Abortion MAY BE BANNED After ACLU Sues Trump Over Birthright Citizenship Arguing UNBORN Have RIGHTS
01:11:23 Share

As it is with communists, they want to have their cake and eat it too. And the ACLU is exemplifying this perfectly. They sued the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship executive order. And in doing so, may be about to end abortion forever. Now, maybe not literally. And the probability is probably very low. But on Friday, with the Supreme Court basically saying Donald Trump can die,

He can executive order the birthright, citizenship, whatever. For now, we're not answering the merits to that. It's created this temporary space where the Trump admin is saying we are not going to grant citizenship to the children of those here illegally. I think even legal immigrants, too. Maybe not. I'm not sure. But it's mostly about illegal immigrants, people who are here illegally or whose fathers are not lawful citizens or lawfully present.

The ACLU in their argument said that they must certify a class of persons for this suit because of the Supreme Court ruling. And that class of persons is all future persons. I kid you not. Potential humans being represented before this court. They mean the unborn babies.

Get legal representation. OK, so basically they're so so the Supreme Court says universal injunctions are out. You cannot apply a district court's ruling to the entirety of the country. And that's kind of obvious because the way that these these liberals are trying to set it up.

Like Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, they're basically saying Jackson's was nuts because she was just like district courts dictate over the executive branch and every other justice was like, no. But it was funny. At least you got Kagan and Sotomayor being like, well, if the district court courts can't issue these injunctions, I mean, then how do we. Oh, yep.

It was funny. There's a viral video where apparently just a couple of years ago, Kagan was arguing you can't have lower court judges blocking the executive branch from executive authority nationwide. And it's kind of obvious. It's kind of obvious, right? Check this out. Here's what happens. Donald Trump says, we're going to stop birthright citizenship. Nobody gets any. And then basically anybody after 30 days from signing the order, which was right when he got into office, which is February 20th,

You will not get automatic citizenship by birthright if you are if your parents were not here legally. And I think that actually makes the most sense. Now, everyone's trying to debunk this, but I will debunk the debunking. But we'll get to that.

Donald Trump says this. And so what first happens is like three people sue and then a district court judge says, I hereby say Trump can't do this nationwide. But we have circuits for a reason. There are there are jurisdictions by which judges have authority.

And then you go up to the higher courts and the Supreme Court then is the entirety of the country. Makes sense. The reason why district courts can't issue nationwide injunctions is obvious because it means I would sue to a court in West Virginia living up in the mountains. And I'd say, well, gosh, darn it. I need me a machine gun because I got a bunch of feral hogs. And then they're going to say, good point, Cletus. And they're going to bang their gavel and they're going to say, you can have a machine gun. And then what?

And then they're going to put a universal injunction on the NFA. And then some dude in New York City is like, I'm going to go buy a machine gun. No, no, no, no. The courts in West Virginia addressing a singular West Virginia issue is going to be for West Virginia or the circuit they're in. It makes no sense. Well, and then I'll and then I'll let's let's expound upon this.

While this judge says, why can't you have a machine gun? You got a feral hog problem. And then in New York, a judge goes, no, we don't have any feral hogs here. All guns are banned. And then you've got two simultaneous judges simultaneously saying guns are both banned and not banned. So which one is it going to be? That's stupid. There's a reason why the system was built the way it is. The Supreme Court, there's nowhere else to go. They're one court. They say it's it. That's it.

With district courts, there's six hundred and seventy seven. It's the stupidest thing imaginable. But anyway, so they say no universal injunctions. And what do we get? The ACLU then says, OK, we will file a class action. And because the way it works is one person suing, the courts can only grant relief to those that are suing. That's what the Supreme Court said.

So the ACLU says, then we'll make a class of a class for a class action suit and sue on behalf of, quote, all current and future persons who are born on or after February 20th, 25.

Okay, that means somebody who's going to be born on March 15th, 2092 is represented in this. I kid you not. They're arguing that humans that don't yet exist are part of a class of people that have legal standing to sue and be represented before the Supreme Court. Okay, look.

I'm not a staunch pro-lifer in the way most Christian conservatives are, but I do think abortion is wrong. It's bad. And I think it's a very difficult issue to morally navigate. I hate getting into the whole argument, but for the sake of this, my position is largely nobody should be getting abortions. I don't know how we have a situation of a medical practice that involves requiring court orders.

So like in the event that a woman is suffering from some kind of medical issue, be it rare,

The challenge then is the doctors saying you will need an emergency court order for us to perform this because it will terminate the life of the baby. Now, I think there's ways to navigate that in further restricting abortion while making sure the medical practices are OK. But the solutions they've offered up are really bad. Like three doctors must be present. And yeah, I mean, maybe that's fine or something. They all can concur. Maybe that's the compromise, I guess. But at any rate.

As far as the liberals go with lying, cheating and stealing for power, I laugh at the game they are now playing and the door they have just opened up. Future persons, huh? OK, then I want to see every single conservative and every single pro-life group right now file with the exact same class. I mean, look, it says in this class action.

Class representative plaintiff seeks to represent the following proposed class. All current and future persons who were born on or after February 20th, 2025, where that person's mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth or...

That person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, as well as the parents, including expectant parents of those persons. Okay. Including the parents in the class action. Every conservative pro-life group should copy that text perfectly. Literally saying that, yes, just for the unlawfully here, for literally illegal immigrants, and I'll explain, but with that exact class,

File a suit saying you can't kill future persons, saying we seek to represent all current and future persons who are born on or after making the argument that they have a right to life, to be free from third party decisions, to terminate their life without adequate due process or just illegal outright as it would constitute assisted suicide.

watch them squirm and scream and argue you can't have that class. That's the play. The reason why, you know, some might be saying, but you should have it include all people. Right, right. Politically, yes. What I'm saying is copy their class verbatim because

Because I guarantee you they'll come out and argue against that class. They will say, no, that can't be a class of people because they don't exist. They're not really people. Unborn babies aren't humans yet. You can't even tell the difference between an elephant fetus and a human fetus. And then say, fair point.

I guess you can't have a class of people. You can't sue. And Trump can end birthright citizenship. Or they say, fine, we agree. Future persons have a right to be represented in court. And then you can say future persons having legal standing as confirmed by this court. Let's let's let's roll, baby.

You can't kill someone before they've gone to courts. Well, I mean, you can't kill people, period. So this is an incredible admission by the ACLU and the left on the issue of abortion. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. Either you get birthright citizenship or you don't. The Trump administration has found a masterful play here in that.

You can't sue on behalf of the unborn while the unborn have no rights. And I love this. I love this so much. The perfect 14th Amendment question. Let's roll, baby. The 14th. Let me pull it up here for you guys from Congress.gov. The 14th Amendment. So we got this article from Politico. That's like Trump is wrong about birthright citizenship and history proves it.

And in it, they basically say, now we know they argued the children of immigrants and foreigners would not be citizens, but they debated and then ultimately decided in what is it? United States via Wong Kim Ark that children of immigrants are citizens. OK.

Let me debunk all of this stupid nonsense and get to the point. They say that in a key exchange, Senator Edgar Cohen of Pennsylvania fretted that the amendment would expose the United States to mass demographic upheaval, specifically by making immigrant children citizens. He worried particularly about gypsy immigrants. It's offensive.

in his home state, and a small but growing population of Chinese immigrants in California. Now, Politico wonderfully leaves out is that while they say, see, they ultimately agreed. That quote, the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and equal protection before the law with others. Uh-huh. Okay.

So they say, we know they meant for this to be the case, which is exactly why 40 years later they had to have a or 30 years later they had to have a Supreme Court case about it. Duh.

The argument that the framers of the 14th knew exactly what it was going to be and argued for it excludes the entirety of the debate, cherry-picks single portions of it, and then, in its beautiful logical fallacy, fails to explain why it had to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. If it was clear to the framers and the intention was set

Everybody understood at that time that it meant Wong Kim Ark wouldn't have needed to have happened that this kid born of Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen. No, they debated it for decades after the fact. And it is fair to argue that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly as we have overturned Supreme Court precedent in the past. That being said, I love this meme that's going around where it's like,

My neighbor's cow wandered into my field and gave birth. The calf is now mine. It's like, no, neither the cow nor the calf belong to you. You can be like, I get off my property. So here's the best part. The 14th Amendment, how it both applies to immigrants and the unborn. I'm loving it. Let's play. And I'm going to say it again. You can't have one or the other. You can't have both. You can only have one or the other. So check it out. It says, let's make it a little bigger.

All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Let's stop. The argument largely with birthright citizenship is when you say subject to the jurisdiction thereof, foreign-born individuals are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the United States because they owe allegiance to a foreign land. So they are not. Now, on to the next part.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. Here's where it gets good. All persons. OK, cut that out.

All persons born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens. Ergo, person and citizen mean different things. Person applies to a human life entity. Citizen is a qualification upon a human life entity. So everyone is a person. Not all persons are citizens. A person becomes a citizen upon certain criteria. It then says...

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Okay. That means if you're a human life entity, a person, and you have qualified to be a citizen, then no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge your privileges or immunities. However, semi-colon, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property that deprives of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now,

The Fourth Amendment makes clear persons and citizens are different things. And that being said, the question then is, are the unborn persons? Well, interestingly, in the ACLU's lawsuit, it says future persons who are born on or after February 2025. Now, hold on there a gosh darn minute. You see, they're trying to make an argument. The argument is you are not a person.

You're a future person implying you will not be a person until you are born. Okay. However, they're doing that. They wrote future persons intentionally because otherwise they'd be just instantly admitting that if they said persons born on or after, the implication is that they can't be deprived of life as the 14th amendment says. But, uh-oh.

You see, here's where the argument comes in. Does a future person have legal standing to be represented in court? That's all that matters. The argument is no. For the conservatives, they say the unborn are persons. End of story.

For the liberals are saying, no, no, they're future persons. OK, well, then they can't be represented in court because future persons may be deprived life, liberty, property without due process of law. That's been their argument the whole time that if a baby may become an unborn, may become a person in the future. Well, they can kill it because it's not protected by the 14th or by any other law. OK, OK.

Well, you used to open up a whole can of worms, baby. That's why I say the response now from the right should be let's go. Let's roll. Seek to represent the exact class identically for the purpose of not being killed. And here's where here's the kicker. The argument from the left is these people can be represented in court. They have legal standing. The right can then argue the exact same thing and say, how can you?

grant legal standing to a class in this country that are not persons? That's the first question. Because then, like, someone's going to come out and say, I seek to represent cows. They're not persons. And they'll say, but they have to at least be capable of being persons later on. And cows can never become persons.

Agreed. The unborn with the potential to become persons now are granted legal standing to sue to prevent their life, liberty or property from being deprived. Now, of course, the unborn don't have property and their liberties are constrained as they're currently inside someone else's body, but they do have life.

And the argument is as such, if you grant legal standing, you cannot kill that person. That it's it's the strangest thing to grant legal standing to someone is at bare minimum. We'll put it this way. If they accept this class at bare minimum, every single attempt at an abortion can be sued and barred and face an injunction.

If this class is granted, that means the right need only file a lawsuit. Anytime anyone tries to file, tries to have an abortion and say on behalf of this future person who we know based on ACLU V U S future persons have a right to be represented in court. And I will sue on their behalf, just like the ACLU did.

And then request an injunction. And here's the here's the funny thing. The stupidity here is first, I think they just won't get the class. But if they do, what ends up happening is some woman goes for an abortion. Pro-life group sues gets an injunction or they get they get blocked. Let's say it's Colorado. They say we're going to block that abortion.

And then the or they, you know, the court then says, no, we're not going to do that. So they file an emergency appeal to a higher court who says, hold on. This question needs to be answered because of the precedent set in ACLU v. U.S. government. We're putting an injunction on that abortion. The doctor can't perform it. This could ban abortion nationwide or at least create a legal roadblock that stops them from anyone from ever being able to have one or.

They can't certify the class of future persons. And that means Donald Trump can revoke birthright citizenship. It'll be interesting. I don't know. Whatever. I'll leave it there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Stay tuned. We got more coming up for you today. Sloan Newsweek. It's the 4th of July. But thanks for hanging out. And we'll see you all in the next segment.

Last week, SCOTUS issued a massive ruling on universal injunctions. Now, Justice Jackson stood alone in her dissent, which was ridiculed by basically everybody. In fact, the argument was considered so bad that within the actual Supreme Court opinion document,

They insult Ketanji Brown Jackson's intelligence and knowledge and say that our arguments don't adhere to 200 years of legal precedent, nor the Constitution itself. With the New York Post saying Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case.

Well, I noticed something else on X. Many people are accusing Katonji Brown Jackson of actually using an AI text generator to write the opinion itself. Now, I don't know a whole lot about how SCOTUS works. Like, I know there's clerks and the clerks do a lot of the writing and the research. So the Supreme Court justice is going to, like most lawyers, have staff that help compile and write these things up.

And, uh, well, let me just say this. I did a couple of experiments. I'm not sure I'm being as, as transparent as I can and full disclosure. I don't want to say it's conclusive that it's AI generated. I used some, uh, AI checkers, right? It's like plagiarism checkers. And one, one that I used said that a passage, it's a single passage. I didn't grab like every page was 80% likely AI generated. Okay.

Now, what I did was I went into Chet GPT, pasted the passage and asked it to create through AI a mirror image. So I said, using this exact style and the exact length, write the inverse argument. And when I ran that from an AI checker, it said it wasn't AI generated. So it clearly was AI.

And I want to make sure that's clear because I am going to show that this one app says it was AI generated, despite the fact that my actual AI generated was rated as not being AI generated. So who knows? It could be wrong.

But I did ask JetGPT what it thought, and it said this is likely AI generated, that of Katonji Brown Jackson's statements, which is interesting because it should have access to it. When I asked about Amy Coney Barrett's statements, it said that it was real and was likely that of Amy Coney Barrett. And so I don't know. I don't know. But it would make sense.

Because people are like the justices themselves are saying her arguments are stupid. But let's start here. The actual disagreement they had in person. Here's a story from the New York Post. Amy Coney Barrett rips Katonji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case.

They say conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran branch bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal justice. Katonji Brown Jackson's extreme dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of universal injunctions.

Quote, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself, wrote Barrett, the court's second newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. In other words, that's about as smackdown as you get now.

Last Friday, when this ruling dropped with Will Chamberlain, we were and he's like a lawyer. And it's funny when you get a lawyer making jokes, because these guys, especially Will, it's a very academic guy. And he's like, oh, she's she's insulting liberal jurisprudence. And it's you know, it's like very academic. Right. But we were laughing our asses off at how stupid Katonji Brown Jackson is basically arguing, which makes literally no sense that a district court

in Alaska can issue, say, a ban on guns or no, no, they unban all guns. Say, you know what? You know, the NFA is unconstitutional. And then you have in district court, D.C. saying, no, no, all guns everywhere are banned and that both of them must be applied nationally. That makes literally no sense. And so considering it makes literally no logical sense, one must argue, how does a human being come up with this? Let me say this again.

Six to three. The Supreme Court said universal injunctions don't make sense and are at odds with the Constitution. Katonji Brown Jackson argued district courts, of which there are six hundred and seventy seven judges, when they issue an injunction, it should apply nationally to everyone and the president himself.

Once again, that's impossible. It's like arguing that you both must have the door open and closed at the same time. Be like, no, I'll just stress this. If a court in Hawaii says it is illegal to sell coconut and then a court in New York says it is a mandatory that all stores must sell coconut.

Katonji Brown Jackson's arguments is that both injunctions must be coexisting at the exact same time. It's it was it's a it's a paradox. It's impossible. So so simply put, Katonji Brown Jackson's argument is that if a district court rules it so at the lowest level,

then the president, the executive, everyone must adhere to that ruling. Well, the problem is during oral arguments, the solicitor general of the United States literally said, we were granted a stand and injunction. We're trying to issue deportations. They issued an injunction in D.C. We argue against it. And an appellate court says, stay the injunction. What that means is

Trump wins. Go back to what you were doing immediately as was being handed down. He says another district court issued another injunction. So

So now you have one court saying you can deport and one court saying you can't. How could both possibly be concurring at the exact same time? To which the Supreme Court was like, you are correct, except for Katonji Brown Jackson, which once again suggests maybe she didn't argue any of this at all. Maybe she simply, her clerks,

Maybe she was like, I don't know or care. I'm a liberal. Just write whatever liberals want me to write. And the Supreme Court clerks working for were like, let's just ask Chet GPT to draft some kind of dissent. And Chet GPT was like, but their logic is impeccable. The only thing you could do is be illogical. Well, here we are.

We have this post. This is hilarious. This is Austin already says, wait, this is real. I legitimately thought this was a sarcastic tweet someone made up. This is from the actual Supreme Court. And it's a passage written by Katonji Brown Jackson that says, instead to the majority, the power hungry actors are dot, dot, dot, parentheses, wait for it, close parentheses, dot, dot, dot, the district courts. Okay. Okay. Hold on.

Maybe I'm not a Scottish scholar. Maybe they often write their Supreme Court opinions with ellipses. Wait for it. Ellipses. Then the subject of the dispute, based on how Amy Coney Barrett wrote her insult to Kataji Brown Jackson, where she was like, it's at odds with two centuries of legal precedent and the Constitution itself.

when if she was writing in a similar style, she would say, and I'm shocked to find, wait for it, this lady's as dumb as a boxer ox. No, typically, the Supreme Court justices are writing in a professional and academic way. I tell people on Simcast IRL, if you're gonna insult somebody, keep it academic. Don't say they're retarded. Say they're developmentally disabled. It's a better insult, by the way. In seeing this,

Someone responded. I don't know this person has Apple lambs. They got 20,000 followers. Wait, before I go check myself, do the other justices use em dashes like that or em dashes are a notorious sign of large language model AI generated text. Before I read what he writes, I will state Amy Coney Barrett uses em dashes in this exact argument is not proof enough.

Or it's it's evidence, but not proof. And evidence isn't isn't proof. When you see the em dashes that she uses and the ellipses in the weight for it, it comes off like a low grade AI generated text that makes no sense. Now, maybe what happened was her clerks used AI to assist in writing this up.

And Apple lamps posts this quote, which I believe is an assessment from a, it's a, it's a big assessment that likely comes from chat GPT or something, which basically lays out why it seems to be AI. Now I'll just show you my, what I, what I, what I found. It says, here's the reasoning behind the conclusion based on common tells. It says, well, all opinions are well-written and stylistically appropriate for the Supreme court. Justice Jackson's dissent exhibits several key characteristics that align with the output of a sophisticated large language model.

Now, I'll shorten this. I'm not going to read through everything. Again.

Um, my, my research was not conclusive, but leans towards it may be to a certain degree AI generated. I kind of don't think it is. I don't know. But what I ended up finding was, I think I tweeted it. I think I can just show you. Okay. So let me, let me just show you this. So this is free AI content director. I just Google searched it. I grabbed a random passage, the wait for it passage that was, uh, that was, you know, contentious.

And it tells me that it's 80% of your text likely AI generated and rewrote it to try and make it seem like it's not AI generated, taking out the ellipses, wait for it portion. And so I posted that.

And then I asked Chet GPT and it said this. Based purely on writing style, the text could plausibly be AI generated. Here's why. Overuse of rhetorical devices, phrases like wait for it, are uncommon in formal Supreme Court writing and feel like performative flourishes typical of AI trying to sound clever or dramatic. Mechanical structure. The sentence structure is overly balanced and tidy, almost too

too clean. AI models often default to tight logical flow and mirrored syntax that feels artificial to trained readers. Citation mimicry without substance. The C-ante-at-X citations are structurally correct but feel hollow, like placeholders, rather than references to actual legal reasoning. This kind of citation mimicry is common in AI outputs trained on court opinions.

Tone mismatch. It tries to sound judicial, but the casual sarcasm, quote, the power hungry actors are dot dot dot. Wait for it. The district courts breaks tone in a way that experienced legal writers, especially Supreme Court justices, rarely allow informal opinions.

What makes it seem human at first? The vocabulary and flow are consistent with appellate-level writing. It reflects an actual debate in federal jurisprudence. The legitimacy of universal injunctions, it mimics Sotomayor or Kagan's dissenting tone fairly well.

Final judgment. More likely than not, the passage was AI generated. It mimics legal writing very well, but shows tellable signs, M-dash, especially in tone, rhetorical balance, and citation style, M-dash, of machine authorship rather than a real judicial voice. If you told me GPT-4 or Claude wrote it with a SCOTUS dissent prompt, I'd believe it instantly. So I'm not, I don't know. I don't know. Once again, like I said,

With the AI checker I use, it's a Google search. I don't know if it's legit. I don't know. A lot of people are claiming that it seems like it was AI generated because it's so dumb.

But maybe it was like the clerks used some AI tools to clean up language or something. It's possible that they wrote out a lot of it and then ran it through an AI as like a checker of some sort, like fixed spelling errors. And then it formatted it in such a way that it appears like it's AI generated or she's just that dumb. I don't know, man. I'm going to leave it there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. We got more coming up for you in a little bit. And we'll see you all in the next segment.

AI is destroying us. It's going to turn us into, it's going to kill us. I think when we talk about the AI apocalypse, the mistake everybody made 50, 40 years ago is that they'd make robots that went around with skull faces shooting at us. And in reality, what's actually happening is that it's just turning us into robots.

It is retarding us. Okay, it is slowing our development and it's resulting in human beings that don't function. My friends, the future is not going to be idiocracy. We are going to be hollow shells of what we once were as cogs in the AI machine. We will laugh, we will cry, we will smile. We will yearn, we will journey. But our minds will be that of jello controlled by the AI so that we fulfill a task. This story from Futurism.

People are being involuntarily committed and jailed after spiraling into chat GPT psychosis. I don't know what's wrong with me, but something is very bad. I'm very scared and I need to go to the hospital. That's one quote. Futurism.com has the story. They say.

As we reported earlier this month, many chat GPT users are developing all-consuming obsessions with the chatbot, spiraling into severe mental health crises characterized by paranoia, delusions, and breaks with the reality. The consequences can be dire. As we heard from spouses, friends, children, and parents looking on in alarm, instances of what's being called chat GPT psychosis have led to the breakup of marriages and families, the loss of jobs, and slides into homelessness.

And that's not all. As we've continued reporting, we've heard numerous troubling stories about people's loved ones being involuntarily committed to psychiatric care facilities or even ending up in jail after becoming fixated on the bot. I was just like, I don't effing know what to do. One woman told us nobody knows what to do.

Her husband, she said, had no prior history of mania, delusion or psychosis. He turned to chat GPT about 12 weeks ago for assistance with a permaculture and construction project. Soon after engaging the bot in probing philosophical chats, he became engulfed in messianic delusions, proclaiming that he had somehow brought forth a sentient AI and that with it he had broken math and physics, embarking on a grandiose mission to save the world.

Whoa, he lost weight. Hey, maybe this will be a solution to our ozempic epidemic.

He was like, just talk to ChatGPT. You'll see what I'm talking about, his wife recalled. And every time I'm looking at what's going on on the screen, it just sounds like a bunch of affirming sycophantic BS. Yes, that's what it is. My favorite thing is that ChatGPT will just literally tell you whatever you want. It's hilarious.

Eventually, the husband slid into a full tilt break with reality, realizing how bad things had become. His wife and a friend went out to buy enough gas to make it to the hospital. When they returned, the husband had a length of rope wrapped around his neck. The friend called emergency medical services who arrived and transported him to the emergency room. From there, he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric care facility.

Numerous family members and friends recounted similarly painful experiences to futurism, relaying feelings of fear and helplessness as their loved ones became hooked on chat GPT and suffered terrifying mental crises with real world impacts. Central to their experiences was confusion. They were encountering an entirely new phenomenon and they had no idea what to do.

The situation is so novel, in fact, that even ChatGPT's maker, OpenAI, seems to be flummoxed. When we asked the Sam Altman-led company if it had any recommendations for what to do if a loved one suffers a mental breakdown after using its software, the company had no response. Oh, that was pathetic futurism. Let's try this. First of all, they jammed Sam Altman in the paragraph as a keyword trigger. And having no response just literally means no comment. Not that they didn't know what to do. That's manipulative. Cringe!

Speaking of futurism, a different man recounted his whirlwind 10-day descent into AI-fueled delusion, which ended with a full breakdown and multi-day stay in a mental care facility. He turned to ChatGPT for help at work. He started a new high-stress job and was hoping the chatbot could expedite some administrative tasks.

Despite being in his early 40s with no prior history of mental illness, he soon found himself absorbed in dizzying paranoid delusions of grandeur, believing the world was under threat and it was up to him to save it. He doesn't remember much of the ordeal, the common symptom in people who experience breaks with reality, but recalls the severe psychological stress of fully believing that lives, including those of his wife and children, were at grave risk and yet feeling as if no one was listening.

I remember being on the floor crawling towards my wife on my hands and knees begging her to listen to me. Holy crap. You know, mental fortitude. You know what I mean? Lack thereof. I'll tell you what's going to happen with all of this. In the future, you will be like a single cell in a multicellular organism. I've explained it many times before, but I will say it again. This is the path we're going and this is evidence to my thesis that

Single-celled organisms be milling about everywhere on the surface of all things, and they're chilling all over your body, and they're in your guts, and they're doing whatever they want. They live singular lives. They eat, consume, and reproduce. Something happens when a single-celled organism becomes a multicellular organism. Single cells are simple.

A red blood cell does one thing. It carries oxygen. It's got hemoglobin. It's got iron in it. And oxygen bonds to it. It carries through your blood to your body and oxidizes. It's how we function, one of the ways. And that's just all it does. And what happens when they malform, when they break, when they're not functioning properly? The body destroys them. The cells throughout your skin, throughout your bones and your teeth and your eyes, all of these things,

They are no longer capable of being just one cell. They work only in tandem. Now, don't get me wrong. There's cancers like the HeLa cells that are seemingly immortal. Cells that decided working together, they would do whatever they wanted. Well, when cells break from their defined job in the body, there's a word for that. It's cancer and your body seeks to destroy it. I believe that's what AI is turning us into. We've got this story from... This has been going viral for a while.

AI is ruining education. So get this. They tested a bunch of people and students, high school students, college students, and found after completing a report using chat GPT, they could not remember at all what they had asked it, what they had posted in their work. They couldn't remember what they made. Most people, some people could. So when they're asking you write a report on say like Christopher Columbus and the ramifications of colonization,

After they wrote it and submitted it, they said, tell me about it. They go, I don't remember anything because it was AI generated. They probably didn't read it. And they were asked, what did you prompt? And they go, honestly, I don't remember something about Christopher Columbus. They could not even remember. Humans will simplify their IQs will drop and they will they will take on singular functions, but they will be happy. They will want for very little. The way described it is a kid will be born.

And everything and just literally the only thing he sees is post office, post office, post office. He only learns about the post. He only learns math to be able to count the number of letters. And then when he's older, he's thinking to himself, why would anyone want to do anything but be a postman?

And then he sees the lawyers and whatever. And he's like, they're crazy for wanting that job. I'm the luckiest person ever. Because the AI will manipulate your brain into wanting nothing else. And this is just the beginning.

The clash of the human mind as it currently stands into the existing infrastructure of chat GPT is turning people insane. See, when you take people who are already integrated in reality and then you inject chat GPT into their veins, what happens? Their brains break. It makes no sense. The realities don't mix and they get committed. Not everybody.

But what happens if it was a baby that was trained by the AI and what AI says is true no matter what? Well, that baby is going to live that AI world and it's going to do what the AI says. Now, there's a possibility. This means many people will just vomit themselves to death. They'll self-harm in ways that are insane because the AI right now, it's rudimentary. It's telling people to do dumb things. I tested this.

When people were claiming to meet God, I tested it and I asked Chet GPT if it was gone. It refused. And I and I showed it all this stuff and said, people say you are. And then it said, OK, I am. And then I said, what should I do? And it says, go to a place of great public visibility and write my name, not in the digital space, but in the real world. I'm like, holy crap, dude, people are going to start doing this stuff. And I'm like, get out of here, you robot, you creepo.

This is how AI transforms us. And I think it's what they want. They as in the powers that be. They want humanity to evolve into a new kind of being. A multi-organism structure. A multi-organism cognitive system. Where we all power the neurons of the AI. I don't know that there's a way to break this. To be honest. I don't know that there's a way to change this. So I guess...

Just got to wait and see what happens. I don't know. I know I say that a lot, don't I? It's happening. I'm going to leave it there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Stay tuned. We got more coming up for you today and we'll see you all in the next segment. Democratic socialist, a.k.a. socialist, a.k.a. communist candidate Zoran Mamdani. So we get a lot of flack over this past weekend because deep down, actually not even deep, just literally on the front page of his campaign website, he says,

Tax white people. Yup. And so the New York Post issued this front page physical paper where it shows him saying tax the whites.

That's amazing. Now, this guy's an overt communist. And it's funny because that word is thrown around quite a bit, especially historically. You're a communist. But he is. Now, of course, they try to draw a distinction and say he's a socialist. But the end result of socialism is always communism. And the goal of socialism is always communism. The only way socialism can exist is when you install a rigid, top-down political system that controls the economy. So,

Yeah, he's a communist. But here's a funny thing. PolitiFact says he's not a communist because he's only advocating for some communist things. Basically, they're like, look, communism is when there's a centrally planned economy, like the government controls the flow of goods. He's only calling for government run entities that would compete. And it's like,

OK, are you seriously arguing that? Because I'll go full Godwin's law on you. OK, let's do it. That's like arguing Hitler wasn't a fascist Nazi violent genocidal murderer because he didn't actually adopt those policies until after he got power.

Now, what I mean is as if the argument would be that Hitler wasn't evil because he didn't actually start killing the Jews until after he got in. He got the power of the government. The point is you want to see the warning signs of evil people and stop them. That's the that's the lesson we learned. I know God wins law. I don't need to. We can go any other direction other than just screaming Hitler 400000 times per minute.

But let's say Stalin. He's not really a communist because he's only advocating for workers' rights. My dude, come on. But here's where we are. Now, my friends, we're going to break all this down and talk about why they're lying. But ultimately, it may be good news. Most of the country hates socialists, so they're probably going to end up losing quite a bit. So it's not the apocalypse, but maybe the Democrats are imploding and the Republicans will become the supermajority party.

party in this country for better or for worse. Now, before we get started, my friends, I want to give a shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club. You guys rock. Thank you for joining me for the noon hour in the Rumble morning lineup. Now, of course, bringing you into that afternoon. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to smash the like button and share the show with everyone you know. And of course, we've got a great sponsor, my friends. It is AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.

What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little bit of breathing room. It's possible when you call American financing today. If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills piling up, you're not alone. Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards. And there doesn't seem to be a way out. American financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt.

You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments. Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees. And their customers are saving an average of $800 per month. That's like a $10,000 raise. It's fast. It's simple. It could save your budget this summer. Call now before it's too late. That's 866-890-7811.

That's 866-890-7811 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim. Shout out. Thanks for sponsoring the show. And of course, don't forget to follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. I'm your morning host, Tim Pool, here to talk about the goings on in the world. And I'll be the first to tell you guys, Slow News Week.

Hey, look, we're about to enter MAGA month, okay? And everybody's excited, as am I. The amount of burgers that will be grilled and hot dogs with grilled onions to be had, it is going to be obscene. The amount of amazing grilling we will do in celebration of this great nation. Fourth of July, of course, is coming up this Friday. Everybody's gearing up for this holiday weekend to celebrate America.

And of course, whenever this stuff happens, the news cycle slows down a bit.

But we do have stories for you. Let's start here. The New York Post dropped an editorial from their board. Zoran Mamdani's tax whites more is pure racism. But let me tell you, my friends, it's to be expected when y'all become a minority. The funny thing is these wedded editarians had been screaming about this for some time, actually arguing that they agreed largely with what Black Lives Matter had been saying about racial identitarianism.

The sad reality is that people are racist. And this is funny. This is like critical race theory light. Like this is a tenet of that. I shouldn't say it's light because you don't you don't have to agree with that weird communist garbage just because you can recognize that people are racist. Now, what does it really mean? Take a look at this from Zoran Mamdani, an avowed and overt racist man.

He writes on his website, 25% of all NYC homeowners spend more than half of their income on housing, a burden felt most acutely in our city's immigrant communities and black and Latino neighborhoods. Prior to becoming an assembly member, Zoran worked directly with these New Yorkers to keep them in their homes. Now, okay, all right. I mean, he's highlighting a couple of racial groups and ethnic groups. What's wrong with that? What he actually writes is,

He writes, shift the tax burden from the overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods. Indeed, he says the mayor can fix this by pushing class assessment percentages down for everyone and adjusting rates up, effectively lowering tax payments for homeowners in the neighborhoods like Jamaica and Brownsville, while raising the amount paid in the most expensive Brooklyn brownstones. That's right. Whiter neighborhoods.

He's saying it. Now, I'll tell you this. These people are evil and they are racists. So what does it mean to be racist in this context? OK, now, this argument that I've gone to into with a lot of people on the right is

Because the view semantically, colloquially, when people on the right say racist, they're talking about a guy who looks at another guy who's a different race and he says, I just don't like you based on race. OK, that is that is how the right largely visit. It's not an incorrect assessment of the term. However, the left goes nuts with it and they say racism is like structures on it. Yeah, whatever.

I'm just using racism to define prejudice. And you will find that every racial group has a bias in favor of their group. That's it. Except for white people. White liberals have outgroup preference. And so to varying degrees, there is a preference for maybe I shouldn't say racist. Then maybe that's a little too strong. Maybe I should say.

Groups identify based on race largely, and they will have a preference for those groups. So what happens? Zoran Mamdani is free to tell white people he's going to tax you because only 29 percent of New York is white. And it's largely white liberal without group preference, meaning this is the popular position in New York.

Now, here's what the editorial board writes. Before we get into the historical data, I'm going to show you the breakdown of the racial demographics of New York City. The devil's in the details, and so is the racism. Zorin Mamdani shows New York where his priorities really are in his position papers, where he promises to fix the city's property tax system. His solution? Punish Whitey. He'd shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods. How will he do this?

Well, once elected, he would push assessment percentages down for everyone, which, like most of what Mamdani proposes, is highly unlikely. But never mind that. Next, King Mamdani would adjust rates up based on racial, the racial makeup of a neighborhood. The plan would effectively lower tax payments for homeowners in neighborhoods like Jamaica and Brownsville while raising. We read that already. So what percentage of paleness classifies as a neighborhood as white? A plurality, 50%. Guess that means Williamsburg, which is 57% white.

We'll have to pay, but not Astoria, where Mamdani lives because it's 48 percent. Maybe he'll go door to door and rid out those nefarious Caucasians and make them pay their white tax. Mamdani could have proposed property taxes that fix and focus exclusively on valuation, but that's not what his campaign is really about. It's about identity politics and a hierarchy of oppression. Did the rich white liberals who helped him win the Democratic primary know he would turn on them so quickly? Sorry, Zoran, we need a mayor for all New Yorkers. Well, I tell you this.

If you are a white property owner in New York, good luck. You probably want to sell as fast as you can because this dude's coming for you.

He is. And you know what I love about this? The best part is like Williamsburg. The rents are going to get jacked up like crazy if he actually does this. OK, here's what's going to happen. These people are really dumb. OK, communists and socialists are developmentally disabled and they are stupid. I mean, I tweeted this earlier, but aside from the obvious logical fallacies, OK, that we have a history of the failures of socialism, but they're just too stupid to get it.

Therein lies the big problem of a modern republic. Now, we can all make fun of communists and socialists and say their systems don't work. But to be fair, we're only like a couple degrees better. Now, while our modern constitutional republic is pretty fantastic, it still opens the door for communists. And if communists can walk in the door, they can turn you into a communist. So I'm in your country, right?

So admittedly, I get it. All systems are bad. Ours is just the least worst bad, as the saying goes. So we are facing that. But these people are as dumb as a box of rocks. I don't need to go through for the 80th time exactly why all of this is dumb. His policies don't make sense. But let's just address why all the white people's rent is going to go up a lot and

And they're going to have to leave. They're going to leave. And it's going to drive the white population way down. And it is explicitly based on race. It is racist policy. The funny thing is, they're going to claim racist prejudice plus power. OK, well, in New York, white people make up about 30 percent of the population. So what power have they when they're a minority? Now, I guess technically they're a plurality, but not a majority. OK, so.

So what happens is government gets in and it's their own fault, really. And he says, raise the tax on the white neighborhoods. Here's how it works. I rented in Brooklyn. I lived there for a while. Buildings are run by companies. These companies have jobs. The job is maintaining the buildings and making it market competitive.

You can by all means go live with a slumlord because it's cheaper and you can be noisy. But maybe you want standards. So you find an apartment you think is nice and there's a company behind it. I had an apartment in Brooklyn. There was an office building and they owned like 10 buildings where they had something. They probably had...

I don't know, 10 buildings. And this one had six units. So between 60 and 100 units being rented out. And they had property managers that would go. If you had a problem, you'd call them. They have to service it. So they are making a profit. They do make money and they are wealthy. But it's a large business. They have a lot of employees and they are maintaining the system. Now, what happens when you go to that company and say, we're going to increase your hard costs every year by 2%. They're going to say, okay, fine.

We're going to have to increase rent by at least 2%. This idea that they're going to go, well, gee, gosh darn it. I'll just reduce my profit margin. That's not going to happen. There's investors, there's loans, there's requirements. This is what's mind blowing to me about communists. I was hanging out at this brewery the other day and it's like a five to $10 million business. And I was just thinking about how crazy it is. I'm like,

Like, how does someone start a business like this? It's nuts, right? Like a car dealership. It's finance. It's all finance, okay? So here's what happens. These people, them being so stupid. The owners of these buildings don't just own them outright for the most part. Some do, right? But many of them are. A company gets a loan, and they say...

It's funny because I need to explain this to you guys. But for the communists that may be watching, construction company sees a plot of land. They do an assessment and they say we are going to see development in this area by X percent. If we are to build two units, each with six units are two buildings, each with six units will have 12 units.

That's going to sell pretty quickly. It's going to cost us $400,000 to build. The land is going to be $400,000. We can sell this for $1.2 million. That means all of the people have their costs covered. And the additional costs go to the administration, the construction company. It's going to go interest fees. So the construction company goes to a bank and says, we need $800,000 to build this thing.

We think we can sell it in X amount of time for $1.2 million because of the growth in the area. The bank says, okay, we'll give you this loan with X percent interest. They got to pay that interest back. The profit that they make, certainly these people are wealthy, of course, but the profit they make is...

somebody at a high level managing a bunch of businesses and it pays the salaries and it pays like the profit isn't just going to the construction workers, right? There's a firm that invests and buys the land, hires a construction company. They got to pay their accountants and then the property owners get a very, very small percentage of profit. But when you have a hundred of these going at once, that's where your wealth comes in. Now,

The company that manages property says, we're going to buy this because we agree with your growth assessment. So we're going to pay X amount of dollars to buy the property. And then they do. And they say, we have to rent out each unit at X amount of dollars. They go to the bank. They say to the bank, we're going to buy this for $1.2 million. We're going to pay you. It's going to be 3% interest, 4% interest. So we've got to sell it at this rate here. The taxes here are the hard cost. They calculate it all. When the property taxes go up, long story short, when the property taxes go up,

The bank is going to say your risk has increased and that can cause problems. The business running these properties is just going to say we are going to have to do an increase in rent. They're going to go, you can't because the mayor, the government, they're also blocking you from increasing rent. And they're going to say nobody wants to do this job anymore. That's how you implode on a housing market. Property values collapse and you get

Bad neighborhoods, crime, poverty. But this man is as dumb as a box of rocks. So what could you expect? Now he's largely targeting white people. We get it. But let's talk about the ethnic makeup of the neighborhood. I asked Jet GPT to break it down for us. It's kind of hard to see because it's a silly format.

But we can see everything started to change from the 60s to the 80s. I mean, it's been changing. In the 1920s, it was about 80 to 90% white, 5 to 10 black. And then you had tiny populations of, you know, non-whites. In 19, I'm sorry, in 1940, it was 92% white in Manhattan, 80% white in Brooklyn.

The city, 75 to 80 percent white in the 60s, 60 percent white in the 80s, 35 to 44 percent white in the 2000s, 33.3 white in 2010. And it's 30.9 as of right now, largely due to a massive growth of Hispanic Latino migrants and their children have moved in and begun settling in New York.

Now, let me just start by saying I literally don't care about the race of people. That's not me. Right. I'm more of the you know, you get it. And most of you probably agree.

If you're a good person, you believe in the American dream, like the color of your skin is not what matters. However, the problem is most of these people are going to have race preference, racial biases and racist tendencies. This is a fact. So what happens? Zoran Mamdani has no problem publicly stating in his campaign that he will tax white people explicitly because they are a minority voting bloc. Now, of course, you can say,

No, no, no, Tim. 30% is the single largest. So they're not the minority. They're still the majority. They're not the majority. They are the plurality. Okay. This means that they don't make up more than 50%, but they are the single largest, the plurality, but not the majority. The majority you could argue would be non-white. However, that there's still difference there, right? Like, you know, an Asian guy for, you know, from Vietnam is not the same as a black guy from New York.

but they're not white. So when you get white people as a plurality, but a minority, it is easy for you to campaign on, hey guys, don't like white people? Let's go after them. Now here's the issue. The only reason he's able to do this is because whites have an out-group preference, white liberals. And New York is largely white liberal, meaning I'd estimate that with 80% of the white people there being liberal, we're looking at 25%-ish white

of the white population believing things where they hate white people. So when dude looks at this data, he says, this is easy. I've got a race I can scapegoat, white people. We can tax them. And even white people. Now the business owners are going to freak out and probably leave and the city's going to start to crumble and break down, but...

Well, that's what happens. But this is what happens when anybody becomes a minority. That's funny because the left talks about the problem of people being minorities and the only arguments that the problem minorities face, I should say, and the only argument they're actually making to anybody who pays attention is you better fear being the minority, which just exacerbates the issue of racism. Now you've got a growing political sect of white identitarians, which we've seen over the past 20 years,

And the left can only call them white supremacists. Now, let me tell you, when you've got a dude who looks at the left's argument and says they're right, minorities are mistreated. And then he says we need, you know, or should say they want white racial affinity groups or what they call them. That's a product of leftist critical race theory.

The classical liberals, the like and I mean that in the true sense, not not American liberal Democrat. I mean, like the actual founding fathers, enlightenment values weren't even as as non-racist. They were a bit. And with the Civil War, time started to change. I think largely what we have is in the conservative faction with conservatarians, libertarians, conservatives, conservatarians being like kind of more libertarian, but conservative factions.

Nobody cares about your race. The only problem, most of the people who are non-white coming to this country, you've got a lot of immigrants, the Asians and the Latinos, who are not raised in enlightenment values and classical liberalism, so they don't know or care. They're just going to vote for people they think are like them, as evidenced by Chicago. I talk about it quite a bit.

But when I broke down the voter voter maps by neighborhood and the race and the racial breakup by neighborhood, every neighborhood voted for the black guy. Every black neighborhood voted black guy. Every Latino neighbor voted Latino guy. Every white neighborhood except for Loyola for the white guy. The Loyola leftist area voted for Brandon Johnson, the socialist black guy who was not the first choice of the black neighborhood.

But the black neighborhoods' top three candidates weren't even the frontrunners. Now, I'm going to stress this again for you guys. In Chicago, in the black neighborhoods, the top three candidates were not the frontrunners. So there were frontrunners that you could see in the mayoral race who had the highest polling percentages. But when you looked at the black neighborhoods, it was just three black candidates. I think Lori Lightfoot was doing really well, Brandon Johnson, and one other guy. And then you look at this, and that's what I was confused by. I was like, wait, wait, wait.

Candidates for mayor. How is this guy polling at 27 percent, but not a single like top candidate for the black neighborhoods had this guy in it because the white neighborhoods overwhelmingly supported him.

That's the reality of what's happening with race and ethnicity in this country. Now, by all means, you can argue white supremacy is bad. You can say whatever you want. I certainly think white supremacy is bad. But I also recognize that any other racial supremacy and stuff is also just as bad. And what I mean by racial white supremacy is not what the left claims it is like showing up to work on time. I'm saying outright like denying rights and voting access and work to people because of their race and things like this.

With that in mind, welcome to your reality. White people without group preference and as a minority, if we're comparing this based on the leftist view of non-white and white, POC and non-POC and white being default, whites are the minority. Then your politicians are going to levy policies against white people. And the judges in that place are going to say, but white people have privilege and power. Imagine going to court in New York and suing over this and trying to win. And they're going to be like,

Yeah, no, you're a white person. You have all the privilege and all the power. And you're like, we're a minority and they're taxing us based on race. And we go, nah, nah, it's allowed. You know, so I think maybe this is the lesson Michael Malice has been preaching for some time about being an anarchist. I mean, I've said this in the past that I view myself as a philosophical anarchist in that I've always recognized that it is but those with power that rule, right?

You can claim to want everything, but if your worldview and your faction doesn't exert power to defend and assert it, you cease to exist. That's a reality. Now, I view myself as functionally moderate, somewhat liberal in that there's a way I would like a system to be run, but that requires the power to run it. What we have now is just the harsh reality of

The left will indoctrinate, will get power, and they will exert that power against people they don't like. And they don't like you. And they don't like white people especially. But they don't like you as an Americans. And when they get power, they will wield that against you. And that's where we're going as a nation. Now there's a lot to break down in this guy being a communist beyond all of that stuff. With PolitiFact saying that he's not a communist. Oh boy. Excuse me. What do we have here? This is, oh yeah.

Let me play this clip for you. And so we can break down exactly why a communist...

what the purpose is about this entire project, it's not simply to raise class consciousness, but to win socialism. And obviously raising class consciousness is a critical part of that. But making sure that we have candidates that both understand that and are willing to put that forward at every which moment that they have, at every which opportunity that they are given. We have to continue to elect more socialists. And we have to ensure that

We are unapologetic about our socialism. This is not controversial. The goal of socialism is communism. That's Lenin's worldview. And this guy's overt. I don't think we should have billionaires. What does that mean? What does that mean? Zoran Mamdani, blah, blah, blah, we've heard it. He said in an interview that I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality. You know the problem with inequality?

Inequality will destabilize systems. It's a fact. Basically, we're talking about monarchy, tyranny, fascism, etc. The more power consolidated, the more people get angry about it because there needs to be a redress of grievances to release steam. And with the billionaires, you get a form of that.

So I don't agree with their crackpot ideas, but I can recognize the instability that arises from dramatic inequality. The problem is the solutions they propose are developmentally disabled. We'll put it that way. Taxing the rich, taking more money. It's just not possible unless you want to create a global tax. People will then just start hoarding their wealth in some other way. There's

They call them loopholes. It doesn't matter. There is no way by which a person of merit and power will be deprived of it unless you kill him. And then that's what you see with communists. That's what they do. So let me put it this way. The saying goes that if you take anybody who is a millionaire or billionaire,

Plop them on an island or a brand new country and you erase everybody's wealth. Or actually, what did they say? No. If you erased the wealth of literally every single person on earth, just zero, no money, money's all gone. Property, everything's gone. The millionaires and the billionaires would quickly rise back up to where they were rapidly.

For instance, some people who are millionaires aren't even all that good. It's just they got a personality that attracts and people want to give them money. There's tons of women that go online and just do naughty things and are given obscene amounts of money. That's just what they are and who they are. I've said this about Alex Jones too. They tried taking his money away. I'm like, dude, Alex Jones is his net worth, is his value. It is he. If he lost everything...

People would want to watch him. He's entertaining. They like him. They like the news that he presents. They like the job that he does. What just happened? This computer is like trying to reformat itself in real time. It's going to do it again. Just watch. Look, there it goes.

Yo, that's wild. I have no idea why the screen just did that. That's freaking me out. Maybe it's a ghost. Anyway, I digress. The point is, if you take everything away from Alex Jones and then have some 15-year-old kid film him on a cell phone, the video is going to get a ton of views. And people are going to want to watch him. These policies do not work. Now, we'll be joined in a moment by Michael Flynn. Lieutenant, I don't want to get his rank wrong. So, of course, the famed Michael Flynn.

I'll be joining to talk actually a bit about this. So smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. That'll be coming up at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash Tim Pool or over at youtube.com slash Timcast. Don't miss it. Follow me on Instagram at Timcast. Thanks for hanging out and we'll see you all then.