there's the joke. I scroll past it, I don't even stop to watch it. Then there's a guy bowling and he hits a strike and I'm like, oh, that was cool. Then I scroll ping pong again. I hate ping pong. I keep saying, stop sending me ping pong, but it won't stop. I scroll past it, there's the joke again. Then I put, not interested. Then I scroll, see a few videos. A few minutes later, there's the joke again. So then I put, this is making me uncomfortable. So then finally last night, when I see it, I go, word of hate speech. I'm going to save the link. I'm going to save it, saving the link. They go, let's go. And they just literally, I swipe up, there it is. I swipe up, there it is. It was about 50 back to back to back of the same exact videos over and over again.

[D]

So like, the algorithm is more sensitive to a positive interaction with the post, but if you say you're not interested, it will ignore.

[B]

Yeah, I can't tell you. Every single time I see ping pong, I put this makes me uncomfortable. It won't stop sending me ping pong because I Think it's going live. He's interacting with it.

[D]

Interesting.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Bizarre.

[B]

Yep.

[D]

My feet is perfect.

[C]

There's a lot of reasons to get, to get rid of meta properties just.

[B]

But it's not, it's not that it's tick tock. These videos are tik tok.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's all of these platforms. What I think is happening is the humans. I, you know, I want to know what you think about this because I think this is deep state related. I believe that the establishment wants to go back to an era where they had only a few finite media mechanisms. There were 10 channels. Keep your model exactly. When this, when this podcast era emerged, it shocked them and it boosted Trump and they hated Trump. So my, my presumption, my hypothesis would be the powers that be said, guys, when we allowed people to do their own media through social media, they propped up Trump. That was bad for us. How do we bring this back to where there's only a few channels? Make it so that the only thing that gets promoted is the exact same joke. If you make content that is not in line with what we want, it doesn't go viral. So a lot of people have noticed on X, for instance, their posts don't get traction anymore because the new algorithm, it is all narrowly defined. And I believe the end result of all of this is the elimination of an elimination of intellectual property. These jokes can't be copyrighted. It's just replicated over and over again. And now no one can claim ownership over the original video because it's just copy of a copy of a copy. If, if I don't actually, I don't know if you can copyright jokes. You might be able to. I don't think so though. I believe that where we're at, where we're going to end up is the big companies will be the only ones, the means to control some semblance of intellectual property. But they want AI. Disney is going to have AI generated movies and they won't care because they will control those platforms. Meanwhile, the social media platforms won't allow for shows like this or for independent thought. They're going to put everybody algorithmically into a rigid line so they all make the same 10 videos over and over again.

[A]

So I mean, there are a couple of things maybe to disambiguate. So when you pulled up the. That statistic showing that bot requests had overtaken the. Yeah, this one, I'm automated bots. So does that include like when chat GPT pulls? Because like, I'll give you an example. So I Use. Yeah, probably I use. AI is completely replaced Google for me. Like, yeah, you know, I'll use like Grok. ChatGPT. When I'm doing like deep research stuff, I'll often use that like the, the deep research function on. For chat GPT where like it will sit on a question I ask for 49 minutes. Like literally 49 minutes, and we'll just pull tens of thousands of links. Like I'll make it like a, you know, a deep request and it will just go through tens of thousands of links in that, like the amount that would take me weeks to manually click. Yeah, like it'll do that in an hour.

[B]

Yes. But there's something called the recitation problem. And I think again, this falls into the. We must keep everybody in a rigid media mechanism. They can't think outside the box. The recitation problem is a noted issue that all of these LLMs will default to responses that are the majority not correct. So if people are. If everybody is wrong about something, let's say Everybody believes that two plus two equals five. But academics go, no, no, no, it's two plus two equals four. The, the LLMs will tell you it's

[A]

five because the consensus of academics, they

[B]

default to consensus because LLMs operate on probability. So the, the. I brought this up a few weeks ago. One of the issues is. Actually, I'm going to ask you a quick question because I love the subject. So I'm going to ask everybody who already heard me ask this question not to answer. It's just for the two of you. So you go into a casino and you're looking around, you want to figure out what to gamble on, and you see a roulette table. So you decide to go over there and sit down, some seats open. As a guy smoking, dealer, looks a little messy, a little tired or whatever, but let's play some roulette, right? You know what roulette is? You familiar?

[D]

I don't.

[B]

The wheel with black and red.

[D]

I've never.

[B]

Throw the ball and it spins. Okay. So you sit down. You said, I'm going to wait a little bit to see how the ball's landed. Right. I want to. So you look at the screen, you see in the last 30 spins, 17 have come up red. You decide, I'm going to bet on a color. Which color is the smarter bet?

[C]

Okay.

[A]

I mean, I'll, I'll go first.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, I feel like it's sort of the same hypotheticals. If someone asked me, like, flip a, flip a coin, heads or tails. The last 17 were heads. Ordinarily, I would think there's a 50, 50 chance. I'm agnostic because it's like if it was a normal coin and it was not a rigged coin, then I would assume a 50, 50 chance. And it's doesn't matter if you pick red or blue or black or tails. But yeah, rare black. Thanks. But in this case, like if I saw 17 in a row.

[B]

In a row, just 17 of 30.

[A]

Oh, 17.

[B]

It's about 17.

[A]

I mean, that's pretty well within the, you know, margin of, you know. Because if it was a truly. If it was 29 out of 30, I would say, well, there's maybe this is a weighted roulette table. Maybe there's, you know, maybe there's a magnet underneath.

[B]

What do you bet on?

[A]

I mean, I would go with the one that is slightly more favored just. Just because there might be some. Not because I think it's going to even out over time, but in which case you go black. But because if there is something that is. It could be that there's some physical defect or some proclivity of the dealer or, or, you know, whoever to like, you know, do it slightly more.

[B]

So I guess you're not super familiar with roulette. Do agree or disagree? I mean, I don't know if you.

[D]

Sounds right. I don't know. I'm kind of impulsive though. Like, I will just do the opposite thing. And you're like, fuck this.

[B]

Well, Mike's red.

[A]

I'm going black.

[B]

Mike's correct. And so traditionally people used to say if red's coming up too much, black must be due because it's supposed to average out over time. But that's incorrect. That's called the gambler's fallacy. What ends up happening is everybody learns the gambler's fallacy and then confidently says it actually doesn't matter what you bet on because everything, the odds are equal. And that's called the mathematician's fallacy, the presumption that a physical system operated by human operates in an abstract mathematic space. If you ask any large language model this question, it will give you the wrong answer.

[A]

Oh, it goes black?

[B]

No, it says neither. It doesn't matter.

[A]

Oh, it assumes. It's like assuming. Like, what are they? Like a perfect competition or something in a market?

[B]

Like so. So I did an experiment with these lms where I actually prompted them. You physically. You walk into a physical casino with a tired dealer. I put those prompts before you in the question intentionally. Casinos go to great lengths to deal with imbalance, tables, imperfections, and tired dealers, or what they call dealer signature. Every single casino knows this. It's a part of their standard training.

[A]

They use a kirby.

[B]

What's up?

[A]

They use a kirby for the signature.

[B]

They do, yeah. Yeah. So dealer signature means there are dealers, without realizing it will. They'll wait for the 0 to come around and spin every time the 0 hits their hand, not even thinking. And they spin the exact same way every time. So the ball keeps landing in the same quadrant of numbers. Pro gamblers know this. They look for signatures. And if you see a signature on the board, you play that game because you're playing to an advantage. Pit bosses know this, so they'll go to the dealer and say, change your spin or they'll pull the croupier. They call them. They'll pull them off. But LLMs don't know this. And there's, there's a, there's an interesting thing here. Pro gamblers are not experts. So despite the fact professional gamblers have written about this extensively, the LLMs will disregard their expertise as degenerate pit bosses. And casinos will never explain how to get an advantage play against a casino. So they won't mention it at all. Mathematicians and academics will say the numbers are statistically the same, so it doesn't matter what you bet on.

[A]

Right. Because our models are based on that. So. So like it has. Yeah.

[B]

So when you go, so when you go to any AI, ChatGPT or otherwise, IT, I guarantee you is probably giving you the wrong answer. In fact, I have every day because I agree with you. I largely don't use Google anymore. And even Google now is an AI generated response for the most part. Most of the time it's wrong. So for instance, I was doing research on the California elections today and I asked it about elections where an individual pulls ahead in this manner. And it said there are no instances where this has ever occurred. I was like, that's interesting. Cuz I believe it was the Washington Times found something interesting. I then said, what about the blue wave in 2018? And it went, you are correct. This actually happens all the time in California. The first answer was fake. And only because I had researched this previously did I catch that mistake.

[A]

Yeah, they're like shit testing you in a way. It's like, it's like, you know. But also it's helpful to know things like that though, Tim, because what I find too, as I'm. This has now become the dominant way that I do research and just interact with the search interface. Of the Internet is like knowing the bias of the AI is helpful to like outsmart it in getting what you want. Knowing the various things that we'll try to throw up. Like if I'm asking a spicy question on a controversial topic, I will never say it's me because I believe this. I will say I have a friend who I'm about to be in a debate in. He's a smart friend and he's going to really come at me with the best evidence he can find. Find. Tell me what he's going to say to me on this. That way it'll spit out like evidence that I know it would withhold from me if the AI thought I believed it.

[C]

Yeah, you have to know how to

[D]

prompt an AI and most people don't. Yeah, most people who use AI are going to get duped and it's going to make everyone a little bit.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I'm personally very pro AI and I think that the, the LLMs are, or the, the models are going to, are going to remedy for a lot of the errors. I don't think they're going to get rid of bias. That's, it's still going to be biased depending on which model you're using and how they trained it. But I, I'm, I'm of the opinion that probably in the next, the next six to 12 months, the, the errors are from AI are going to go. Are going to drastically decline and AI

[B]

video is getting so shockingly good. It's mind blowing. Yeah, the.

[D]

I keep falling for it. It's bad.

[B]

There are man on the street videos that are AI.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

That I would guarantee maybe 60% of the population would not be able to tell we're AI. It's literally like a guy standing there holding the little DJI and he's like, when you go on a first date, do you think the guy should pay or do you want to pay? And the woman goes like, guy should totally always pay. And it looks totally normal and you can't tell it's AI. It's wild.

[D]

A lot of it of like 20 bunnies jumping on a trampoline. And I was like, nice. And then I looked at it, I was like, wait, it's not real.

[C]

A lot, a lot of me. A lot of times you have to know the context of the video. Like you can, you can tell by what they're saying more than what you're looking at.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Like if it's something where topics intending to inflame people or stuff like that. A lot of Times you can be like, ah, you know, most people really hate that.

[A]

And I totally understand, like, I, in a way, like, hate. Oh, you got me that feeling. But what I like about what's happening with the realistic AI video is it's causing everyone to collectively question, like, okay, I just saw this. It looks super real. Is it actually real? And everybody is having that experience. And so it's, it's kind of a corollary to what we all went through. Kind of is like in the conservative branch of politics in 2016, when it's like you see something in the news and you're like, okay, CNN reported this.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And like I'm supposed to believe cnn. Right. But this. Is this really true? And so it's caused, it caused like this massive critical thinking spike.

[B]

I disagree.

[A]

You disagree?

[B]

Turning Point put out a clip of Charlie literally saying, if anything happens to me, I appoint Erica Kirk. She's great. She'll do a great job. And the anti Kirk lunatics immediately said that was AI.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So it's, it's, it's like, I, I half agree. Like, a lot of people have started to question, but a lot of people are now rejecting real evidence as AI.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like, to this point, Turning Point has long maintained there is a video of Charlie Kirk at. I think he's in Aspen at a fundraiser where he literally says it was because someone said something like a donor said something about like, we give this money, like, what happens to you? He says, if anything happens to me, I appoint Erica to run Turning Point. She'll do a great job. He was selling these people every. Apparently even Candace Owens has now said, like, oh, I've known this video has always existed, despite the fact she's long maintained it didn't.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So finally Turning Point sits on it for as long as they can. And I think the reason they did was intentionally to get as many people to lie and push nonsense as possible, then fire off this. This video being like, there it is, it's true. The immediate response is, that's an AI video.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

They just don't want to believe it. Trump, Trump could be accused of punching a little kid. And then a video will come out of Trump patting him on the head. And then some will make an AI video of him punching the kid. And everyone who hates Trump will say the punch is real, and everybody who likes Trump will say the pat is real.

[D]

And I love the boomers, but, like, they are especially susceptible to this sort of thing. I mean, especially like with political campaigns. This is a huge conversation. I'M sure many of you guys are tapped into, like, are AI political ads even allowed? Like, when the Massey race was going on, it was incessant, all of these, you know, borderline defamatory ads being run against this candidate. It's, it's interesting and I think it's actually an important conversation because it's like, yeah, this could convince realistically a substantial portion of people to the extent they could sway an election. I don't know how I feel about it.

[A]

But yeah, it's interesting because California, when, you know, because the Democrats were in this real dilemma where they just seemed profoundly uncool and they were being kind of out competed in the vibe competition in 2024. And I remember California tried to pass this law against any sort of like AI generated ads. And it was, I think it was, the legislation was basically born out of like AI memes, like, making fun of Newsom and the like. And, and it was. But in that case, it was very clear that these were satires, very clear. It was AI, it was like, you know, a dog parachuting out of a helicopter and pooping on like, you know, Newsom's head or something. But when it, when it does, like, seriously, when it's intended to deceive, when it's intended to make it look. I mean, I think eventually where you're going to get to is a place where the metadata and some sort of certification is like, probably going to become best practice. And if you don't have it, like the metadata certified, like, and it's in a polarized topic or a controversial thing, then you will default to say, no, this has been certified by X. And I don't know if they're going to try to stand up a regulatory committee and then the whole thing will become like a political control mechanism for control of the truth. But it'll probably land on that somewhere in that area as a, as this happens in so many different contexts and there becomes like a real multibillion dollar industry of PR firms who can just instantly generate crisis management firms. Oh, you said ExxonMobil is responsible for this oil spill. Well, we have a video of this Trump supporter doing it, actually. And it's, I mean, like, you could come up with a million scenarios like this where you could just muddy the waters. You could tell, like, you know, because the thing is, like, video is very psychologically shocking on people. And when, when you see something with your own eyes, like it's a, you want to do a false flag and blame another country for a terrorist attack and so you, you say 12 people were killed in Country X, and look at this gory video. Then this is. I actually struggle with this in law school when I, I remember in criminal procedure when I learned for the first time about this rule that basically if you have like really shocking, grotesque evidence that will psychologically make the jury just want, just drive them basically to bloodlust, to make them want to convict somebody, anybody, just to compensate for this horrible thing, then you can actually, as defense counsel for the, for the defendant who's on charges for the crime, motion to not have damning gory evidence entered into the record just because it would prejudice the jury to want to convict. Just because even if the rest, even if the jury, like, if they're on the fence and they think he's probably innocent, but damn, that video is like, like if he did that, if he did it just like it showed in that video, like that nothing else matters. And so that's like a very real effect in jury trial. In jury trials, like it's a very real effect in propaganda.

[C]

Yeah. The future of AI, especially AI video, I think, to your point, like, it's going to be really, really, really difficult to, to be able to parse the truth. And I think the result of that is you're going to have people that are far more skeptical of everything. I mean, even now you see people specifically, I think because of, of the BS from COVID that happened during COVID and general mistrust of the media and stuff, people are now defaulting to whatever they see. If it's, if it's not from individual sources they trust, which are in no way guaranteed to be more reliable than any. But they basically just say the default position is I don't believe it. And, and you're just gonna have a, a society of skeptical people and you're going to end up with, with. Because of that kind of skepticism, you're going to have people that. What's the word I'm looking for? People that, people that just become dejected and disconnected from, from, from society because they're like, well, I don't believe anything. You know, there's going to be.

[A]

But isn't that wisdom? I mean, don't. I don't know if you guys had grandparents in your 80s or 90s who just. Skeptical man, I don't know my pop. So like, skeptical of everything. Like, I feel like every old man who's like 90 years old is just like default skeptic. Skeptical. Doesn't mean they don't believe things or whatnot. But like they're, it's like I've seen enough in my day and I could, like there is a certain wisdom in that. I mean when you see how easily sheep are led when they don't have that critical thing on, doesn't mean even skeptical as you are. Everyone's got priors and everyone can be misled or whatever. But I actually, I feel a lot smarter reading the news now than I did 10, 20 years ago. Especially when you know, you've, when you grow up with faith that. Yeah, I mean you look at these like boomer types who just, if they see it on Fox News, if they see it, you know, like, like that there's nobody in Gen Z who thinks that way. They're critical of that. And I think that's healthy.

[C]

I think the skepticism is healthy, but I think the cynicism that I'm thinking that comes along with it is unhealthy.

[B]

Yeah, skepticism is like, I don't believe it. Cynicism is, I think it's untrue for sure. And then nihilism is the next phase, which I think it's all fake.

[C]

Yeah, I mean that sloth, it's a sin that kind of find yourself there. That kind of. The cynicism is I think something that actually will harm society.

[B]

So I want to. We got to jump to this next story and we'll start with this one. Ethan Klein is suing idubbbz for defamation over alleged molester remarks. Creator plans to fight back. Now I don't really care all that much about their defamation case case, you know, I don't know much about it. Whether there's married or not. I have no real comments on it. But even Klein, the reason I bring the story up is that it's the latest iteration in his ongoing lawsuits against many other creators. Which brings us back to this one which has probably the most significant potential in copyright law. And I believe the big tech companies and the AI companies are hoping Ethan Klein loses. So we've got this from Copyright Daily. Judges first take favors Denims. But will it survive the recut? The story goes like this. Ethan Klein produced a feature length documentary criticizing Hassan Piker. Several streamers, including one woman named who goes by Denims, watched the entirety of the feature length film while providing criticism to it periodically. He sued her saying that you can't just take the full body of work and claim its fair use. Right now in the preliminary ruling, he has lost and the judge is basically saying he needs to issue a response because Denims does have a fair Use claim. In fact citing Ethan Klein's own previous lawsuit hosts what is it? Host Ends A Day v. Klein saying that this is very obvious criticism. The judge made several points including nobody who's watching Denims who is critical of Ethan Klein is gonna go to his channel to watch what he has to say. Therefore that shows this is fair use. Ethan Klein is at risk of losing this case. Now he did force a settlement with another live streamer who played the video in its entirety. She issued an apology. It was pretty wild. Now, I believe on the merits Ethan Klein is wrong in this case. However, I think it's important that people understand the end result of copyright law should he lose. It's just one grain of sand in the avalanche. But understand what this means. The if, if the judge wins and this goes beyond court, if it, if it gets appealed, if it becomes precedent. The argument is an individual who is critical of a piece of content who seeks to comment on it, can use the content in its entirety regardless of infringement on that market. For example. So I'll give you an example. I have a video where I comment on a SM. I was do I have a 20 minute long video. It's a podcast about culture and the importance of traditional values and I use for only about 20 seconds a clip from Star for the Next Generation to exemplify the point I made in the about how in the early 90s culture was very different. And it was. It's an amazing scene where Captain Picard is confronted by a Romulan. Ignore all the Star Trek y stuff. The captain of a warship is on is in communication with the captain of another warship and he's got the bad guys have two ships pointed at him, arms ready and he says surrender now and you will be prison and your crew will be prisoners of war. And then all of a sudden allies of the of Captain Picard appear and shocking his enemy and he says what will it be? Shall we die together? And it's a brilliant line about strength and leadership. I got this video flagged. Copyright strike. Cannot monetize it for 20 seconds. For the simple 20 seconds out of a 20 minute long video. I cannot make money on the entirety of the video for using a cultural example of the 90s that I believe is fair. Use the argument. So I appealed it. They said no. I consulted with legal counsel and they said the issue is that Paramount licenses these short clips intentionally for videos like yours to make these references to the show in the 90s by you claiming fair use, the first thing you need to understand is fair Use is copyright infringement, but you are claiming an exemption. Their argument in rebuttal is that you've commented on the era and the content, but we sell these clips for a license fee for which you are now infringing on our market. Ethan Klein produced an hour and 40 minute long video that's expensive and hard to do. If he loses, we are moving towards an a wiping out of all intellectual property. If the argument could then be. I made a YouTube channel titled I Hate Marvel and I played Avengers Doomsday when it comes out on video to criticize the storytelling. And I play the movie in its entirety, periodically making comments on the video. Now the argument right now is that, well, I mean Marvel Studios, Disney, they've got lawyers to sue you to oblivion, you'd never win. But that is not the same as whether or not precedent gets set as it goes with law. It starts with a light thing that no one thinks is possible and then turns into mandate. For example, in New York when they banned public drinking, there is a city councilman who was quoted as saying something the effect of let it be said. This will never be construed to say that a man can't enjoy a beer during his lunch while at work. Sure enough, in New York today, if you sit in a bench and crack a beer, you're getting a ticket. So the issue then becomes, I believe the AI companies. I'm sorry, I'm going to pause. It is a fact Jack Dorsey, Elon and others have called for the abolition of intellectual property. They want their, their, their AI models to be able to use and reproduce any and every creative work. So they have publicly stated this. I believe that this is the intended condition for the big tech transhumanist AI people. They want a world where you will not have any intellectual property rights. So what this means is, and again I want to stress Ethan Klein is wrong to sue because this is known to, particularly with Hughes v. Benjamin, Akilah Hughes suing Carla Benjamin that you have a right to do this commentary. But no one has yet tested feature length criticism and that's where we're at now. The next step of course is me saying I can use Star Trek for 20 seconds. The end result of course is I want to criticize the political messaging in Starfleet Academy, for instance. So I will play the entire show in its feet in full entirety, hour long episodes to point out why it's bad. And it is not in any way different to the lawsuit that Ethan Klein has filed against her where he is losing. In which case, if Paramount Says you can't play our full episodes. We hate your show. You know, we hate your show. My audience doesn't wanna watch your show and they're only watching so that I can rag on it. That would clear me the same way that Ethan Klein has lost. Why Denims has been cleared.

[A]

Yeah, so we were getting into a little bit before the show on this and admittedly I don't think I've cracked open an intellectual property thing since the bar exam 20 years ago or whatever. So I'm. This is not like a field that I know anything beyond the lay about. But I have a question because like when, when you, when you mentioned that thing about, okay, well Paramount licenses it and when you think about like a Marvel movie that is like you get a ticket to watch that movie or you pay, you know, you pay Amazon to get a license and Amazon kicks some of the money back for that. Or, and so with the Ethan Klein video, I guess, and this is an open question to you because I think you've just studied this more than me. Does the fact that that hour and 40 minute documentary he made, does the fact that it's freely available on YouTube and that he does not earn money in the form of a license fee impact the precedent being set?

[B]

He makes money. It's not free to watch. You got to watch ads.

[A]

Yeah, so it's the ad rev.

[B]

Okay, so he, so his market is that he produces a piece of media, right. And monetize it through advertising. So he is selling to advertisers. When you play his video on another platform that bypasses those advertisers, you are stealing his ability to sell to advertisers.

[A]

Okay, so I have two questions that flow from there. So one is, is there a distinction in terms of legal precedent between that and A, direct pay to Paramount, for example, like a movie studio. And then B, if, let's just say Ethan Klein's video gets demonetized for some reason, you know, he used a 22nd Star Trek thing or he, you know, said, I don't know, he gave the wrong, they gave the wrong opinion on vaccines somewhere in there, like would that,

[B]

then it wouldn't change anything because he can monetize it in a million different ways. The ability to control that is extremely important. So it's not just the Ethan Klein thing, this is just one example of it where we are seeing the complete erosion of the right to monetize your content. The first problem in this space is so he made an hour and 40 minute long video where he's ragged On Hasan. It's kind of stupid. I mean, I don't really care. I mean, okay, fine, rag on Hasan, right? It's not like he made an. An Oscar winning $100 million feature length film or anything like that. Right? But it doesn't functionally matter. The content cost doesn't. Doesn't matter. The issue there is we spend between 50 and $150,000 here at Tim Cast to produce feature length documentaries. We did sin Frontera with 67 Kevin and that was expensive. We got to get security, he's got to fly, he's got to do a bunch of stuff in Panama and all these things. If we cannot monetize it because this woman, I'm not trying to rag on this one, I'm just saying in general, was able to play it in full to her audience so they don't watch hours, we will never make a documentary again.

[A]

You sell those documentaries for. Do you only monetize through like YouTube ad rev on a. Free for the user. But you have to watch ads thing, combination of things.

[B]

Rumble Premium.

[A]

Rumble Premium.

[B]

So it's Rumble Premium and then we do clips. We monetize clips for the thing. So here's the full length and then here's clips. The clips promote but also generate money in and of themselves.

[A]

But if you are Rumble Premium, then you can watch for free as the user if you sit in.

[B]

Well, if you're paying for a subscription, a Rumble Premium. Right, right, right. You paid for it, right?

[A]

Okay. Although in that case, isn't it kind of a little bit Netflix in terms of the business model? Right? Because like Netflix, you pay Netflix a monthly fee and then you can watch for free the movies that you're paying for them. Right? Well, I'm using it.

[D]

You're not like paying up.

[A]

I don't know that there's the perfect constellation of words to capture this, this concept exactly. It is free in terms of there is no additional charge beyond what you've already paid for a general service. And you're not paying for them the same way that you're paying for like a one off movie purchase or to go to the movie theater or like, like for example, if I.

[B]

But that's a material.

[A]

Well, that's my question. Is it material?

[B]

The idea that some things are monetized through an upfront payment is not material in what your market is. So the question of copyright infringement is does. There's a series of questions. There's a series of exemptions. The questions are did you copy the work first it's do you hold the IP rights to the work? No. Was it someone else's? Yes. Did you copy or substantially use. Yes. And are you infringing on their market? That's what. That's the. Infringing on a market is one of the most important things. So we've dealt with this a lot. The nature of this show and my morning show is literally built upon copyright infringement with exemption. That is when I pull up this article from Copyright lately, they own the rights to this article. The question then becomes is it fair use exemption or is it outright copyright infringement with no exemption? The reason why this falls into fair use is that anybody who wants to read the full article is not having that substituted by watching this show. I did not read the full article. And we tend not to read full articles in their entirety. And the article itself, even if we did read the full thing, and sometimes we do, is only 1, 1 millionth of the full website. Anybody who is a customer of Copyright Daily who wants to pursue what they write needs to go to their site and we do not replace them. However, for a feature length production or even a single video, watching that in its entirety infringes upon its market. That being said, it has long been upheld that it is not that. I'm sorry that it is a fairy's exemption because she is critical and criticizing the argument is the public needs this ability to criticize public works. However, if Ethan Klein was paramount and she had watched Starfleet Academy, she would have been crushed. My, my point is paramount and these structures are weakening while independent content is expanding. Don't get me wrong, we talked about the AI deter net theory stuff and all that and how that they're trying to push back on it. I believe the end result of this, the through line we're looking at is there will be no intellectual property as evidenced by the statements from Elon Musk and Jack Dorris is saying abolish IP laws and the fact that every day new precedent is set or new trials are lost. On the issue of intellectual property and copyright infringement. It's better to have no IP law than to have all the IP owned by a small group of people and it's going to be one or the other. That's a tough, that's a tough question. I have a good answer, but I will explain this. One of the problems that we have is that this show, my morning show and this show probably generate a couple hundred million views per month. We control maybe about 60 to 70 million views per month. That means if I go to my metrics on this show it's like on YouTube it's like 13 million per month. Then on Rumble it's like 20 million per month. On my morning show we control those views. When people say how many views you get? I can say we get about 60, 70 million views per month across all platforms. I can go to advertisers and say, would you like to buy against these videos? However, there are people who rip, repost, comment on generating 100 plus million views we cannot control. So I produce content I cannot monetize. The problem there is the death threats and the security threats remain the same while the ability to monetize goes down, creating probably what I believe the deep state would prefer, smaller independent creators without backing struggle. Because you get death threats, you get violence, it's harder to live a normal life and you can't make as much money as you used to. So for instance, full security for a studio is going to cost $5 million a year. It's absolutely merciless. Now if you can't monetize the views that are resulting in those death threats and those threats, you can't tire security. So it creates an inverse. I don't want to die by speaking out and I can't afford to protect myself. So I'm going to pull back. And I'm not saying it's a guarantee or anything like this. The bigger question with Ethan Klein is I spent $100,000 producing a documentary. It got ripped mercilessly by 10,000 people under fair use. I made no money. I will never make it again.

[A]

So I have two immediate reactions to that one. I'm not sure you're like. The second one I think you might find interesting. So the first one is I could see a way because what you're sort of getting at here, even if it's not currently codified or organized that way, I could see a judge preserving Paramount's ability and your ability for your documentaries to monetize by, by contextualizing the ruling somehow or using whatever framing is necessary to get there, where you basically allow fair use on non paywalled content. But if you like, for example, you know, like this difference between like a, a YouTube, a traditional YouTube video and like having to go to Pirate Bay to jack something because you know you can, you can't get it unless you pay someone, the studio itself by getting a ticket, the, or you know, the, a Netflix subscription to get it where they at least get some part of the, the pay because it's paywalled somehow, whether that's Amazon Prime A movie studio, a rumble premium thing that you need to pay. They get some but you're when you're when when they. Their business model is based on a paywall and you're circumventing the paywall to get it that I could, I could see there being a way where it preserves that it still infringes on the ad rev. I get that but what, what I

[B]

find really that's what they want. Yeah, I agree.

[A]

What's really interesting about what you said about kind of like deeper forces around this is I've been pursuing something for a number of months and you guys will see the fruits of it at some point this year. This long range plot around controlling monetization of content online is something that gets like the elements involved in control over monetization of content goes to some just incredibly deep dark twisted forces, plots, agencies that it's. It's kind of mind blowing like this. This started immediately after the 2016 election when Trump won and the. There was a. Two things happening at once. You had traditional gatekeeper media. I won't. Maybe I won't. I'll try to take the shortest route to this possible. Okay, maybe I'll. Maybe I'll say you can ask me questions if you're. If you're curious about. I want to because I could talk about this for an hour but. Okay, just the super short version is that when there was this crisis where the same thing that you're saying that is felt in the podcast monetized podcast world. The meat, the legacy media was feeling that as their own ad rev was getting sucked out by the big like Google and Facebook was eating the traffic that used to the ad revenue that came from traffic when you would see it in the New York Times instead of a you know a YouTube video covering the story or it being tweeted out or something. And so at the same time there was this explosion of citizen journalists and just you know, right wing news outlets that that were alternatives to what you'd see on you know, uno unipolar, you know, uniparty. And and so they came up with this plan to. In order to get their gatekeeper status back. They said there's too many messages. There's. But there's much fewer messengers than messages. We can't kill all the messages. This is also before AI scan and ban. They were still using, you know.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So like YouTube would hire like 10,000 new human moderators and wouldn't make a dent. Now now they can do the AI scan and ban and do a Lot more that way. But what their plot was to. Simultaneously they said, if we, there's, there's a. At the time, Breitbart was super hot. Like Steve Bannon, who was leading Breitbart at the time, you know, even became effectively, you know, the shadow president as NSL and Saturday Night Live would refer to him and the like. And they were like, okay, well, there's, you know, there's 10 million monthly active Breitbart readers, but there's only one Breitbart. If you, we don't need to get rid of everybody sharing Breitbart, because if you just get rid of Breitbart, how do you, how do you do that? You kill their, you kill their ad rep. Because.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And so what they did is they set about this. They started working with the advertising companies, the, the big four, they. And literally these were all like CIA cutout organizations. And not only that, like the Biden administration, government itself, and even the Trump administration, unbeknownst to the White House, like USAID was doing this, State Department was doing this. And they had this sort of policy of demonetizing disinformation, cutting out the funds of disinformation. And even if you look at who's on the boards that they would funnel the money to, it was like news guard, I want to. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, I

[B]

want to go back and keep it on track. You mentioned there was this, there was this period where the media companies were suing Google because Google was crawling the news pages. And you would then go on Google and it would summarize articles underneath them. It would say, like the title of the article and the summary. So people weren't clicking the articles anymore because they would read the lead and then they were done. So this resulted in Canada actually banning, putting some like, bans in place on news websites or something. Something weird happened like this.

[A]

It was like a political. It was a pay to play, basically, like.

[B]

Well, so the issue was, yeah, the news organization said we can't make money if Google rips it and people read it for free. So this, this is important because it's exactly where we're going now. The future will be as you described it. Individuals, independent shows like ours will make no money because we'll have zero copyright protection. There will be no IP laws for small, for small individuals. But the big networks will have a de facto IP protection, despite the fact there won't be IP laws. They will have a paywalled system that you have to use and they will funnel you towards and they will make it functionally impossible to make a living being an independent media personality. That's the whole point of this. Like my argument is if Ethan Klein actually loses and this makes precedent, then the functional argument is I can watch Avengers Doomsday in its entirety. But do we really believe they will allow the little guy to go to do anything to them? The point is Ethan Klein is an independent guy who is very wealthy and well off with a lot of following. Will not be able to compete. They did not remember, was it Markiplier? Is that his name? Yeah, yeah. He made that movie and they got really mad. He made a blockbuster movie. They don't like gatekeepers. We, Carter and I did music should have charted on Billboard Hot 100. And they tricked us and made sure it could not over and over again. This is the machine they are building. And this is the point. You will not be able to monetize your content. It's fair use and free for all. The big companies will functionally be under the same rules, but they will crush you under the weight of their machine. You can still make money even if you don't have the rights to your content because people, advertisers will advertise on the live show. People will still subscribe for the live show. Ian, I cannot make money if someone else clips this video. I can't make money. Well, if they clip your advertisement, you're making double the money. No, I'm not. Go to place and type in code, Tim. Like if someone else runs that ad for you, you're duplicating your audience. Right, but we don't get paid for that. We should be getting paid for hits. Promo code, Tim. Those. I don't want to do contingency. Contingency sucks. We like going advertise and saying it is a set rate. And if you're. Listen, I think you can still get that. Imagine, Imagine. Imagine a sponsor comes to us and they sell. They go, we want, we want to market this handle for hammers. Handle for hammers. That's right. It's a 3D printed clip that clips onto a hammer so you can hold it so the hammer is like this. And I'll go, okay, well the rate is for you $10,000. And they go, deal. Promo code 10. How many people are going to buy that?

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

But. So if I said, if they said we'll give you. We'll give you $5 per sale. I'm going to say no one's going to buy that product. I think you can still make money off the ad reads even if you don't have long term ownership. Because it's really about the immediate show. People watch it once. Tomorrow they're going to watch the show tomorrow. They're not the show tomorrow. You know they do. We actually have clips throughout the whole week. You'll have the live show you can still go to as long as you're working money on it. Well, it's kind of weird for an artist or an entertainer to have access to their own production output. It's a 20th century. What's going to happen is for the big networks, if you do a critique On Avengers, since TV, if you do a critique on Avengers, YouTube will just say we've got a, a finance claim. They won't call it IP or copyright and they'll just send whatever money you would have made to the big networks. And then when Ethan Klein says you watched my documentary, they'll say, shove off. We do got to go to your rubble rants and super chats. So we're gonna read what you guys say. The uncensored show. Uncensored show is coming up in a few [e-mail] Timcast IRL. But before we get to your comments, we got a great sponsor. It is Enhanced. This episode is sponsored by Enhanced. You guys heard of the Enhanced games? The team is rewriting what the human body is capable of. They also have their own consumer line. Not hormones, not prescriptions. The daily stimulant free supplements built the same standard. Again, like they reached out. I was like, these are like supplements like vitamins because we love that stuff. And they're like, yes, excellent. If you train hard, you work hard. By 3pm Most days, you're running out, you're running on whatever's left in the tank. Enhanced makes a daily formula called stronger doctor formulated, clinically dosed, no proprietary blends. One scoop, 5 grams of creatine, 8 grams of pure L citrulline that you pronounce it, beta alanine and essential amino acids. Zero caffeine. No crash. It's an extra set in the gym. Something still left when you walk in the door at night. And if you're playing the long game, Enhanced makes longer. A daily longevity formula built by the team behind the Enhanced games. No middleman, no markup. Go to shop.enhanced.com rumble and get 50% off your first order. Again, shop.enhanced.com rumible take advantage of the limited 50% off welcome offer. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. And when someone clips that they already bought the ad. So I don't get extra money for views we can't track. We don't get, we don't get dollars per sale. We got this old ass tech where it's hard to track where the money's coming from, where it's going to. Like with blockchain smart contracts, it does make it easier to track. I got to, I got, I got to pause. I got to, I got to stop you. That's not true. What do you mean? We have, we've had reference URLs forever. And when, when we do contingency, which we've, we've, we have done, we know exactly who's clicking, we know how many sales we're getting. That's how Amazon works. We don't sell here at Timcast for the most part. Contingency deals because they're usually bad deals. Like I, like I mentioned, there are a lot of companies that say we have a product and we go, I don't know, that's a good product. And they say, well, we're going to try and advertise it anyway. They could say to us, we'll give you $10 for every sale. And we had one company approach us on a product and they said, we won't do a direct buy because we don't have the capital for it. Can we do a contingency? And I said no, because no one will buy your product. So if that video goes viral and the ad is in it, it won't matter. I won't make money off the contingency. And if they do a direct pay and say, we'll give you ten grand for the ad read and it goes viral, I can't go back to them and say, hey, look at this, some random guy commented on the video and got another million views. I say, too bad, you should be. And there should be an AI that can crawl the web and find iterations

[A]

of that video for you too.

[B]

So then perhaps the negotiations after the fact are, we'll charge you 10k for the direct read and we'll give you a half price rate for all views. You know why they wouldn't do that deal? Because they'll be like, that's an infinite loss. If we agree to 10 grand on the ad read and it performs well, we make money. If someone then copies that ad and it blows up and we owe you a million dollars, we don't have, we're in default. We can't get an infinite downside ad buy. That wouldn't make sense. But like clip clippers, you know, this this age of other people taking your stuff and clipping it and putting on other copyrights dead is like, now, what if the ad was used in like, a place that you don't want it to be used too? Like someone like Shaw the builder clipped it or something and then, well, we got to read some of these. We only got a few minutes. And I rambled too long. Joshua says blacktivists are obsessed with melanin ratio. It's their only currency. They want perpetual grievance or their entire victimhood identity would be rendered obsolete.

[A]

H Brutal assessment.

[B]

What do we got here? Blave Kaiser says, I. I may be in a bubble as well, or this is orchestrated. I've seen tons of black content creators calling Carmelo and these other morons out, but they're not getting any traction. Well, it's a mixed bag. When you look at most of Reddit, everybody's like, he's guilty man. They're not going to riot over this. But we showed you a video guy punch and put someone in the head. There exists this contingent of black identitarianism. That's what we're calling out. And real quick, that's why earlier today I said, what bothers me about all of this is racists. These black people, they are racist. There are tons of great black people, and my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, shouldn't even have to be brought up in this. But we do this because the left are racists and we try to clarify our position to people who are, who are not politically initiated.

[A]

Well, and I think actually this administration is really doing for the first time, kind of like a full frontal assault on the front end of the funnel of that. Like, if you look at, they've gone, they've gone at disparate impact, root and branch. They've gone at DEI super hard, and they've tied the federal grant money to like, getting DEI out. And a lot of this is, you know, cultural familial, you know, reinforced in 100 different ways. But the fact is, when it's sanctioned by your school and it's taught by your school, you know, at the school level, which every single person has to go to, and it gets reinforced through that. And it's not taught that it's bad. In fact, it's taught that it's, it's good. Like, that creates this culture. And there's. We're only right now into like year one and a half of any attempt to get rid of that. I think there actually, there was a major Justice Department ruling on disparate. Impact just this week and the fact that they're. I mean, what you see is a lot of like machine left Democrats who are, who are upset right now at the academia and the universities because they're bending on this Compact for America thing around like basically putting contingency on whether you get federal funds for whether you've uprooted your dei.

[B]

We got, we got a question for you, Mike. David Flores says we're watching a color revolutionary. We're watching color revolutionary tactics. Regarding the Carmelo case, how much worse would this be if USAID still existed?

[A]

Well, so, I mean, I would say this looks bad and ugly, but also small scale. Not, not like, okay, I don't see, for example, afl, cio, CI, you know, si, Si, sei, seiu. I don't see institutional cover for this in the way that you would see in a color revolution. In a color revolution, you would have masses of people on the streets, you would have intense organization, you would have institutional sponsorship, you would have diplomatic top cover. You would have a whole range of things that this is not. I would not say that every time there is some sort of destabilization event at any local level that that is a manifestation of an orchestrated color revolution. I mean, there is such a thing as authentic protest, even when the authentic. They're authentically stupid. Like, that happens all the time in ways big and small. And I would categorize this as a relatively small temporal kind of fever outbreak of a black nationalist sort of sentiment in a relative minority portion of both the black community and what we saw in Congress. So I wouldn't characterize it as that. If, if. And I don't think USAID would even in its most pernicious, they would, they would take on a BLM type case or even a Trayvon Martin type case where there's a disputed fact pattern, something like this.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't think they can't win. Let's grab this one. We got Neglectful Sausage says if YouTube oppressed your people, you'd vote to convict more often. This is why YouTube flight is a real thing. Oakland used to be 95% YouTube, same as Chicago. You leave from crime and from tribal convictions. What does that mean?

[A]

YouTube works in mysterious ways.

[B]

He wrote YT. If YT. If YouTube stop. If white oppressed your people, you vote to convict more often. This is why white flight is a real thing. Oakland used to be 95% white, same as Chicago. You leave from the crime and from tribal convictions. So what happens is, I think traditional American culture and largely among the white population, it is very non confrontational and seeks to avoid conflict. I actually think this is why it's rooted in literally who this country was founded by. People who are fleeing from Europe. They, I'd rather go live in the middle of the woods than deal with what's going on here. It's no surprise then that the descendants of those people say, me from Chicago say, I don't wanna live here. I'm gonna go move somewhere else. And that's why you get a lot of this.

[A]

You know, a lot of it is also law and order and the pressure on law and order to stand down amidst political pressure. Like, if you look at where crime has gotten really bad, you see a lot of capture at the city council and mayor's office to appeal to the kind of. You know what, in cases like this is almost like a black nationalist type bloodlust type thing, but because you have a lot of that sentiment playing out politically and whatnot in these cities, the police department's told to stand down or it's underfunded. And like, and what I like about what this administration is doing, first of all, I've lived in D.C. probably four or five times now in my life for various years and then taking off and then coming back for various things. And DC is way safer than it has ever been.

[B]

And oh man, Clean.

[A]

It's clean. Wow. It's clean. It's safe. Like none of my friends have had Ron's. I remember when I lived there during term one, the pizza shop next to me got shot up and the Whole Foods next to me got robbed at gunpoint. Like my second month there, the Washington Post covered for the Whole Foods robber that held them up at gunpoint saying, oh, you know, he was like a, a poet rapper, just trying to get his life on track type thing. We're like, okay, my pizza shop got, got the window shot. Like, this is the capital city. Like, what if I was a senator's son? Like, why would a senator. But the fact is, is what Trump did is now everywhere you go in D.C. there are men in camo with large visible guns that they don't say anything. They don't, they're not in your face. They're not. They're just, they just walking around like everywhere.

[D]

And it's quickly they are able to clean it up. Literally in the matter of.

[A]

It's crazy. It's like San Francisco cleaning up the homeless thing when the China delegation.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

But I think that the, the admin just announced an initiative to do this at like a. At a national level.

[B]

No, I don't agree with that. We got a special case for feds. You don't put the feds in other cities.

[A]

Not, no, but I think there's a program. I think it's a voluntary.

[B]

Let's talk about this. We got to go to the uncensored portion. I want to read one more chat. Aaron Glenn is a terrorist. What? That's his name. Says apparently yapping about Ethan Klein is more important than covering the riots in Ireland happening literally right now. No, that's for the uncensored show where we're going to show it uncensored. That's what we're waiting for. So head over to rumble.com timcast irl for the uncensored show. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Rebecca, do you want to shout anything out?

[D]

Yeah. You can read my byline at the Daily Caller and you can also follow me on X. Rebecca Zelko spelled R E B E K A Z E L J K O.

[A]

Check me out on X at Mike Benciber. Also on YouTube IG all the stuff. And then also my foundation is foundationforfreedomonline.com you can read the latest and greatest on the censorship industrial complex there.

[B]

Follow me at Ian Crossland all across social media. That's all I got. Phil.

[C]

I am Phil. That remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check us out on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify and Deezer. And if you're in the D.C. area, we will be playing the Warped Tour this Sunday. So go ahead and get your tickets@warp tour.com.

[B]

top Top billing, by the way.

[C]

Yeah, I think we play it like four the.

[B]

The. On the. On the.

[C]

Oh yeah, they. They do. They do it in. In alphabetical order.

[B]

So yeah, 303 and then all that remains.

[A]

So Sunday.

[C]

Yeah, it's a Sunday. Yeah.

[A]

I'll be competing with the UFC fight. Yeah, I know fight tickets to.

[B]

No, but his early. His early.

[C]

We'll play before the UFC fight. Yeah, get into D.C. and go see. I, I think they don't. Warp Tour doesn't let you know exactly until the day of but I think think that we're playing in the afternoon, so.

[B]

Nice. Well, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks Music or Carter Banks official everywhere else. Follow our label at Trash house Records on YouTube and pumped to talk about Ireland in the after show.

[C]

Don't forget the left laners for crime.

[B]

We'll see you all [e-mail] Timcast IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.