Tim had Bill Ottman, co-founder of Minds, as the guest.
Hannah & Phil were the co-hosts.
I agree with
@ThisHill2DieOn, this was a rough episode to clip. Despite this being a show with hosts that imbibe news on the regular, they seem to have forgotten everything about the Russia-Ukraine War before the last month, to say nothing of prior historical examples which rebut their claims of imminent catastrophe. As you can tell from the number of archived articles I appended, the panel must have started taking whatever Ian had lying around to become this forgetful on the issue.
*Bill forgot this was an episode without Ian, so when he brings up how Donald Trump needs to campaign more on declassifying things, such as files on UFO's, the panel smacks him down, hard, for how ridiculous that is: 47:39-57:05
Clip Collection:
-Tim is still smarting from the community note placed upon his "X" post, shared by
@Vindeo. Tim spends the first two minutes of the episode haranguing the audience over the fact he is right, the note is wrong:
Sadly, as of this post, it has been beanie brigaded away, only visible to people in Community Notes:
-Tim explains why you should buy his coffee, despite his constant refrain of World War III being imminent. He says "When wars start, life doesn't stop", noting that people still went to the grocery store during the Syrian Civil War. As the fallout descends to the ground, you can be reassured you funded Tim's skate park, in exchange for some coffee grounds:
-Tim goes full tinfoil, claiming the community note is from the "Deep State", that President Joe Biden "tell them [Ukraine]" when & where they can specifically attack. This misses an important fact, which was delivery of the HIMARS system to Ukraine was contingent upon not using it to strike inside Russia, as a way of limiting escalation. All this time Ukraine has been baying for free use of these long-range munitions, despite the risks to heightening tensions. To the point that
HIMARS systems bound for Ukraine were being modified with geo-fencing to prevent targeting Russia. Until February,
Ukraine was prevented from using ATACAMS to strike into Crimea, which had been their territory until 2022. Also, this idea that arming a nation in a proxy war leads to direct conflict does not bear out with examples from the Cold War. The biggest example I can think of is
Soviet pilots flying MiG-15 jets against UN forces during the Korean conflict, but historical knowledge has always been scanty at the Branch Timidian compound:
-The panel seems to have the memory capacity of mayflies. Phil declares that Russia warning of potential war with NATO over Ukraine being given weapons is something novel, "it's not like this was something that they said last year". This is wrong. Since 2022,
Putin has warned about his nation having more nuclear missiles to deter NATO involvement. Dmitri Medvedev has regularly
engaged in threatening language against NATO, promising destruction, should they continue to support Ukraine. In the last year, Medvedev made three different threats of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine & NATO; on
two occasions he threatened nuclear retaliation
if Russia loses territory, &
if NATO deploys troops into Ukraine:
-Tim has been spending a little too much time, online, as he claims "the majority of young men will never agree to fight", due to women not having to sign up for Selective Service & being able to vote to go to war. Tim claims the popularity of "Andrew Tate & Pearl Davis" prove this. This does ignore the most recent example of the resistance to conscription in the United States, during the Vietnam War, where women had the franchise & could be in elected office. While more than 2 million men were conscripted into the armed forces
during the period from 1964-1973, half of the 27 million men that could be drafted gained deferments, & about 100,000 fled the United States. This was not due to resentment about women not serving, but being sent to a conflict they had no wish to fight, & possible die, for. Tim gives these red pill commentators a titch too much credit, instead of recognising the reality that people just do not want to be killed in a war:
-Hannah notes that Vladmir Zelenskyy benefits from the war & foreign funds, as it allows him to retain power. Tim drills home to Hannah that Zelenskyy has no power, & is comparable to a "janitor". After hammering her with this, Hannah eventually agrees with Tim, just to finish her point. Hannah's comment does address
a debate going on in Ukraine, at this time.
After this, Tim waxes on a tangent that once Ukraine falls, people will ask those displaced what it was like to live in a nation that no longer exists. Then, Tim says something I could not make sense of. Tim states that he knew a "Bohemian" & "tain't no Bohemia, anymore" to compare it with. Now, either Tim confused it with
Bohemianism; someone from
that geographical region of the Czech Republic, which still exists but is not an administrative unit; or Tim knows someone born & raised before 1918, when
Bohemia became Czechoslovakia:
-Tim complains that the Libertarian Party is "a joke", too obsessed with freeing Ross Ulbricht, & filled with "people who want to do things that they are not allowed to do":
-Jeremy, from
The Quartering, asks whether Ukraine has been using Western-supplied munitions from the off. Tim specifies that this is approval for using the weapons to strike Russia, directly, & implies this is at U.S. direction. Tim makes a comparison to Russia arming Mexican cartels & instructing them to fire on "New Mexico", but leaving the direct firing to the cartel members. I do not think comparing the Ukrainians to the likes of MS-13 is the most apt, but I do not blather on in front of a camera for money. The reality is, this is more akin to the U.S. letting Ukraine off the leash, as it has long been
one of their demands for unrestricted use of Western weapon systems to target inside Russia, where it can store supplies & forces without fear of retaliation. With the Russian thrust towards Kharkov,
the pressure to strike targets in Russia to stymie it must have reached a tipping point:
Bonus Bits:
-Tim decides to revive the Nick Fuentes booking bally-hoo, by saying he attempted to book Nick for
The Culture War to debate Laura Loomer over "Trump & policy", but Nick declined. Tim makes clear that "I don't tweet out" when a guest declines, but felt compelled due to all the "Book Nick" barrage he gets:

(
archive 1,
archive 2)
Nick responds, sharing direct messages he had with Lisa Elizabeth, the booker for
The Culture War. Nick is upset upon being offered to debate on "the b-list morning show", without realising that the booker he was talking to exclusively for the morning show:

(
archive)
Here are my thoughts on the whole matter, after having to go through the latest
IRL episode & read this internet slap fight: