YouTube Transcript:
Tim Pool repeatedly DESTROYS Konstantin Kisin in intense debate ___THIS WAS BRUTAL!
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
View:
This is why I refer to the left largely
as a cult. You say the left is a cult. I
can do the same thing with the right.
They're completely insane. Look at these
nutags on Twitter. You'd be wrong.
Really? Yeah. RFK Jr., former liberal.
Tulsi Gabbard, former liberal. Donald
Trump, former liberal. Elon Musk, former
liberal. Colin Wright, former liberal.
Tim P, former liberal. How is it that
the popular vote winner, Donald Trump,
was a Democrat up until his first term?
Now the Republican MAGA movement, not
the neocons, is an eclectic bunch of
diverse views which debate each other.
Believe that your your country is
conquered and it's because of your your
moral philosophies and ideologies.
You've got a lot a large influx of
non-citizens with psychotic violent
beliefs that are chopping people's heads
off in the street and you do nothing
about it. And in fact, your your
government largely protects, supports,
and votes for it. In New York,
non-citizens are given luxury hotels and
PlayStations. This is a betrayal of the
American people. All Donald Trump has
done so far is what the Constitution
allows. In times of war, a wartime
president makes difficult decisions
which are outside what our principles
purport to be. But we're not in the time
of war. And it's also as well, Tim. No,
we're not. Tim, can I just make a point?
And and this is What's going on
everybody? Welcome back to the channel.
Hope all is good wherever you are. In
this video, we're going to take a look
at one of the latest trigger nomometry
podcasts where this got really heated.
They had Tim P on there and they debated
towards the later end of the podcast. Is
Donald Trump a wartime president? And
Tim Pushed it here in my humble opinion.
But before we get to that, I want to get
to a small clip of where he talks about
the left being a cult and how he
justifies it because the trigonometry
guys don't agree with him and he schools
them here. Let's get to that first. Now
they live in a world of fear and hatred.
Pure hatred. And you ask them why do you
hate Teslas so much. Two years ago you
told us we had to own one. Now you're
firebombing them and cheering for it on
TV. There's no logic behind what they're
angry about. This is why I refer to the
left largely as a cult. You have the
people who are scared to defy it because
they live in these areas and they know
someone will shoot at them or smash
their cars or their windows. So, they
put stickers on their cars. They put
signs on their windows, please don't
hurt me. And then you have people who
just without thought will hate what
they're told to hate and not be able to
explain to you why. But you say the left
is a cult. Oh, yeah. It's not the whole
of the left. Let's be fair, Tim. That is
a very pull percentage of people. I can
do the same thing with the right and I
can say, "Look, the right, they're
completely insane. Look at these nutbags
on Twitter." Get me wrong. Really? Yeah.
RFK Jr., former liberal. Tulsi Gabbard,
former liberal. Donald Trump, former
liberal. Elon Musk, former liberal.
Colin Wright, former liberal. Tim P,
former liberal. How is it that the
popular vote winner, Donald Trump, was a
Democrat up until his first term, that
Tulsi Gabber, DNI, former Democrat, that
I supported in 2020. I never voted
Republican. And I didn't like
Republicans. And now the Republican MAGA
movement, not the neocons, is an
eclectic bunch of diverse views which
debate each other. How is it that
Charlie Kirk, Christian conservative
with one of the largest conservative
platforms, invites moderate pro-choice
Tim onto his stage for his biggest event
of the year to discuss those views to
the public? On the left, what do you
think would happen if you went and
opposed their views at a public forum?
You'd be threatened with violence. And
I'm and I'm not saying literally
everyone all the time, but booking
liberals to come on my show or any other
show, we people in we have the same
problem. They refuse to do it. They
don't want to talk. Back in uh I think
it was 2018, but and by the way, we
should say why as well. They're scared
of their own side. It's a cult. So, so I
can sit in front of a libertarian like
Dave Smith who is going to rant about
how Israel is bad and Charlie Kirk at
the same time and we leave with beers in
our hands, smiles on our faces and and
Dave will say, "Charlie, I really do
appreciate it. I think you do good work.
I know we disagree." The left doesn't do
that. They firebomb your buildings or
they just don't show up or they try to
get you fired. They swat you. They
harass you. It The reason I say it's a
cult is because you could not define
what they believe. It's impossible.
Hassan famously made a video
responding to me where he said I said
the military-industrial complex is a bad
thing. The US imperialism imposing its
will through financing. He pauses the
video and he says he's completely right
on this one. I agreed. And then I said
this is why I don't think Ukraine is a
special case. Why the US has given
Ukraine more money than Israel in 2
years than Israel got in 50. And then
Hassan breaks and goes this guy actually
thinks we shouldn't support Ukraine. Now
be consistent, buddy. Are you concerned
about US imperial expansion into foreign
countries or do or are you simply
pretending that's the case? You could
not map the logic of their principles or
plan for this country is about feelings.
Yeah, it's I I think it it it is. But if
you break it down, it's largely about
adhering to the murmmoration. The left
swings around randomly in random
directions. Nobody knows exactly where
they're turning left or right or up or
down. They're just trying to make sure
they stay safely in a position where
someone else won't bludgeon them with a
bike lock. So Tesla's a great example.
Two years ago, Steven Colbear bragged on
his show he owns a Tesla. Today he's
making jokes about how it's funny that
people are firebombing them. Well, that
don't make sense. You've got you've got
innocent people. Yeah, but again, you
could play this game both ways. You
could say all these people used to say
Trump is loose cannon and is a crazy and
whatever. Now they're all in his White
House. Some of them, but uh but I always
I always point to tendencies. There is a
there is a cult on the right that Trump
can do no wrong. And I've criticized
these people very heavily. They attacked
Joe Rogan. And I'm like, "Are you guys
nuts?" Joe Rogan's a moderate who speaks
to many different people of all
persuasions. Let him cook, bro. And they
attacked me for it. I said, "I don't I
don't give a shit." I was like, "You
guys are nuts." While while vocal, they
don't dictate. They don't control.
That's true. That is true. On the left,
you better adhere or else. So I would
say let's just let's just try and be
as fair I suppose and say it's two to
one cult on the left and two to one not
cult on the right. Maybe 30% of the
right is culty. 60% of the left is
culty. So the even the culty elements of
the right will be forced to entertain
arguments they do not appreciate or
like. The left does not. And more
importantly, even those who are rather
culty on the right will still try to
give you a a reason as to why they
support Trump. The reason why they've
changed their views. Oh, Donald Trump is
doing something authoritarian. Well, you
know, because of this, that, or
otherwise, I've changed my mind. Yeah, I
thought he nailed it here. Now, I'm
going to start playing the clip where
they talk about Donald Trump being a
wartime president, and I'm going to stop
it here and there and give you my
thoughts in between. Let's go. on the
left in times of war a wartime president
makes difficult decisions which are
outside what our principles purport to
be but we're not in the time of war and
it's also as well Tim no we're not Tim
can I just make a point and and this is
war right okay we'll come to that in a
second when you take when the government
takes away rights it is very difficult
if not almost impossible for you to get
them back can we just agree that yes so
you are willing to give up rights
in this society for the government to
then come in and then enact against the
enemies. When have humans ever not done
that? Give me one example. One in in
civilized society. True. In World War
II, the United States implemented the US
Office of Censorship and banned people
from It's interesting that you say this
because all anti- Ukraine people in
America keep calling Zilinsky a dictator
for having martial law which is in line
with the Ukrainian constitution and not
having an election like the UK did. He
declared it and the Constitution says
that he can declare it and Congress can
uphold it. There's an argument that it
can be he can overturn it. Well, but my
point is but I but I agree in a time of
war presidents do crazy things. But but
you are stretching the definition of war
way beyond its remit. No, I'm not. It's
called fifth and sixth generational
warfare. So we have techn technological
advances in conflict and they alter how
we perceive what war is. If you go back
to the earliest days, what is the
purpose of a conflict? Why do wars
happen? Sometimes they're silly. You
don't believe in the same god as me, so
you must be destroyed. I mean, these are
largely silly, but they have to do with
cultural cohesion. So they come from
somewhere from an evolutionary
psychological perspective. But uh
typically it's resource conflict.
Resource is the principal driver. I do
think it's absolutely hilarious that the
East India Trading Company engaged in
warfare that resulted in the death of
50,000 people because black pepperc corn
was a delicacy was a luxury in in in uh
in Europe in the UK. But uh typically
it's I don't have enough food or water
and I will take it and my people will
not die. I I don't care how I have to
get it. And it's the same thing you see
at the root level with a man who uh
steals bread because his family is
hungry or whatever. We still frown upon
it. So the generations of warfare uh
they evolve. We see the advents of new
technologies and new methodologies in
warfare all the time. If the purpose of
warfare is to secure control of a
population so you can control its
resources a tendency for that reason
sometimes it's you know my god is better
than your god and your people must
adhere to my worldview and my beliefs.
So in the United States we are going
through uh and this is not my opinion
this is academics who have assessed what
warfare is. You get to fourth and fifth
generational warfare and now sixth um
which people are going to argue it as we
we form these ideas in academia six may
change but fourth and fifth have to do
with online uh political manipulations
manipulations of influence technologies
and use of insurgency. Today it's fair
to say that uh we are in a kinetic
conflict. Civil strife began several
years ago in the United States. Civil
strife is not civil war, but there are
many people dying. The one of the
easiest examples of course is Aaron
Danielson took two bolts to the chest
from a far-left Michael Rhinol with a
communist tattoo on his neck for no
reason. And now we have the swatting
swattings of conservatives and the
firebombings of Tesla facilities for the
specific goal of destroying a company
for political reasons for which now
Tesla stock has gone down partially.
It's not the only reason. And we've seen
Tesla evicted from the Vancouver Auto
Show out of fear of terror attacks. This
is war. Now, it may not be fullblown hot
kinetic conflict, but when you have the
arrest of Donald Trump's lawyers, we are
dealing with administrative warfare,
which is a degree of administrative
conflict, which we don't see in in in
previous times based on communications
technologies. If you go back several
hundred years, how do I secure control
of a population? I occupy their street
corners with weapons, and my weapons are
better than yours. You've got clubs.
I've got pointy sticks with metal on
them. Eventually, we have air strikes,
air raids, howitzers, nuclear artillery,
and machine guns. I send my guys into
your country. They stand in the street
corner. You do as you're told. The
people are mad about it. They might
fight back. Today, it's actually really
easy. I will flood your community with
information that terrifies you as to
what is true and what is not. So, you
are occupied. Notably, we saw the use of
sock puppets in the Arab Spring, largely
in Libya, where uh based on a report
from Project PM, the United States Air
Force was purchasing from private
security contractors sock puppet social
media accounts. One individual would
operate 50 fake social media accounts to
create the public perception that the
overthrowing of Gaddafi was the right
thing to do. The Americans then
supported air strikes and the collapse
of the Libyan government, which I think
is largely a horrifying thing. Not that
I much care for Libya, but now you have
the North African slave trade reigniting
and militias blowing each other up. Why
did Americans support it? Because fourth
generational, fifth generational warfare
was waged on the American people to make
them feel like they were under
occupation figuratively, but in a sense
literally as well. Why put a man on a
street corner with a machine gun when
you can simply inundate them with fake
accounts to convince them you must do
this or else? So what we end up with is
the era of cancel culture and those
bending the knee quite literally to an
ideology. Did most people agree with
intersectional feminism and woke
ideology? Of course not. It's a
minority. Why did so many people let it
happen? Because they feared that there
was some group that would come after
them and destroy them. They feared that
they were under occupation. That the
institutions are controlled. I will lose
my job. I will lose my livelihood. My
bank will will freeze my accounts. My
social media will remove me from
society. I have no choice but to live
this way even though I don't like it.
That is war. But it's changed. And they
want you to believe that you're not
fighting a war. But as the faction of
bureaucrats and powerful elites who have
been running these companies have been
engaging in this war, they've become
increasingly more desperate as we those
of us who believe in more enlightenment
principles and have opposed this have
started to break through and shift
dramatically to the point where Donald
Trump actually was able to win. Now we
have desperation and desperation begins
more hot conflict. This is why I believe
we may be on the back end of this
conflict. We may be coming off of it.
But the idea that to go back to, you
know, a wartime action from a president,
I'd put it this way. What does that mean
in today's context? Am I arguing that
Donald Trump should go round people up
without charge? Absolutely not. That
should never happen. Trump made it made
a he jokingly said, but probably only
half jokingly, the people who are
firebombing Teslas, maybe they can spend
20 years in in an El Salvador in prison,
which I hear are not so good. Mr.
President, I do not appreciate you
entertaining violating the ETH
amendment. American citizens who commit
crimes go to American jails and they
should be treated with dignity and
respect even if we despise them. So, I
don't appreciate those jokes. And if it
comes to that and he actually tries
sending American citizens to El
Salvador, I will be opposed in every
form that I can and it's going to be
interesting if it gets to that degree.
That being said, what it comes to an
actual wartime president is in Trump is
when Trump issues a legal order,
executive order saying, "We will not
have these people in our military. I'm
the commander-in-chief. He's allowed to
do it." If a judge tries to stop him in
this administrative conflict, Donald
Trump, I believe, is obligated to say,
"I have heard the ruling from the court.
Now try and enforce it." Which is a play
on Andrew Jackson's famous quote when
the Supreme Court ruled against him. in
the conflict we are in
requis this guy wasn't the Supreme Court
the Supreme There's a whole legal
process yet to go through which is part
of the American process now I appreciate
what you're saying but it it just sounds
to me like you're redefining wars to
give yourself more power
Tim's right you have to stop thinking
about war as in we have troops on the
battleground so if for example you look
at first generational warfare that would
be massed armies linear battles
Napoleonic Wars, that type of stuff.
Second generational warfare, heavy
firepower. Think World War I, third
generational warfare. Now you have uh
maneuver warfare emphasizing speed,
emphasizing disruption. Think about like
Blitzkr, World War II. Fourth
generational warfare starts to get a lot
more interesting. This is nonlinear
conflict, leveraging networks and ideas
and a lot of brute force. Force
generational, which you're going to hear
Tim talk about a lot, is a concept that
describes a conflict that kind of blurs
the line between war and politics,
between combatant and civilian. Think
about some of the wars in the Middle
East. This is a term that they started
to use in the mid 80s. William S. Lynn
started to use it describing like
decentralized non-traditional conflicts
where non-state actors meaning like
insurgents and
terrorists challenge state powers using
asymatic tactics. So think about long
time frame conflict that can span years
that can span decades insurgent cells
hackers decentralized actors that type
of stuff. When we start talking about
the more modern warfare, you're going to
hear Tim talk a lot in this podcast
about fifth generation and sixth
generation warfare. Fifth generation
warfare focuses on manipulation of
information and perception. Most of the
time this will target the civilian
population, societal cohesion. It's
about winning without fighting directly.
I'll give you some examples of that. But
now just talking about you can see how
Donald Trump his presidency would fit
into this. Now, sixth generational
warfare, a lot more speculative, often
tied to advanced military technology,
precision strikes, very minimal, if any,
engagement of troops. It's less about
societal manipulation like fifth
generational warfare is, and a lot more
about overwhelming capabilities. Now,
fifth generational warfare, and you hear
him say non-kinetic, that's what that
is. Fifth generational warfare is
characterized as non-kinetic
information-driven operations aimed at
manipulating perception.
And achieving strategic goals without
traditional military engagement involves
tactics like social engineering,
misinformation, cyber attacks,
psychological operations, and the use of
emerging technologies like AI would be a
big one. There's a guy by the name of
Daniel Abbott and he refers to this as
war of information and perception which
is what fifth generational warfare to
him is. So when you make the case that
is Donald Trump a wartime president?
Well, Trump's presidency, particularly
in his second term, aligns with the
demands of fifth and sixth generational
warfare due to his unconventional
leadership for one. And he focuses a lot
on narrative control, economic
strategies, technological investments,
the way he plays tariffs. He wants to
control the Suez Canal, all the channels
for trade.
This is a wartime president. Countering
misinformation, psychological
operations, social media, direct
communications, that type of stuff is
fifth and sixth generational warfare. As
a wartime president, like Tim says,
Trump's ability to shape narratives and
maintain a loyal base in a polarized
information environment like we have
today is exactly why he is that. Look at
the trade war with China. The sanctions
on rogue states. All that stuff is fifth
and sixth generational warfare. What we
have going on in the country right now
that Tim Pool's talking about, this is
happening. And see how I'm quite
disappointed in this interview with the
trigonometry guys to be honest. But
let's get back to it. I just wanted to
tell you a little bit more about fourth,
fifth, sixth generational warfare in
case you weren't familiar with it. Let's
get back to it. which is what every
dictator has always done in history,
which is to say the situation's so bad,
I need extra power. Abraham Lincoln a
dictator. Well, look, yes or no. We are
not in a war situation. Is Abraham
Lincoln a dictator? We are not in a war
situation. Was Abraham Lincoln a
dictator? We are not in a war situation.
I'm I'm okay. You are right. I'll just
say you're right. Okay. Now, is Abraham
Lincoln a dictator? So, look, this
Tim the theoretical examples you give,
it's not a theoretic. It's American
history. fine but it's not related to
the current moment which is what we're
talking about. So in the in the
cont lay out the argument that you made
if I represent it incorrectly you tell
me this the core of your argument that
you're making right is that because we
are in a fourth fifth sixth generational
warfare situation a different set of
rules ought to apply it's a wartime
therefore just like you can apply
martial law just like you can suspend
this or this or that or whatever right
and and the point I'm making to you is
this is the argument that every dictator
in history has made now I don't know
American history as well as you and
maybe uh you the point that you make
about Abraham Lincoln is relevant in
some way but what I'm saying to you is
something completely different which is
we're not in a war let me ask you a
question
uh was Abraham Lincoln a dictator yes or
no I don't know you don't uh if a leader
suspended the right to due process for
all peoples is that is that a
dictatorial move it depends on the
context so like right now if Trump said
I'm suspending the constitutional rights
and due process for far-left terrorists
Uh, look, I'm not a legal scholar. That
see that that seems pretty extreme to
me. Yeah. What if Donald Trump decided
he was going to arrest the Washington
half of the Washington state body
because they were voting in favor of uh
groups that were attacking Tesla
facilities? What does that mean voting
in favor of? So in in let let's say in
their uh uh uh state body someone
proposes a bill that they will not
arrest nor provide any assistance to any
individual any individual in their state
who's caught firebombing Tesla
facilities or other right aligned
institutions. The state will not enforce
the law against them nor will they aid
federal law enforcement. Yeah. I don't
know what the answer to that question is
legally. But my point to you is so so
like this is the problem. If you don't
know and you have no thoughts on the
matter then I don't know what we're
arguing. You can simply say Tim may be
right. I don't know. Uh, no, that's not
what I'm saying. I'm taking the argument
that you're making and interrogating it
as I do with every other guest on the
So, so what I'm saying to you is you've
made the claim that we are in the war in
order to be able to justify suspending
the rules applying equally to everybody.
That's basically what you've done,
right? When I look outside to the
confict, when I look outside, I don't
see a war that justifies that. When you
look outside in a largely liberal
jurisdiction where everyone agrees with
each other, you don't see anything
justifying. We've we've traveled around
the United States plenty and uh I have
never seen anything that justifies
instituting martial law in this country.
Fire bombing of Tesla facilities, the
shooting them up, the murder and killing
of people for political purposes.
So, uh first, uh you are incorrect. I'm
not arguing that, uh the conflict we are
right now warrants anything close to
what Abraham Lincoln did. Okay. Well,
you kept bringing him up. That's why I
made that assumption because I'm trying
to understand what your philosophical
and moral uh view is of a president who
does such things at a time. And and what
I am saying to you is you can't compare
a context of a civil war with I'm asking
you right now. Yeah. Based on the
American Civil War and what was going on
was Abraham Lincoln a dictator for
suspending habius corpus and arresting
politicians which is sidest stepping my
point which is right now I don't think
you can answer the question. I already
did answer the question. You're you're
ignoring the question. I answered the
question by saying you know more about
it than me. Uhhuh. You remember that? So
do you want to say I don't know? I
already said that. So you're not sure.
I've already said that. But what I'm
saying is the example you're bringing up
is not relevant to the current
situation. Should should Donald Trump
invoke the insurrection act and send uh
US Army into California, Oregon, and
Washington to start hunting down and
arresting the terrorist cells that are
organizing these attacks? Uh no. I think
the law enforcement can take care of
that. They're being they're not doing
it. What do you mean they're not doing
it? Well, I mean, we've had uh uh
far-left uh terroristic cells operating
with impunity in many of these
jurisdictions. So, let's take a take a
look at uh uh you know uh the CHAZ chop
for instance. I mean, we know those
people are they're not in jail. Should
Trump go and arrest them? Statute of
limitations not expired on those. I
don't know how the American legal system
works enough to answer that question,
but should those people be arrested?
Absolutely. Okay. If the state law
enforcement refuses to do so, should
Trump invoke the Insurrection Act and go
do it? I don't know enough about the
Insurrection Act. The insurrection act
is when Donald Trump can use National
Guard or Army to enforce I believe
National Guard uh to enforce laws if the
local jurisdictions refuse to do so.
Well, on that definition, it seems like
you should. That's literally the
instruction. Well, if that's if that's
the definition, if the local law
enforcement refuses to enforce the law,
then that sounds right. But see, you
keep throwing out these hypothetical
examples, which I I understand. From my
point of view, what I'm saying to you is
just taking the logic of your argument.
I'm not arguing about these specific
details. You're saying we're in war,
therefore we should suspend the rules
applying. No, I'm not saying that. Well,
that is what you said. I I think you're
misunderstanding what perhaps you're
misunderstanding wartime and you're
you're believing that wartime means men
are on a battlefield shooting at each
other. Okay. But that's exactly what I'm
saying. You're saying wartime means
people are spreading propaganda on
social media. Therefore, if I if whoever
I like is in charge, they've got to be
able to act in a way that currently
isn't compliant with the law. So, and
I'm saying every civilization people
spreading propaganda on social media.
Just I believe that your your country is
conquered and it's because of your your
moral philosophies and ideologies. They
are weak and they allow to be destroyed.
What do you mean by conquered? Yeah.
Well, I mean you've got a lot a large
influx of non-citizens with psychotic
violent beliefs that are chopping
people's heads off in the street. you're
not allowed to talk about it, you know,
without going to jail. You've got gangs
that have been operating for decades. I
look I look at the UK and it's like
you've got a you got a you've got a
political body threatening to to uh
extradite American citizens for us
expressing our opinions on our own
country. You can't have screwdrivers in
public. The things that your country has
done to its citizenry is shockingly
insane to an American. And it's it's
it's absurd that you have such a massive
influx of a disperate ideology coming
into your country and imposing its will
on you and you do nothing about it and
in fact your your government largely
protects supports and votes for it. I
mean that's insane. I hold slow down. So
first of all uh there are lots of us who
don't agree with what's happening and
say so. What are you doing about it? Let
me just answer your question. So there
are lots of us who disagree and uh are
voicing our opinions about it. Uh the I
am as concerned as you are about the
fact that some people are uh visited by
the police. I'm one of the most
outspoken people in the UK about that.
That's not to say that you can't express
disagreement with what's happening and
you will instantly go to prison. um
instantly but uh a lot a lot of people I
mean people at was it speaker corner or
whatever I'm not as familiar with the
name of the location getting arrested
people getting arrested for speech is
something that shouldn't be happening a
woman who is standing outside of an
abortion clinic with her eyes closed
getting arrested what's your point I've
already said that there are lots of us
who disagree what are you doing to stop
that well there is a very large
political movement that's organizing in
exactly the same way that there's a
political movement in this country
against the right how did it get to that
point in your country overreach of the
left uh it got to the point because
there are lots and lots of people who
believe uh a lot of this progressive
ideology in our country. Do do you think
that at a certain point violence will
break out between two different factions
in your country? Well, we've already had
it and I I think it's credible that that
could continue to be the case as these
tensions brew. Absolutely. So, what it
what it means to be a wartime president,
the point I'm making is that Trump used
commeurate actions against those who
engaged the actions against him. Okay.
What what I'm saying is
um Karma in our country during the riots
could do the exact thing that you're
demanding. He could say, "Well, look,
these people are rioting. They're
attacking the police. I need special
powers to put these people in prison for
tweets." That's the logic of your
argument. Every country ever has done
this. And the view that you take is
dictators do this. Abraham Lincoln
wasn't a dictator. Abraham Lincoln was a
president who saw actions that were
sedicious and he he took econ there
there was one man who thought Abraham
Lincoln was addicted. So Karma should be
able to put riers in prison prison for
tweets then on on your logic. Why why
would I agree with your moral worldview?
But you're saying I'm on the I'm on the
other side of that. Oh I see. So if a
right-wing Karma is in power then he's
allowed to put people in prison for
tweets. I didn't say people should go to
prison for tweets ever. No, but I asked
I said wartime
presidency riots that are being promoted
on social media. So wait, you're saying
that if an individual promotes riots on
social media, they should go to jail.
No, that's what you're saying. They
should. Yes. Right. Okay. But only if
the person in charge is rightwing. If
the person in charge is left, right? So
I don't think your government should
arrest people for posting their opinions
on social media. Okay. If a person goes
online and says, "Everyone meet up at
this place. We're going to burn it all
down. Here's the address." you lock them
up. Well, I say that lock them up
irrespective of who's in power and what
their opinions are. Whereas, what do we
disagree on? I think what we're
disagreeing on is you believe that if
the situation's bad enough, a guy that
you agree with politically should come
in and suspend the rules by which we
play the game of Give me any country
ever where that's not been the case. I I
don't understand what your point is.
Name any point in history when an
executive in authority facing an
emergency decided not to engage. Oh, I I
don't disagree with that. What I'm
disagreeing with you is, do you think
that your country survives the conflict?
Tim, you got to let me finish my
argument before you disagree with it.
What I'm saying is you're extending the
definition of war, wartime, and
emergency in order to suit your agenda
is what it sounds like. You are
incorrect. Okay. Why am I incorrect?
Because I've already described fourth
and fifth generational warfare academic
terms that describe a state of conflict
in which a faction of people is trying
to take power from That's what we
disagree about, right? What I see, it's
not an issue of disagreement. I'm giving
you an academic statement as to which
I'm entitled to disagree with. Right.
When I travel around, whether it's
Europe or the UK or America, I don't see
a state of conflict. You're just
disagreeing with the definition. Yes.
Exactly. So, uh, let's using for me it's
the easiest to use the American Civil
War because it's what is attached to our
history. Do you think in 1861 in
September in Atlanta people walked
outside and were fighting each other?
Uh, look, I this this the American Civil
War is clear in expertise for you, which
it isn't for me. I'm talking about what
I see out here. So, let me try and
explain to you what I'm what I'm saying.
Sure. Who are the belligerents in the
American Civil War? Are you familiar?
Tim, did you hear what I just said? This
is why I I'm asking you a question. You
So, what you're doing I'm genuinely
trying to know if you know something so
I can explain it to you. And I just said
it's an air of expertise for you, which
it isn't for me. So, I I I assume most
people know who the belligerents were in
the American Civil War. It was the North
and the South. Yes, you are aware of
that. Yes. Okay. I was not trying to get
you. Okay. I need to know if you know
this because if you don't, I would tell
you it's the North and the South. Okay.
Great. The Confederacy and the Union.
Okay. No one in the Confederacy walked
outside and saw a conflict. No one in
the Union walked outside and saw a
conflict. The front line was Gettysburg.
Now I know a lot of you are not from the
US or so you're probably
not familiar as much with Abraham
Lincoln maybe like the German
trigonometry guys here Abraham Lincoln
operated fully within his constitutional
bounds even in crisis when he suspended
habis corpus he was fully allowed to do
that this is where his critics will
often call him a dictator however the
constitution article 1 section 9 allows
suspension of heba's corpus in case of
rebellions or invasion or in this case a
civil war which was clearly the case and
Lincoln himself justified it in 1861 as
a temporary measure. Keep in mind
temporary to prevent Confederate
sympathizers in border states. An
example of that will be proconfederate
militias who threaten railroads critical
to Washington DC's defense type of
thing. Unlike a dictator, Lincoln sought
judicial and legislative oversight to do
all of these things. He defended his
actions publicly and invited scrutiny.
Lincoln was not a dictator and his
actions they were driven by necessity
and not by ambition for power and they
were constrained by the constitution
constitutional principle and democratic
processes and he had public
accountability. He preserved election.
He didn't attempt to run for more terms
after he bowed out. He tolerated
disscent. He tried to justify every
measure that he took. He sought to
restore normaly and not to perpetuate
power. His leadership during the civil
war, sure was it bold? Absolutely. But
we were in times of war. This was aimed
to save the union and abolish slavery,
not to abolish
autocracy. Compared to what a lot of
people will tell you that he was a
dictator. true dictators who seek to
have permanent control and suppress all
opposition. Lincoln's record reflects a
democratic leader navigating a crisis
with restraint and a commitment to the
nation's founding ideas. There was no
lasting autocracy. If Lincoln were a
dictator, his presidency would have left
a framework for centralized power.
Instead, power reverted back to pre-war
norms after his death. The
reconstruction, while contentious, I
guess you could say, was driven by
Congress, not a Lincoln installed
regime. The Union was preserved. Slavery
was abolished, disaligned with Lincoln
state goals, not personal enrichments or
domination or power. If you're trying to
compare the guys to say Mussolini who
cultivated cults of personality and
demanded loyalty and he was there for
power, Lincoln, if you read up on the
guy, he had self-deprecating humor. He
had an openness to criticism. The guy
was as far from a dictator as possible.
Let's get back to it. Yes, but that
doesn't prove that America is in a civil
war now. There are lots of times when
people walked outside and did I didn't
say we are in a civil war. I said we are
in a fourth and fifth generation of
warfare. You didn't say we're in a civil
war. I said I don't. Yes. So, let's go
back in time. I said I don't know if
what happens now turns into a civil war.
Right. Right. Right. I actually think
it's probably less than 50%. Yes. I
think we may be on the back end of
whatever this conflict is. Okay. Fourth
and fifth generational warfare does not
mean a country is in a state of active
war and wartime presidential powers.
This is why I tried saying several
minutes ago. I don't think you
understand what wartime presidential
powers is reference to. Okay, maybe not.
It is the use of comate force against a
force exerting power at you first. That
is when administrative powers in New
York, Wisconsin, and Georgia begin
arresting Trump's lawyers, which defies
the Constitution and is outside of the
legal code of the United States. Right?
That is
dictatorial. Trump's response cannot be,
"I guess I have to let him happen." It
must be, "I must stop them from doing
this. It is a violation of the
constitution. Right? Okay. If there are
two factions and one is violating the
law, we should stop them. Agreed. What
we are dealing with over the past four
years is forces aligned with what we
would call the Democratic party, the
liberals, whatever you want to say, the
bureaucratic state, the deep state have
violated the constitution in numerous
ways. This is what I refer to as fourth
and fifth and sixth generational
warfare.
It warfare doesn't kinetic conflict.
Okay. So, what So, okay. Now I
understand the argument perhaps we we
were talking across purposes. So what
you're saying is what they've done over
the last four years is unconstitutional
and wrong and therefore it justifies
what Trump using commensurate forces to
stop. What's commensurate forces? The
insurrection act mean and what would
that again Donald Trump can call upon
the National Guard to go into
California, Portland, and Oregon and
arrest Antifa. The states aren't doing
it right. He can have the feds start
doing it which they've done a little
bit. if the states refuse to enforce or
immigration law for instance and I think
immigration law is another point of uh
advanced warfare. Trump should invoke
the insurrection act to utilize the the
the powers he has to the greatest degree
to start enforcing a law that is not
being done locally as he is allowed
under the presidency. If if I were to
say Trump should go arrest a uh an
attorney's uh the attorneys general from
three states, would that be dictatorial?
I don't know enough about it. The
attorneys general of the head of law
enforcement for each state. Yeah, I
know. I know what an attorney general
is, but I don't know what the context
would be in American. You look, you're
much better versed. My job is just to
ask you to try and understand what
you're saying. My point is that if
Donald Trump were to do so, he'd be
called a dictator for arresting top
political uh politicians in these
states. Yeah. But in three states, the
attorneys general have violated the
Constitution and targeted innocent
individuals in ways that is shocking to
the American psyche. However, largely on
the Democrat side, they're in favor of
it regardless. These are people who
clapped and cheered when Jordan Clapper
on the Daily Showed images of terror
attacks. He he literally called them
acts of domestic terror and they clapped
and cheered for it. Yeah. Are we
supposed to just say Trump should carry
on as normal? No. Trump's going to have
to use what we would describe as wartime
president. Again, let's let's clarify
these points. There are various forms of
warfare. There's psychological warfare.
Warfare can be waged without a
declaration of war. civil uh warfare can
happen without there being an active
civil conflict or extended conflict
conflict. You can get limited warfare.
Uh that's what Kissinger referred to. Um
and what we're dealing with right now is
fourth and fifth and entering a new
generation of warfare, which what people
would argue is sixth. Fourth
generational warfare is insurgency.
That's what we've been seeing with
Antifa and the far left. The purpose of
fourth generational warfare is to make
you scared to live a certain way.
Vancouver cancelled uh uh evicted Tesla
from the auto show out of fear of
firebombs and shootings. That's the
purpose of fourth generational warfare.
Should Donald Trump simply say we do
nothing? Now, to be fair, that's Canada.
But I'm saying in the United States
where Tesla chargers and dealerships
have been vandalized, shot up and the
only question for me like I think the
only thing that uh we might be
disagreeing about is one thing and one
thing only, which is um let's say that
Donald Trump and his team and his people
for the next four years do a reverse of
what the left has been doing based on
your description, which is they violate
the constitution, they failed to enforce
it in some areas, etc. Would you then be
happy for whoever is the Democrat
president after that to do the things
that you are now advocating that
President Trump does? That's the only
question. I think that is a naive
question because that doesn't entertain
the realities of history and everything
that's ever happened. I would be unhappy
with literally any amoral degenerate
enforcing whatever laws that support
amoral degeneracy. It doesn't matter.
No, I'm talking about the constitution.
So here's the issue. If if the right
violin morals versus principles first.
Yeah. If I said we must uphold the right
of parents to make medical decisions for
their children, that is a power I have
granted to Donald Trump to stop the
mutilation of children. Yes, these these
school districts and these doctors that
are taking kids away from their parents
because the the kids think they're trans
and they're being groomed online. We
must stop this. However, that same
principle empowers Democrats to take the
children away from parents who are
protecting their kids from generations.
Sounds like a no to me. You wouldn't
support a Democrat president enforcing
the Constitution in the way that you
want Donald Trump to do. The reason why
I answered the way I did is not to avoid
the question, but to point out that the
average person would not understand what
yes or no means morally if if I were to
give a simplistic answer. Well, look,
the the the point you're making is the
left has violated the Constitution. And
therefore, Donald Trump needs to invoke
the Insurrection Act in order to That's
let me slow down. Let me slow down
there. My argument is an administrative
war has begun as of 2015 when they
accused Donald Trump of being a Russian
spy. They accused the front runner for
the Republican party of being a traitor
to his nation for which the penalty is
death. Sought to impeach and imprison
him and obstructed an entire
presidential administration. They
arrested several people in his sphere
who did nothing wrong. They destroyed
the lives of people like Carter Page and
Michael Flynn who did nothing wrong.
This is I'm sorry, but for everything
they accuse Trump of doing, they
started. Trump's response can't be we
don't arrest politicians. It's not what
we do in America. No, it's they've
already been doing that. We need
investigations of Adam Schiff, the J6
committee. We need investigations of
Leticia James. We need uh the of
Wisconsin and and uh Atlanta who
arrested lawyers. Both of these states
arrested lawyers. Well, if anyone's
broken the law, of course they should be
investigated. But I'm asking you a very
different question. And I think it
speaks to the core of our disagreement,
which is the the question is, do you
want the constitution to be enforced
irrespective of who's in power? Do you
not? And it's really as simple as that,
right? No. Because this is why I started
the conversation with the discussion of
morals versus principles. No, I
understand that the idea. So when I
explained to you when I asked you what
free speech meant, yes, the Constitution
does not and never did protect free
speech. Now the structure of the
Constitution outside of the Bill of
Rights I largely respect, which lays out
the three branches of governments, the
powers they have, and I agree with. I
don't want that to be dismantled.
However, at the advent of the Bill of
Rights, you couldn't blaspheme or swear
in public. In fact, you couldn't swear
in public in the 1970s. Free speech was
never protected. The question you're
asking me is, do I want my moral
worldview of today to be protected and
upheld? And would I be upset if another
person came in and tried to destroy it?
But that happens all the time no matter
what. So it's not a question of if I say
Donald Trump, please protect my moral
worldview, would I be upset if someone
who opposed my worldview got in? Well,
of course I would. I was upset when Joe
Biden won the election and opposed my
moral worldview. The question is the
degrees of power which we are using to
use to preserve our our world. The
Democrats for a long period of time have
been destroying this country. And it's
and it wasn't always the Democrats. The
Republicans were on board until Trump
came in. The MAGA movement and the
populist movements of the left and the
right, which have some overlap largely
diverged from what we had in our
two-party system. When the borders were
opened up and you had industrialists
allowing millions of non-citizens to
come into this country for the purpose
of GDP growth to adhere to some ridic
ridiculous modern monetary theory, the
country was being destroyed. We opposed
this. What did we do? We used comasurate
power as was used against us. And what
was that? Protests, conversations,
podcasts, and elections. M then we got
Donald Trump being accused of being a
spy. They tried to destroy his life.
There has been no comasate response on
the right. Donald Trump then lost an
election based on one largely many of
his own failings and an inability to
understand the laws that were being
implemented. The Democrats in several
states violated the Constitution by
allowing judges and executives to
overrule state legislatores elections
which violates I believe article one of
the sec of the constitution which states
that elections shall be determined by
the legislatures not judges or
executives. When Texas petitioned the
Supreme Court in Texas v. Pennsylvania
in 2020 to overrule these states that
were in violation of the Constitution
the Supreme Court said we will not hear
it. Why? The Supreme Court is largely
afraid that if it becomes exposed
culturally, they have no enforcement
mechanism, the country falls apart. The
best thing they can do in questions of
this intensity is to stay out of them,
which they've continually done, proving
the Supreme Court to be largely
impotent. There has still not been
comate action from the right as to what
the left has been doing. the flooding of
this country with I'm going to give the
low estimate of 10 million non-citizens
given preferred access, given protected
status, or given money in places like
New York. This erodess the foundation of
what our ancestors built for us and what
we we intended to pass down to our
children. Gen Z can't afford houses. As
you already stated, the American dream
is dead for them. Yet in New York,
non-citizens are given luxury hotels and
PlayStations. This is a betrayal of the
American people. All Donald Trump has
done so far is what the Constitution
allows. And he's 100% right about that
Trump's a wartime criminal. Again, I
talked about it. Fifth and sixth
generational warfare. Just like he
mentioned, the establishment and the
institutions which have been run in this
country by the deep states for the
longest time by the uni party for what
over 30 25 30 years you would say. They
violated the constitution in every way
imaginable, especially over the past 10
years to which the right has not
responded in commensurate force. Like I
don't want a president who is going to
violate the constitution. I don't want
anyone to do so, but it's been done.
Some would argue it's been done by many
a presidents throughout history. The
issue now is that it actually threatens
the fabric of our democracy. what the
Democrats have done over the last
decade. And I think it's time, and I
think this is what Tim was saying, it's
time for Donald Trump and his
administration to begin to enforce laws
against these political forces and these
political actors, these attorney
generals, these judges that are
violating our constitution. I was quite
disappointed in Constantine, both the
trigonometry guys in this video. To
disagree that the Tesla bombings were
not an act of political violence is
absurd. Now, there's a big challenge
when you start referring to Donald Trump
as a wartime president. If he were to
arrest these attorney generals, for
example, for violating the law, if you
go after politicians, if you go after
these Democratic personalities, which I
think this is why we've not seen anybody
go after Hillary for what she
did, all these Democrats, right, that
prosecuted Trump, that had these
criminal conspiracies, the Russia Russia
hoax, Adam Schiff, the J6 committee.
Once you start doing that, the question
is like where's the offramp? How do you
how do you bring it back after that? And
I think this is a big a big reason why
we've not seen it. And we're at a point
now where a lot of these factions on the
left are losing power, have lost a lot
of power. I'm not saying I'm not saying
there's not there anymore, but but you
want to try to stay away from doing that
as much as you can. That's one of the
big reasons I think there might be more
where you you hear about Cash Patel for
years. He's been telling us about the
criminals in the FBI. He wrote a whole
book called Government Gangsters. Great
book. I recommend you read it. and him
and Bonino, I think, are going to go
after some people in there, but you're
not going to see as many as I think you
would because I think they don't want to
set that precedent because where do you
stop after that? Anyways, great podcast.
I don't want to get too in the weeds
about that. Let me know what you think
in the video, if I made any mistakes in
my commentary, what parts you like, what
parts you didn't like. I do read the
comments. I don't answer all of them
because as a channel grows, it becomes
hard. But unlike a lot of these
channels, I read them. I don't monitor
my comment section. You're free to
comment any way you want. Hope you
enjoyed the video. If you did, smash
that thumbs up button for your boy.
Consider subscribing to the channel.
Help it grow. I'll catch you in the next
one. Peace out, everybody.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc