Timcast - EP4 - Journalists Exposed Working With Far Left Activsts
Facebook maintains a lit of "hate agents" including those recently banned, like Paul joseph Watson. The list apparently is now targeting Candace Owens.Other segments includeBill Maher Guests Cheer for threats against TrumpBurger King encourages political violenceCNN Reporter gets car bombed by Far leftDemocrats Lie ABout Being Mad At Trump as a Virtue SignalJournalists Acting as Activists EXPOSED
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Facebook includes Candace Owens on hate agents list.
Now, because Breitbart is somewhat contentious in terms of media, I'm going to do this.
I have the NewsGuard rating system, which is not perfect.
And while they do rate Breitbart with a red exclamation point, most importantly, they say Breitbart does not repeatedly publish false content.
They just don't think they clarify errors or handle the opinion between opinion and news responsibly.
And so long as Breitbart isn't repeatedly publishing false content, I think it's fair to go through this.
And with an analytical approach, we can avoid any potential bias pitfalls.
I will also add that this story is by Alam Bakari, who I know personally not particularly well, but...
I tend to find his stories decently credible.
So, let's take a look at what's going on with Candace Owens.
The story reads, Facebook maintains a list of hate agents for monitoring and potential termination according to a source inside the company.
Among the names reportedly on the hate agent list, star pundit and black conservative activist Candace Owens.
According to the source, a Facebook employee who spoke exclusively to Breitbart News, the spreadsheet of hate agents that includes Owens, was posted to an internal employee discussion group initially founded by Brian Amarich, the former Facebook engineer who quit the company over concerns about political intolerance.
The source claimed that the spreadsheet includes the names of prominent right-wing and alternative media figures who were recently banned from the platform.
Apparently, Candace Owens is also included in the spreadsheet in a separate category marked extra credit.
So I want to step aside now and mention a few things for important context.
According to a former Facebook employee, my understanding, who did an interview with James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, They presented documents in this Veritas story showing that they de-boost, they de-rank.
Actually, I have the other story pulled up.
A Facebook whistleblower says that the staff de-boost unwanted content, and the same code was used on conservatives.
People like Lauren Chen were considered to be, you know, bad in some capacity.
People like Steven Crowder.
So, you know, all of this seems to just point to what we already know, that yes, there's absolutely a bias against conservatives, And I also want to do something else before we move on and talk more about this issue of censorship and bias against conservatives, because I love when the left points to my content and asks why I focus on these issues.
And I have a very simple explanation for those that are curious.
For those that are listening, you can't really see this, but we have here my moral foundations test, right?
This has to do with Jonathan Haidt's research on which moral foundations individuals are more likely to be following.
And you can see that Mr. Tim Poole is left liberal care and fairness are my strongest moral foundations but so is liberty and liberty explains exactly why I take issue with censorship of conservatives I do not believe in authoritarianism and the restriction of people or the censoring of individuals because you do not like their opinions and that to me is not fair and it is not free and so those issues
Make me, you know, more interested?
I imagine that many of these people who are in favor of the censorship against Candace Owen, Stephen Crowder, and other conservatives must be more care-harm-authority focused.
That'd be my bet.
But interestingly, they always claim to be anti-authoritarian, yet for some reason are okay or advocate for massive multinational billion-dollar corporations with foreign investors to silence American citizens.
But I digress.
Let's continue on the story.
A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed to Breitbart News that the list exists and did not deny that Owen's name appears on it, but believes that there has not yet been an investigation into her.
The spokeswoman also confirmed the hate agents list, which was created in April, was related to the high-profile bans of alternative media figures, including Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, that occurred on May 2nd.
Breitbart's source was able to obtain a partial screenshot of the spreadsheet before the current owner of the discussion group began locking people out in response to the internal leak.
Now, I want to point something out.
It's very important.
Sounds like what they're saying is the list was created in April.
We then saw the banning of several people like, you know, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Justice Watson, Laura Loomer.
Candace Owens was not banned.
However, she did receive a suspension for saying that fatherlessness is a serious problem.
What she actually said was poverty rate among blacks, poverty rate among whites, poverty rate among married blacks is 7%.
And then she said, do not let liberal supremacists convince you That white people are the problem, you know, and then she goes on to say that it's fatherless households.
And this was, her account was locked for this.
They later said it was an accident.
So just to stress, Candace Owens does appear on this, we have a screenshot here, and you can see what appears to say, appears to say hate agent.
Now, you know, the image cuts off the full word, but we can see the bottom of the letters, which does appear to say the words hate agent.
We can then see it says, extra credit, we should look into these after we're done with the above designated analysis.
And then it's, uh, Candace Owens in a spreadsheet.
Affiliated hate entities.
Still active, yes or no, Facebook, Instagram presence.
This is freaky!
It's really freaky that Facebook, I mean, look, we're entering election season.
We're about to enter a world with a permanent election cycle.
It's getting crazy.
Actually, I think everything's gonna collapse and, you know, I don't know.
Everything's gonna go to hell in a handbag.
I'm somewhat facetious when I say this, but I don't see how a society can survive if it's a constant political cycle with the tribes becoming more and more insane and extreme.
I don't know where it goes.
But I was talking to another personality who told me that based on the responses they're seeing to what's happening with these Uh, pro-life bills in these various states.
The responses do make it seem like it's going to escalate into actual physical conflict.
But, uh, let's, let's read some more of the story.
Breitbart's source was able to obtain a partial screenshot of the spreadsheet before the current owner of the touchscreen group blocked people out.
Yes, we read the part.
The partial screenshot revealed that Owen's name is indeed on the list, along with the instruction for Facebook employees to look into her after we're done with the above designation analysis.
The spreadsheet also appears to track with Owens has or is associated with any affiliated hate entities.
The source agreed that the extra credit category refers to individuals that Facebook has not yet banned but is likely to investigate for potential hate speech violations and potential banning.
This exclusive story was sent to Breitbart News in the same day that Owens mistakenly received a seven-day suspension from Facebook for criticizing liberal attitudes towards African Americans, a topic frequently raised by Owens in her public appearance.
Her post called on black Americans to wake up to the great liberal hoax and recognize that liberal supremacy is currently a greater threat to black Americans than white.
Right.
For this post, Owens received a seven-day ban from Facebook.
Facebook has since reversed the ban, stated that they restored her post and removed the block on her account after confirming the content didn't violate our policies.
In a comment to Breitbart News, a Facebook spokeswoman said, As we said earlier today, we mistakenly applied a temporary block to Candace Owens' account that we have since restored.
We recently announced a group of people that we removed from our services for violating our policies.
Candace Owens was not one of those people.
But they also never really explained why Someone like Paul Joseph Watson was banned.
I received a message from... This was actually rather surprising to me.
I'm not going to reveal who reached out to me.
But someone unaffiliated with politics started asking me questions about Paul Joseph Watson getting banned.
Somebody who was not a particular fan of Paul Joseph Watson.
I guess I'll just clarify.
Somebody reached out to me, and they're a very high-profile individual, and they said that kind of freaked them out.
And what I think happens is, I would almost be willing to... I often joke that what the regressive group, whatever you want to call it, the authoritarian left is doing, is black propaganda for conservatives.
So let's break down the open... So they say when God closes a door, he opens a window.
Let's break down what are the open windows in this circumstance.
Well, for one, I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with Zuby, the rapper.
He's the one who did the deadlift saying that he was identifying as a woman and then broke the record and went viral, and a bunch of other things.
He's a rapper.
He's got some good songs.
I don't want to pigeonhole him.
But he said something about the easiest way to make someone walk away from the left or become conservative is to just have them follow some of these lefties on Twitter because they'll see how crazy they are.
So let's think about what happens with the censorship, for one.
Facebook's censorship of Candace Owens has pushed it out in the press.
This may have been just a simple post, seen only by her fans, but now it's become newsworthy.
Streisand effect.
The other issue is that, one of the things I often bring up, when you have two kids, here's the analogy I use, two kids, and you tell one, you're not allowed to have ice cream, and the other one, you can definitely have ice cream, then all of a sudden, you know, your significant other walks up, and sees one kid is sparkling clean, And the other kid is covered in ice cream, they say, oh, that kid's a disgusting mess.
The reality is, if you only censor the wackos on the right, it makes the right look good, because they're cleaning up the right, like they're making them presentable, right?
And if you allow the left to run wild and say these crazy things, then the left looks like they're covered in muck and dirt and they're dirty.
So this is, you know, essentially a net benefit in the long run.
Ultimately, I, as someone who strongly believes in the right of liberty, even for those who aren't that smart or who are, you know, off their rocker or have dumb opinions, do not appreciate this regardless of what the outcome is.
But I say that as kind of, you know, hey, there's an open window here.
Perhaps they are destroying themselves when they do this.
And I have to say, you know, conversations I typically have, as much as these wackos on Twitter would have you believe I hang out with the crazy right-wingers, I actually don't.
I only actually hang out with liberal left-wing individuals who are not crazy and who are rather normal.
And one of the conversations we often have is, We have no ground to argue for sane left-wing policies.
We're socially liberal.
We're pro-choice.
Democrats, I don't know what, 10 years ago, yes, we should have border security.
Yes, we should have agencies.
We should not have foreign wars.
We should not have foreign wars.
We should not, you know, be empowering surveillance and government control and executive authority.
These things should be curtailed.
Many things typically associate with the left.
Socially liberal policy.
But there's no ground for that anymore.
Because the left that has run wild, because these platforms won't deal with it, don't allow voices like mine.
They question why I would challenge their censorship of these conservatives.
Well, I'll give you two reasons.
For one, I believe in liberty.
I believe in freedom.
I believe in the right to free expression.
That is paramount.
It is not fair for... And let's talk about fairness.
It is not fair for you to have double standards.
I do not like that, as my moral foundations test shows.
So then what ends up happening is, yes, I can stand on principle, but also point out the ridiculous result of cleaning up the right and leaving the left a mess.
You have two rooms, a room called the right and a room called the left.
And when the regular person has to decide which room they're gonna go in, they look to the right and they see a bunch of people wearing suits, drinking coffee, saying, hey, you know, it's spick and span, it's sparkling.
You look on the left, it's a bunch of people wearing crazy-ass clothes, doing weird things, spreading their legs with little kids, you know, taking off their clothes for money.
And they're like, that's weird.
I'm gonna go with these people who are more professional.
Not everybody, obviously.
I do think we end up seeing a weird conundrum of people who just have to identify as left wanting to be in the left-wing room.
And it's funny when I see comments aimed at me where they're like, Tim's so desperate to be accepted by these people.
Oh, absolutely not.
Oh, please.
I am a weird, roguish, hacker-type person.
I hang out by myself.
I've always been a loner.
I was a loner in, you know, I don't want to say in high school because I dropped out of high school, but like, high school years.
I have a skateboard.
Skateboarding is very individualist.
I like to be alone.
I don't want to be in the, you know, surrounded by these crazy people who don't do research, who point the finger at everybody else, and have, you know, just do weird, crazy things.
That's not everybody on the left, but they're being allowed to run wild.
So I don't care for who accepts me or who doesn't.
I absolutely have friends who are Trump supporters.
I hang out with them.
I don't care.
I don't.
I care about principle.
And that should be obvious to everybody.
Do I agree with Candace Owens?
Somewhat, yes.
She makes a really good point about married black families have a very low poverty rate.
That's been brought up by many academics.
Okay, great.
Candace Owens.
I'm hearing you.
I'm listening.
Why is she getting banned for that?
It's crazy.
The conversations I see around pro-choice and pro-life are not principled conversations coming from the left.
The right, at least on Twitter, seems to have a cohesive argument.
And the real argument, as brought up by many people, is that the real question is, is a fetus a life or isn't it?
The left says no, the right says yes, and that's the real dividing line.
However, I'll go back to my point about censorship.
When you ban the crazes on the right, you are left with nothing but intelligent, suit-wearing individuals who say, I'd like to point out on a principled position, X, Y, and Z. And then someone like me hears that and I say, that's a really good point.
I look to the left and what do I see?
Alyssa Milano saying like, nobody make love anymore.
We're going to go on strike.
And I'm like, that is not an argument.
And I have no idea what you're talking about.
And this is one of the bigger problems for somebody who holds liberal positions when it comes to censorship.
So I'll wrap this up.
We don't want to go too long on this segment.
Candace Owens is, you know, on a list and she's staring down the barrel of complete and total banning.
And now they're, you know, look, it might happen.
They did a temporary suspension.
You can clearly see they're throttling, restricting, but it's going to backfire.
You know, I don't know what's going to happen, but I think Facebook is trash anyway.
Follow me on Mines at Mines.com slash TimCast because it's a way better platform.
We're also, you know, I'm going to be working alongside some of their people because we're going to be sharing a space.
I just don't like the idea of these big tech oligopolies.
And I'll end this segment by saying, if you want to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
You can donate monthly, I accept cryptocurrencies, I have a physical address.
Or you can just share these videos, click the like button.
Thanks for hanging out, stick around, more segments to come and I will see you shortly.
I feel like Bill Maher may be the last mainstream sane liberal.
Okay, maybe that's not true because I think I'm sane, but in terms of big TV networks,
Bill Maher has repeatedly pushed back on the social justice warriors and he's actually
defended the things, defended things about Trump that should be defended.
Well, of course, Bill Maher is very critical of Trump, doesn't like him, and has called for a recession.
He's repeatedly been put in a position where he has to push back on how crazy many of these left-wing people have gotten.
Our story for this segment, liberal author Fran Lebowitz sparks outrage after claiming that Trump deserves to be handed over to the Saudis, like journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and then having to backtrack.
Now before we get into the story, make sure you, or if you'd like to, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's an option for monthly donations.
I have Bitcoin cryptocurrency and I do have a physical address.
I'm going to be doing, I'm trying to do better at being, you know, running a business as we're working to expand.
So if you'd like to support me, you can do so there.
But let's get back to the news and see what happened and why was Bill Maher once again put in this position.
Now, I do want to stress, I have the video pulled up and there's something very important about this interaction.
This woman called for ending the life of the President of the United States and people in the audience clap and cheer.
And of course, Bill Maher is forced to push back.
The story says, Fran Lebowitz has sparked outrage after saying that President Trump deserves to be handed over to the Saudis to face the same treatment as Jamal Khashoggi, who had his life brutally ended in a very, very, very, very terrifying way.
The liberal author and Venity Fair contributing editor, who is 68, made the comments on Friday's edition of Real Time with Bill Maher as she discussed the Mueller report and potential impeachment proceedings against the commander-in-chief.
When asked whether she believes Trump should face impeachment, Leibowitz responded, Impeachment would just be the beginning of what he deserves, not even scratching the surface of what he deserves.
She continued, Whenever I think about this and what he really deserves, I think we should turn him over to the Saudis, his buddies, the same Saudis who got rid of that reporter Khashoggi.
Maybe they could do the same for him.
I'm now going to play for you the clip and you can hear the audience response.
The audience response is what was actually most shocking to me.
unidentified
We should turn him over to the Saudis.
You know, his buddies.
The same Saudis, you know, who got rid of that reporter.
It wasn't like the entire audience was doing a standing ovation or anything, but you actually hear people hooting and clapping at the idea.
That's insane.
And of course, later on in the show, Bill Maher had to push back.
Social media was erupting with people actually saying she should face charges for that.
Now, I don't know about that.
I'm not a legal expert.
But that's kind of crazy that on a mainstream television program, you have people calling to end the life of the president.
I can't believe... Listen.
Is this not enough?
Okay.
When I tell people, you know, when I was on Joe Rogan, I said, I think this is going to result in actual, you know, serious conflict.
It's escalating and nothing's being done to stop it.
A lot of people roll their eyes and say, ah, you know, you're a doomsayer.
I don't care.
I don't care if you think I'm a doomsayer.
When you have a liberal writer for a major publication appear on HBO live with Bill Maher and say something like that about the president of the United States.
If people are going to cheer for that, you see where the rhetoric is taking us.
To me, the signs have been clear for a while.
Street violence, escalation, the rapid radicalization through social media, it's only going to get worse.
That is not, however, why I'm building the van.
A lot of people.
If you follow me on Instagram, I'm on Instagram at TimCast, I've been posting photos of the van, and it looks awesome!
For those that don't know, I am building a van for mobile production, so that we can go on the road, and I can do more on-the-ground interviews, which I'm going to be doing a lot more on my Tim Pool channel, that's YouTube.com slash TimCast, because I don't like doing the stodgy, you know, like, presenter format anymore.
It's just, the whole thing, there's gotta be changes, so I'm trying to figure out what to do.
But there's gonna be a lot more on-the-ground connecting with real people, And it's partly due to things like this.
Let me ask you this.
You can comment.
Do you think that the average American would agree with her?
Who are these people in the audience cheering for something like this?
And what's crazy to me is I've never been a big fan of Trump.
I understand the chaos vote where people say, you know, they want to burn it down so they vote for Trump.
There were a lot of anarchist types that were advocating voting for Trump because, for one, Hillary is the machine.
They don't want her to win.
But the idea was that Trump would burn it all down.
In fact, the economy is doing really great, so I don't know about that.
But the chaos vote exists.
Who are these people in the audience who are cheering for something like this, right?
Because even someone like... Like, I would never go chaos vote.
I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump.
I would have voted for Bernie, but on principle.
I don't agree with everything he stands for, but it really is a principled thing.
And this is why I've been a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard, and I'm even more so as of late.
I don't want to get into too much of that stuff.
But Tulsi is very principled, and Andrew Yang is very studious and prepared.
I think, you know, unfortunately the media doesn't like either of them, but Yang is doing really well.
Ultimately, the point is, I'm somebody who's looking for a Tulsi or a Yang.
I don't like Trump, but my God, how crazy has it gotten that on HBO someone would say something like this?
Now, naturally, they had to push back because, I mean, that's a crazy comment.
It's bordering on illegal.
They say Leibowitz swiftly backtracked on her comments later in the program after learning she was receiving criticism on social media.
She said, I didn't realize that I had said that.
I had 12 cups of coffee.
I regret saying it.
I did not mean it and I regret saying it.
No, I disagree.
Listen.
I will always accept someone's apology, be it a BuzzFeed writer like we saw recently, be it Joey Salads.
I will absolutely say I accept, let's move on.
But I absolutely have to point out, in this instance, she thought about what she was saying.
It's not something that she just came up with off the top of her head.
She understood the idea about Saudis, Trump, his allegiances, what they did to Khashoggi, and she said that.
To me, it sounds like she harbors these feelings.
Now, of course, I think this is good that she's realizing how she crossed the line.
And public pushback is a really good thing in this circumstance.
But I'd like to stress, I do feel like this sentiment is expanding.
It's escalating.
I'm going to stress it one more time.
This is HBO.
Bill Maher and a Vanity Fair writer said they want the president harmed in this way.
To me, that's insane.
I mean, look at what Kathy Griffin did.
When I say the rhetoric is escalating, let me ask you something.
Trump is going to win 2020.
I'm not... You know, I was planning on doing some kind of video about the Australian elections.
For those that haven't heard, the centre-right party won what was considered to be an unwinnable election for them.
It was supposed to go swiftly to the left, the Labour Party.
People are saying it's Brexit and Trump all over again.
Trump is going to win 2020.
It's possibly he doesn't.
I'm not a seer or anything.
I'm not Nostradamus.
Whether or not, okay, that was a dumb analogy.
Not like the guy could actually see the future.
But I'm not someone who can predict the future.
I'm just looking at the evidence.
I'm looking at the polls being wrong over and over and over again and Trump winning.
Trump keeps winning.
I'm sorry, the right, the nationalists, the right that keeps winning.
So Trump's going to win.
The economy's doing really well.
The polls are always wrong.
What do you think these people are going to do when Trump wins another term?
What do you think's going to happen when certain long-standing Supreme Court precedent gets overturned as these states pass more and more of these particular laws?
I'm not going to get too much into that.
Sorry, I have allergies.
But I do want to make a couple points before we sign off.
Okay, so let's wrap up that thought.
Yes, I do think Escalation is coming.
I am not going to pull an Alex Jones, you know, go buy your gold and prepare, get your MREs.
None of that nonsense.
I don't know what you should do.
I don't know how or when.
I just personally think that things are getting crazy.
You know, to see this on HBO, it really is worrisome.
And I gotta say, like, you know, when I said this a year ago, like, listen, the street battles are escalating.
They're getting crazy.
And a lot of people said, yeah, but it's, you know, it's like inside baseball.
It's, you know, only we really know about it.
This is HBO!
People in the audience were cheering for this!
So, back to my main point.
About Bill Maher being the last sane liberal, right?
So, you know, he eventually pushes back and he says, you didn't really mean that, did you?
And she's like, no, no, no.
Well, for one, they had to.
I don't know if, you know, Bill Maher didn't push back at the moment.
That would have shocked me.
But I do have a couple more stories I just want to highlight because, you know what, man?
I disagree with Maher in a lot of his stances, but I absolutely respect a few of the things, a lot of what he's done.
Notably, last week when he said, yeah, you can't ignore the fact that Trump has got the economy booming.
He says this.
He admits an exchange at 2020 Dem.
We can't ignore that fact.
Absolutely.
Like, good on you, Bill Maher.
We also saw this.
Bill Maher slams Adam Schiff for stalking Trump after Mueller cleared him.
He says if you couldn't impeach him before, how are you going to impeach him after?
That's actually a fairly reasonable position, Bill Maher.
Like, you don't have to like Trump, but you can point out how absurd everything is.
And last but not least, The incessant.
I'm saying that somewhat facetiously.
Bill Maher repeatedly criticizes the social justice warriors, calling them even a cancer.
So I have tremendous respect for Bill Maher in that capacity.
Of course, he's said things I disagree with.
He's called for a recession.
Oh, that is absurd, you know.
But at least he's now acknowledging that Trump has got the economy booming.
But I feel like with the latest, this woman, you know, you see Kathy Griffin with that, I don't want to get into what she did, it's just, the rhetoric is nuts.
Absolutely nuts.
After Covington, what these journalists were tweeting about, now seeing a mainstream Vanity Fair contributing editor saying this, I feel like at some point Bill Maher is going to be like, what is happening?
Right, because he's already, he's like, it's almost like he's kind of warming up to the idea that you don't have to like Trump, but you can still be critical of how crazy everyone's gotten.
And I think this might be a sign of how maybe mainstream liberals actually feel in this country, because think about it.
Bill Maher's had to say, hey, the economy is booming, right?
That's good for Trump, right?
Then he has to criticize the SJWs, he has to criticize Adam Schiff.
Eventually, I wonder, I'd love to, you know, hear his thoughts.
Do you realize how crazy it has gotten?
I feel like he definitely does.
And I'd have to point this out and be like, how do you sit there, right, hearing someone say something like that, hearing the audience cheer, and not immediately say, no, stop, okay?
If that were me and someone said that, I'd be like, no, no, no, no, no, absolutely not.
Not on my program.
But it happens.
And it's later in the program I have to wonder if it was like a producer who was like, you gotta address that.
You know?
Because these people are being blinded by how radicalized they've gotten.
So, you know what?
I'll leave it there.
The next video is coming up at 4pm on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
I'm going to be talking about how... You know, I do this fairly frequently, journalists as activists, but there's a lot of stories as of recent highlighting just how radicalized mainstream journalism has gotten, for whatever reason.
So I want to talk about how journalists are effectively laundering activist technique and goals through mainstream media.
So, uh, stick around.
That will be youtube.com slash timcast at 4pm, and for those that are listening on the podcast, it will be up right, uh, at some point.
I don't know.
I don't know where I'm putting it, but maybe next.
I'll see you- I'll see you soon.
Our next story on Twitter, it appears that Burger King in the UK is calling for, or at least encouraging, political violence.
As of late, there has been a spate of milkshakings, where people are going to certain personalities they don't like, their political rivals, and throwing milkshakes at them.
Well, it may seem silly to many people.
You have to understand that we don't just have, you know, people showing up with weapons and bashing each other.
You have an escalation.
Now what we're seeing is people showing up to political events, Throwing milkshakes at other people and it results in physical fights.
It's going to escalate tensions because you are taking a physical action against someone else.
So make no mistake, throwing a milkshake at somebody is in fact a physical attack.
Now again, a lot of people are saying it's silly, but consider off chance someone's allergic to a dairy product could seriously injure them.
The point is don't throw things at people.
They're going to retaliate.
So here's what you see on the screen for those that are listening.
Burger King Twitter says, Dear people of Scotland, we're selling milkshakes all weekend.
Have fun.
Love, BK.
Hashtag just saying.
You may be wondering, how is that an encouragement to violence?
Well, in fact, We see this tweet here from Scott McDonald.
I'm not sure who this individual is, but the tweet's got around 2,000 retweets.
It reads, the McDonald's next to the Farage demo.
Someone clearly got wind.
In the window, there's a sign that reads, we will not be selling milkshakes or ice cream tonight.
This is due to a police request given recent events.
We then see Burger King's tweet coming just the following morning.
So it would appear that Burger King is well aware that people are going to be buying milkshakes to throw at their political rivals in an act of very low-scale political violence.
But of course, the danger here is the escalation, not necessarily the milkshakes.
Although you could still injure someone with a milkshake.
But let's not play into any conjecture.
What we have here is a tweet from Scott McDonald and then a tweet from someone named James Hackett.
A story from the Guardian reads, Police asked McDonald's to halt milkshake sales during Farage Rally.
This is from the Guardian.
And Burger King UK responded with the thinking emoji.
So it would appear...
That they're well aware of the issue.
But before we go over to that story, if you'd like to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
I accept monthly donations, cryptocurrency, I have a physical address.
And as always, you can just share this video or click the like button because that does really help.
But I could definitely use your support if you want to support my work as I do these videos.
I'm doing about six per day, sometimes seven.
So everything is appreciated.
But let's go back to the Guardian story now.
Police ask McDonald's to halt milkshake sales during Farage rally.
Edinburgh branch also stop ice cream sales after right-wing politicians targeted with drinks.
They say a sign appeared on Friday in the window of McDonald's on Newmarket Road, which is less than 200 meters from the Corn Exchange where the campaign rally was to take place, saying, We will not be selling milkshakes or ice cream tonight.
This is due to a police request.
So apparently, Burger King is aware.
The police have said, please, you know, please don't sell these.
And Burger King thought it would be funny to say they're going to be continuing selling them anyway.
Now, I did reach out to Burger King for a comment.
They did not respond.
I asked, can you comment on your last tweet about milkshakes?
Many people are taking it to mean that you encourage people to throw milkshakes at Nigel Farage.
What was your intent?
A McDonald's spokesperson confirmed they had been asked to stop sales of its Milkshake and McFlurry products on Friday evening, which is just ridiculous.
I mean, you know, what do you do?
It's become a meme among many people on the left to be politically violent.
This is what they do.
You don't see conservatives walking around with milkshakes, throwing them at people, ripping their hats off.
Now you have an actual trend among many people on the left to throw milkshakes at people.
Okay, this is violent, right?
It's not the most egregious act of violence.
It is possibly the lowest level of violence short of, like, I don't know, spitting on someone.
The problem here is that what do you think someone's going to do when you throw a milkshake at them?
They're going to... You're going to start a fight.
You're literally starting a fight by doing this.
And it's only going to go in one direction.
Do you think that these people on the right are just going to say, oh well, we're getting milkshake.
No, they're going to show up with some kind of defense.
They're going to escalate.
It's going to escalate everything.
And for some reason, Burger King is getting involved.
I would like to take this moment to point out, Burger King makes me sick.
I don't like Burger King.
You know, I think in terms of taste, it's kind of meh.
But they do have some things that are okay.
But, you know, last time I had Burger King, I got sick.
I gotta say, Burger King U.S.
is probably going to be really upset about this.
I would go ahead and assume that we're going to see a potential get woke, go broke situation where Burger King has decided to embrace divisive politics, and it's going to be very, very bad for them.
McDonald's looks good in this situation.
And I will say, too, I actually think McDonald's is better than Burger King, although I don't really eat it either because Wendy's is better than the both of them.
I digress.
They're going to talk about a particular individual I can't name because YouTube has already been punishing my channel for doing so, but some particular individuals are being hit with milkshakes.
But we will still talk about this a little bit because we have over here A thread from Nick Monroe from a few days ago where he talks about what's happening with the milkshake stuff.
He says the general escalation of political confrontations that has been waged by the far left these past few weeks.
How did it start?
Well, this HuffPost article adds it in at the end of describing Tommy on the campaign trail, adding that he'd been hit with milkshakes.
He adds, unfortunately there is no video footage of the next incident, only the word of the Guardian journalist, Josh Halliday.
But my, what words, what words they are.
Huffington Post is wrong.
It wasn't hard to find either.
I'm going to tell them they need a correction.
So he posts this image.
And I'm not sure it says there's no video footage.
There is video footage.
I'm not sure what the words are he's referring to is.
But we do see that here we have a video.
Now the reason why this video is important is because it's exactly what I was talking about, the escalation of political violence.
In the video, I'm not going to run the audio, but you can see that somebody throws from very far away.
A milkshake.
And when it hits, it doesn't directly hit Tommy, but he does get hit with some of the milkshake as it goes flying.
And what happens?
Tommy and crew go running full speed after this individual.
Some people are holding him back saying, don't do it.
Sure enough, they go running after him.
What do you think this will result in?
Do you think the people showing up to Nigel Farage's rally are not going to be prepared?
Especially after Birkham's broadcast, they're going to make sure they can equip people to throw these things?
Nate Monroe adds, can we make bombarding him and his UKIP Brexit party pals with milkshakes a thing, please?
Richard Cosgrove, one of the first to encourage more attacks against political candidates in the UK.
And this is an individual who, let's see who he is.
He's a freelance copy editor and writer.
I'm not sure where he works, but he is a verified Twitter user.
Here we have a verified Twitter user calling for, again, I'll stress, very low level, but still, acts of violence.
And of course, Twitter is probably not going to do anything about it.
Nick adds, if you want an idea of how self-contained the social media reaction was, I can fit a good majority of this into one photo, pretty much.
People applauded it.
But the situation was still new to them, plus the lack of readily shared video was a factor.
So we do have more coverage now.
We did see many more people laughing about it, encouraging this.
And I want to stress, it's not like people show up with, you know, bike locks and crowbars.
No, they show up with milkshakes, water bottles, and it gets worse from there.
But let's go back to Burger King and see the reaction from people.
A lot of people are laughing and saying it's funny.
Well played.
Time to lactose and intolerant.
Burger King actually played it up.
Someone said Burger King won McDonald's and ASDA near the Corn Exchange zero.
And Burger King posts a meme of Will Ferrell yelling goal.
Not a good look, Burger King, if you understand the reference.
Wendy's is really good at their social media campaigns, and following the really funny things Wendy's has posted, we've seen a bunch of these companies try to become edgy meme lords without crossing a certain line on social media.
It appears that Burger King thinks it's socially acceptable to encourage violence against half of the population.
and political candidates. You have to recognize that many of these people,
Carl Benjamin, for instance, who have been, had milkshakes thrown at them, they're very popular.
Carl has nearly a million followers, has more than a million across his network,
two or three channels. But yes, he is very well known. Do you not think these people like to buy
your products as well? But to also defy a police request, it's kind of insane. I'm going to make
a prediction here. Burger King is going to get broke over this.
There's gonna be a- there's gonna be a traction and apology.
I- I'm- I'm pretty sure.
Someone said, uh, tweets, excellent, I was waiting for this tweet.
And that's likely in response to Burger King responding to a story about the police saying, please don't do it, and then putting the thinking face, and then, sure enough, Burger King responds, it was worth the wait, in my opinion.
Let me talk about... Actually, I'll just read this real quick.
Someone said, Yeah, Wendy's is actually a lot better.
But think about the rhetoric we've seen.
Seriously, you're good with people using your food to attack political opponents?
How tolerant, how intolerant, but wouldn't expect any less from Burger King.
Wendy's sure wouldn't.
Yeah, Wendy's is actually a lot better.
But think about the rhetoric we've seen.
Okay, I've got another story coming up later about the dramatic escalation we're seeing.
Actually the next story is going to be about the dramatic escalation.
But think about it now when you have mainstream, massive corporations laughing and clapping along as tensions escalate and violence increases.
So when I say things are getting worse, I think it's fair to point out that when Burger King joins in, Yeah, I don't think I'm wrong, okay?
I don't know what format it's going to take.
Again, I don't want to stress.
I don't want to be like, oh no, the end is nigh.
But seriously, when Bill Maher has a show and people are clapping and cheering for this stuff, when Burger King is piling on and laughing and clapping and cheering, you are setting up the stage.
The next story gets dramatically worse.
Dramatically worse.
Stick around, that'll be up shortly.
Greece has its troubles, certainly, but this is a terrifying escalation.
Admittedly, it's in Greece, it's not in, say, the UK or in the US, but still should be taken absolutely seriously as we move forward and talk about the dangers of escalation.
This story from the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Greek CNN reporter Mina Karamitrou's car destroyed by bomb.
Fortunately, no one was hurt.
They say, Greek authorities must ensure the safety of police reporter Mina Karamitrou,
thoroughly investigate the bombing of her car overnight, and hold those responsible to account, the Committee to
Protect Journalists said today.
Now, I'm going to be talking about the dramatic escalation, the tensions we're seeing,
and how this plays into the rhetoric and is a reflection, to an extent, on what could come for us.
Before I do that, if you want to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
I really do rely on you guys to help me.
There's monthly donation options through PayPal.
I have a Bitcoin, cryptocurrency wallet option, physical address.
And of course, you can just share the video and click the like button because that really does help support the video.
But let's read the story from CPJ.
A makeshift explosive device placed under the journalist's car exploded at about 2.30 a.m.
this morning while the car was parked outside the journalist's home in the northern Athens suburb of Papago.
According to local news reports, the car was destroyed but no one was injured, according to the reports.
Karametro is a police reporter for CNN's Greek edition, uh, edition, why did I say that?
According to her author page on the network's website, police have opened an investigation into the bombing according to the Greek news website Sky.
Now, they do say that they have a statement from, uh, so here's CPJ's statement.
We call on the Greek authorities to conduct a swift and thorough investigation into the car bomb attack on reporter Mina Karametro Sedgulnoza, CPJ's Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator in New York.
Journalists' safety and well-being must be ensured, and protective measures are often critical for those who cover crime.
In an interview this morning on the TV program Good Morning Greece, Karametro said she believes the attack was related to her coverage of Dimitris Koufodinis, who was serving 11 life sentences for murders committed while he was affiliated with a November 17 anarchist group, according to News Report.
The far left, an anarchist group, planted a bomb on a car.
The reason this is important People often talk about how... Well, I should say it's allegedly.
They believe this to be the case.
People often say, you know, here in the US that the far-right is the biggest threat.
Sure, that's fine.
We can argue data, we can argue what makes someone far-right or far-left.
But the anarchist groups in Greece are typically associated with more far-left anarchy, more associated with Antifa types.
And this was someone presumably trying to execute a journalist.
Greece has their problems and have experienced a lot of anarchist violence.
So let me just stress, while it isn't in the US or in the UK, it's still a terrifying escalation for the West.
I don't know if people consider Greece, you know, Greece is its turmoil, but it is a part of Europe and the European Union.
I'm pretty sure.
CNN Greece condemned the attack in a statement calling it an attack on the entire journalistic world.
And they do have the article up here.
You can clearly see it's CNN Greece to CNN Greece.
Brave wasn't able to translate it, but the statement is translated over on CPJ.
The Greek government spokesperson, Dimitris Xanakopoulos, condemned the attack on Twitter, describing it as a targeting of freedom of the press and saying that the perpetrators should be held to account.
The Hellenic Police Department did not immediately reply to CPJ's emailed request for comment.
So, to stress, it appears, or at least our best assumption at this point, according to the journalist, is that anarchist groups were trying to take out a journalist.
It's kind of crazy.
So when it comes to people, they often tell you that the far right is the biggest threat.
They talk about the far right in Europe.
But for some reason, they often overlook the far left in Europe, which absolutely is a problem.
There were instances of chemicals and other substances being mailed to various buildings, central banks and things of this nature.
Now, my general understanding is the anarchist groups are more aligned with the left, but certainly you can be, you know, an arco-capitalist right-wing anarchist.
We do have, you know, if you do a Google search, anarchist Greece, it typically talks about the far left.
And they can say far-left individual in intensive care.
And there have been a lot of police thwarted as anarchists targeted U.S.
envoy's home.
Greece anarchists vandalized U.S.
ambassador's home.
If you want to talk about far-left violence and dangers, it's absolutely in Greece.
But there still is far-right considerations in Greek.
In Greece, we've seen many stories.
This from last year in May, about a year ago.
The far-left and far-right are running riot on Greek streets.
Well, let's bring this back home.
I want to make sure I stress, you know, something happening in Greece doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen here.
But think about what's happening with their economy.
It's getting really bad.
And there is still some relation between, you know, Europe and the US.
It's not like it's happening in like, I don't know, Malaysia or something.
It's more close to home, albeit it's kind of different.
We don't really have the same kind of dramatic escalation, but we have seen the far left show up to police departments.
We have seen explosives planted recently at a police department in Eugene, Oregon.
But let's talk about escalation.
We have this tweet from Eric Weinstein.
Anyone notice a pattern?
A. Mainstream commentators decide among themselves that right-of-center positions are only held by a bad fringe.
Voters then lie to pollsters in response.
A vote is held.
Same commentators switch to complaining about the dangers of populism.
This is in response to this tweet from Ron Nehring.
He said, Remember election night 2016 when all the commentators were
in disbelief when Hillary lost the unlosable election?
That's what's happening tonight in Australia as centre-right Liberal Australia appears on track to win incredible upset.
This is a process by which the radicalization occurs.
In the last segment, I talked about how Burger King was joking at the idea of people buying milkshakes and ice cream to throw at their political opponents.
This is a degradation of the conversation in our countries and our society.
We are now looking at a story about far-left extremists planting a bomb on a journalist's car for CNN.
The rhetoric is absolutely terrifying.
The people in media, partly because they're activists and partly because they're desperate for clicks, they don't want to lose their jobs, decide among themselves that some ideas are far right.
Whereas we've seen from all of the data I've presented over and over again, okay, that the right has only moved slightly to the right.
The left has moved far to the left.
Why?
Because they're chasing a narrative to get clicks and the activists are leading the way.
Weinstein goes on to say, personally, I think we are going to see farther and farther right results, and it will be because the left took out the reasonable center-right in painting it as bigoted.
This is opening the door to right-wing extremism.
That is, we are in the process of creating the right we fear.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Think about what happens.
I really do believe, and it's kind of funny, it's kind of contradictory, I do believe we are going to see the rise of an extreme far-right in the West.
I'll tell you why.
The left is going crazy.
Everything is bad.
Everyone is evil.
And it's going to cause the left to lose their footing.
They're not going to be able to win anymore.
Donald Trump is going to win.
Let's talk about this tweet.
About what's happening in Australia.
The polls said the left would win.
They said the left would win.
I was looking at some of the polls and it looks identical to Donald Trump's approval rating right now.
Trump's favorability has been pretty stable and higher than it's been.
It's been in a pretty decent spot.
Trump is going to win in 2020, partly because the left won't campaign on issues that the people actually care about.
They'll then decry populism.
But hold on.
If a president is talking about the true interests of the people, boosting the economy and doing right by them, well, there you go.
But what's going to happen?
You need a reasonable left and right giving each other pushback, where they kind of come together around shared values but disagree on certain issues.
We're not getting that anymore.
People like me, who would probably be considered the more rational center-left types, are being accused of not being left because of this.
But how many times do I have to, you know, alarm, you know, raise the alarm that something is happening, that bad things are happening, that the far left has planted a bomb on the car of a journalist?
That the polls are wrong.
That Trump is winning.
That Brexit is winning.
That the Brexit party is polling the highest in the UK for MEP elections, and they don't listen.
They don't.
They gloat.
They laugh.
They don't care.
Half of them just want clicks.
The other half want to run everything off the road and burn it down.
And it's gonna happen.
But I'll tell you what.
There will not be the destruction of the system.
There will be the emboldening of those, and perhaps it's part of their strategy.
Perhaps the far left believes that if you really do create a far right, you can then recruit more people on the far left.
But where do you think it's going to end?
Do you think it's going to be the far left, you know, soy boy types with scrawny bodies who can't take a punch, who are going to win?
No.
Noam Chomsky said, in the arena of violence, it is not the left that wins.
It is the right.
They're more likely to be, you know, look, you've got people in rural areas who do labor, day labor.
They're more likely to be armed.
They are going to create the monster they so fear.
And perhaps on purpose.
And perhaps it's emboldened by these weird male feminists who just want to get laid so they perpetuate this narrative.
It's pushed by people who actually want the system and are engaging in what's called black propaganda.
And it's encouraged by a media who doesn't care and just wants the clicks.
But so long as the media keeps pushing this rhetoric that right-of-center politics or even centrist moderates are fringe, then you are telling people who don't know about politics, hey, if they're fringe and those people are fringe, they must not actually be fringe.
So somebody who's a moderate might now believe they're the same political beliefs as someone who actually is on the far, far right.
You are giving them a space to come together.
They're creating the monster they so fear.
Main story, take away for this segment.
When I heard what happened with someone going after a CNN journalist, that's truly shocking and terrifying.
Now, in the U.S., it's not the left targeting the journalists.
But I wouldn't be surprised.
They don't like them either.
They don't.
Now, the mainstream left, sure, they pretend to.
But the far left that's been taking, you know, gaining space in Congress, who's been holding these mass protests, and Tifo shows up in the streets, they feel the same way.
And what do you think's gonna happen?
Someone planted an improvised, an IED, at a police department in Eugene, Oregon, shortly after A far leftist was killed in a police confrontation.
Who did it?
We don't know, but I think we can make an assumption.
We see this in Greece, and I gotta say, it's pretty worrying.
Stick around.
I've got one more segment coming up shortly, and I will see you soon.
Our last story comes from PJ Media Study.
Many Democrats claiming mental distress after Trump election were faking it.
Why would people pretend to have Trump derangement syndrome?
Now, of course, they don't call it Trump Derangement Syndrome, but there have been some people who have referred to it as Trump Anxiety Disorder.
Why would people pretend to be getting anxiety, stress, and be seeking therapy after Trump won the election?
According to this study, because they're virtue signaling.
They call it reverse cheerleading.
Now, there are some caveats to this story, and we're going to go through that.
So, before we move on, just take it with a grain of salt.
I don't want you to run away from this story thinking it's absolute.
We're going to read through it.
Before we do, if you want to support my work, you can head over to TimCast.com slash donate.
I have a monthly donation option through PayPal.
There is a cryptocurrency options, a physical address, and of course, you can just share this video and click the like button if you don't want to do any of that.
But let's get back to the story.
The story says...
In this photo, we see Anna Devlin from Plano, Texas, cries in the gallery of the House of Representatives after the Electoral College voted at the state capitol in Austin, Texas, Monday, December 19, 2016.
The ballots of three dozen Texas presidential electors Monday put Donald Trump over the 270 electoral votes needed to formally win the White House.
They say, in the wake of the 2016 election, liberals nationwide were claiming significant mental-emotional distress.
Last month, so-called comedian Chelsea Handler claimed Trump's election drove her to drugs and to seek psychiatrist help for anxiety relief, yadda yadda.
But according to a new study published in SAGE I, an open access peer-reviewed academic journal, many registered Democrats were embellishing their mental anguish as a means to back their party.
It was just virtue signaling.
It reads, Our research suggests that for many Democrats, expressing mental distress after the election was a form of partisan cheerleading, writes researchers Masha Krupinkin, David Rothschild, Chandra Hill, and Elad Yamatov in their findings.
Clearly, many Democrats were and are upset about the Republican victory in 2016.
These findings do not invalidate those feelings, but put their depth and related actions into perspective.
This so-called reverse cheerleading occurs when a person misreports or exaggerates a condition publicly in order to show support for their affiliated group or, in this case, their political party.
The authors say that a person's actions in private reveal their true condition.
However, and for the study, that can be determined by evaluating private search terms.
In other words, a person who might describe suffering psychological distress on social media or to their friends but doesn't search for any type of help or relief is more likely showing a form of reverse cheerleading.
Let's do some caveats real quick.
First, I want to point out SageOpen, where this was published on Wikipedia, it's an open access peer-reviewed academic mega-journal.
Some people would criticize this saying it's open, anyone can submit and just pay to be peer-reviewed.
So it may not be as, you know, some people think this might not be as credible as other journals.
But we do have the conclusions here published in SageOpen.
We have the abstract.
We'll come back to this, but I wanted to show that we, you know, we do have the study in the introduction.
I'm not saying that simply because it's in an open megajournal, that means it's not credible.
And it was, we see, it looks like it was first published in March of 27th, March 27th of this year.
We do have a story here from StudyFinds.org that Democrats are exaggerating.
So I guess I just want to point out that caveat that, you know, it's coming from a megajournal.
Take it with a grain of salt.
It is what it is.
It's coming from PJ Media, which is a conservative, you know, more biased source.
But just to try and be safe and make sure, you know, you don't go running off thinking it's absolute, those are the, you know, let's read on.
They say, we find that while Democrats expressed serious mental distress about the election results on surveys, on average, the Democrats in our sample did not show an increase in mental health related searches after the election, the researchers wrote.
So it sounds like a lot of people might just be claiming they have some kind of distress, but they don't actually know if they do.
They're just saying they're distressed while trying to claim they have real mental issues for some reason.
I don't know why they would want to legitimately claim they have some kind of To assess the validity of Trump's stress disorder, the researcher analysis analyzed over a million searches by Bing users before and after the 2016 elections to determine the changes in mental health-related searches among Democrats and Republicans.
These changes were then compared to shifts in searches among Spanish-speaking Latinos in the United States, whom the researchers claimed were directly targeted by President Trump because of his opposition to Deferred Action DACA.
They say, while Spanish speakers both reported significant stress after Donald Trump's election
and showed an increase in searches for mental health related terms, the same was not true
for Democrats. Democrats showed no statistically significant changes in searches. Democrats were
no more likely to search for stress relief, nor mental illness, nor treatment for mental
illness before or after the election. This suggests that some Democrats reported mental
health declines after Trump's election as a form of reverse cheerleading, where partisans report
evaluations that are more negative than their true beliefs to reflect badly on a president
of the opposing party.
In other words, grifting!
These are the people who like to accuse other people of grifting.
They say the conservatives, these personalities, are grifting, they're lying, they're pretending to hold certain views to make money.
When in fact it looks like we have some data to back up the claim, they're pretending to be upset about Trump.
They're really not.
What if, and let's entertain this, what if these people don't really dislike Trump?
What if all these personalities don't care?
I'd be willing to bet none of them care.
I'd be willing to bet they just want to join in and make sure they get followers and have fans and make money, and they've always felt safe on the left, so this is their play.
Do they really care at the end of the day?
I highly doubt it.
I really, really do.
I mean, they're celebrities.
Think about how they got to where they are.
Like Chelsea Handler, for instance.
They're not, you know, they're not political activists.
They're not working for non-profits.
They're not going on the street.
These are individuals that entertain.
So why then would they claim this distress?
They're entertaining you.
They're telling you what you want to hear to confirm your bias.
Let's read the last little bit.
Liberals were obviously upset at the result of the 2016 election, just as Republicans were upset at the results of the 2008 and 2012 elections, that Democrats feel the need to embellish their anguish to prove their liberal bona fides tells us just what pathetic snowflakes they are.
Well, you've certainly got some opinion in this story that should be called out, but let's move on because in the study find section, they do make a point about this here at the end.
They say, interestingly, the authors point to a 2016 Gallup poll that shows Republicans seem less interested in partisan cheerleading.
That poll found Democrats reported higher levels of stress after the 2016 election, but Republicans didn't.
Yet after the 2008 election of Barack Obama, Republicans similarly showed no increase in stress despite the election of the young Democrat.
The study is published in the journal Sage Open.
So this study I have here is actually This is the Study Finds report from yesterday on the Democrats faking it, but they do link to this other study, which I have pulled up.
Republicans seem not to care about virtue signaling, and I wonder why that is.
There's also interesting data I talked about the other day, how Republicans don't care, I'm sorry, Republicans don't trust the media in general.
Liberals tend to trust almost all of the media.
Conservatives trust only a few personalities, Fox News and, say, Breitbart.
Why that is, I honestly don't know, but I think it does give us some insight into why there is this divide between the left and the right, why they believe what they believe.
Why is it that Republicans are not so interested in virtue signaling?
Maybe it's because they're skeptics.
Maybe it's because they tend to be distrustful and individualistic.
They don't rely on the collective for their strength.
Therefore, they have no reason.
And thus, you do end up seeing conservatives go after each other.
You know, some people have pointed out, where are the Koch brothers in defending free speech?
Nowhere to be found.
And they're long considered to be on the right, although probably libertarian types.
Well, let's read this.
They say Democrats may become bigger fans of the old children's tune, Rain Rain Go Away, thanks to a new study that explains why Republicans fare better on Election Day when it's raining.
Researchers at Dartmouth College and the Australian National University looked at both weather patterns and a comprehensive data set of recent American electoral outcomes, hoping to learn more about a previously documented correlation between rain and Republican Party success at the polls.
They say, Republicans, the researchers found, saw a slight yet significant statistical advantage, about 1% of the polls on rainy days, which they attributed to an aversion to risk during inclement weather conditions.
In other words, voters who'd planned on picking a Democrat if the weather was pleasant instead opted for the Republican candidates because it was raining.
That's weird, and I have no idea why they linked it.
I thought this was a story on virtue signaling, but still a funny data point, I might say.
Our study suggests that weather conditions may affect people's decisions on not only whether to vote, but also who they vote for.
Again, an electoral edge benefiting Republicans on rainy days has long been documented, but the study adds new insight.
So, um, I don't know why the study linked that.
That must be a mistake.
I thought it was going to be, um, a link directly to... Okay, so this is the actual study about Democrats lying.
I thought it was going to be a link to show Republicans didn't want to virtue signal, but apparently Republicans do better on rainy days.
Well, that's interesting.
I'll leave it in.
I'm not going to take it out.
We'll just go with it.
Excuse me, I have allergies.
So the study from Sage Journals is titled, President Trump Stress Disorder, Partisanship, Ethnicity, and Expressive Reporting of Mental Distress After the 2016 Elections.
And it basically concludes, basically concludes what we've already read, that they believe it was, in fact, virtue signaling.
And I'm going to have to personally agree.
I'll just say it one more time.
They're entertainers, these celebrities.
They don't care about politics.
They care about tribalism, and they care about rallying a consumer base to sell a product to.
So don't be surprised when you find there are political personalities dedicated to politics who are conservative, and you end up with these journalists, I'll do air quotes, claiming to be journalists, but they push far-left policies.
It's because they care more about tribalism and in-group than conservatives do, I would say.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
That concludes today's segments and episodes.
The next video will be up tomorrow on this channel at 10 a.m., and for those listening on the podcast, of course, it's always 7 p.m.
every day, although I have been a bit late in the past few days for editing reasons.
But I will end by saying if you'd like to support my work, timcast.com slash donate, it seriously does help.
We're getting into the summer months where viewership declines, and this means bad news in terms of revenue.
So I really do rely on your support through monthly donations, cryptocurrency, physical address, and of course, seriously, sharing the video might be one of the most powerful ways to promote because apparently that tells the YouTube algorithm that if people are sharing it, it must be good.
So just consider it.
Don't do anything you don't want to do.
Click the like button, it really does help.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
Quite a while ago, I made a tweet about how these journalists are actually activists masquerading as journalists.
And I'm going to compile a decent list of recent news to show you that yes, in fact, journalism is dying, or dead completely, and it's being replaced by activism.
For a variety of reasons.
For one, most of the people who use Twitter and are verified are journalists.
Twitter knows that they're driving the conversation and caters to them.
Then, because of a variety of issues pertaining to how to gain followers, social media addiction, as well as activist infiltration, we then see journalists predominantly using the ability to produce news to target political enemies.
Let's take a look at this first tweet from Rahim Kassam.
He's the global editor-in-chief of Human Events.
He says, Electoral Comm UK should investigate.
meddling in the UK's Europarl elections by mass-reporting pro-Brexit accounts that they
admit Twitter says are real people.
They concocted a story about suspicious activity as a cover for their mass-banning campaign.
Electoral Com UK should investigate.
He includes this image where it says, On Thursday, BuzzFeed News handed a sample of 30 of those
accounts to Twitter.
The next morning, Twitter had suspended 7 for breaching its policies.
Here we can see how the one-directional nature of the activists in media work.
They pretend to get quotes, and that's their way to get their political opponents banned.
There's a lot more to go through, but before I do that, I want to ask you, if you'd like to support me, go to timcast.com slash donate.
There is a monthly donation option.
There's a cryptocurrency option.
I have a physical address.
And if you don't want to do any of that, you can just share this video and click the like button, because apparently clicking the like button really does help.
But back to the original tweet here from Raheem Kassam.
At the bottom of the image it then says, based on its internal tools, Twitter is confident that the accounts flagged by BuzzFeed News are those of real people in the UK, despite their seemingly suspicious activity.
One of the things that frequently happens is that you'll see, you know, Oliver Darcy of CNN, where he says, it was media pressure that got Alex Jones banned.
I don't see CNN targeting other outlets or other individuals for fake news.
One of the points I've brought up, in a rather comical fashion, If people want Alex Jones banned for being fake news, why do they allow Ancient Aliens?
And I do mean this, it's kind of a funny thought, right?
But if you're not familiar with Ancient Aliens, it's a show where they Knowingly lie, because it's entertaining, about how the pyramids may have been built by aliens, and it's complete absurd nonsense.
We've known for a while how pyramids have been built, how certain ancient technologies were developed.
There's a lot of lost ancient technology because we've improved and changed the way we do things.
But Ancient Aliens is a fun show.
I certainly don't think it should be removed or banned, and a lot of people really enjoy it.
But how come they talk about Flat Earthers on YouTube and say they need to be banned, but they don't talk about ancient aliens on cable television?
To me, it shows that the bigger concern for many of these people is competition.
We on YouTube are displacing them.
Thus, they need a means to target their opponents.
In this instance highlighted by Rahim, the issue is actually political, targeting pro-Brexit accounts.
They handed over a bunch of accounts they think should be banned.
The implied threat here is that BuzzFeed can leverage their audience to give bad press to Twitter unless Twitter takes action.
Twitter then takes action.
Don't take my word for it.
Oliver Darcy of CNN said it was media pressure that got Twitter to ban Alex Jones.
CNN ran a story about a group called Maffic Media.
Maffic Media is half owned by Ruptly, which is funded by Russia Today through the Russian government.
CNN wrote the story and then waited until Facebook suspended Mafic Media, even though Mafic broke no rules, and then wrote their story saying Facebook has suspended a Russia-funded backed, you know, millennial news outlet.
The question I then posit, why don't they target Al Jazeera?
Al Jazeera is funded by the government of Qatar.
So this makes it painfully obvious that it's political.
Now, it's entirely possible that CNN did this because they want to get ratings, and Russia is a hot topic.
They've been doing Russiagate for years.
But let's move on to some other examples.
Here we have a tweet from just the other day.
There's an image of a man making the okay hand gesture.
David McDougal.
He is a Scottish journalist in Finland.
Editor of News Now Finland tweeted, Hi Lisek, do you have a job?
I wonder what your employers think of you making a sign that has been co-opted by the far right.
Would be interested to find out or maybe a future employer is interested.
Rather strange thing for a journalist to post.
Threatening to contact an employer to cause harm to you because of something you're doing associated with politics.
Is this the normal behavior of a journalist?
No, it's not.
These are activists.
They are wearing suit and ties and they are working in media.
And here we have someone presenting a veiled threat that they will try and take your job away from you because you've done a hand gesture.
Now, in no way do I want to defend this weird guy doing the okay hand gesture.
I don't know who this is.
He's maybe a bad person.
The issue isn't anything to do with the individuals, but more so the behavior of the journalists.
We can see another tweet from David McDougal, where he says, I don't know if these people have jobs, but I wonder what their employers would think about them making signs that are closely associated with... you know who.
What's the point he's trying to make?
Another tweet, a third tweet, he says, I wonder what his employers would think.
It's a longer tweet, it says a lot about Finland, but he ends by, wonder what his employers would think.
Here's what I can only surmise.
Highlighting someone's job to them.
Do you have a job?
I wonder what your employer would think.
Isn't that, is that not a veiled threat?
When he says, I wonder what their employers would think in the following tweets, it sounds like it's a call to action for his 14,000 followers to do something.
So here we can see actual behavior from a verified Twitter user encouraging some kind of behavior or actually making veiled threats.
But we'll move on.
I have many more examples.
This may be a long video.
This article from BuzzFeed is misplaced.
We'll come back to it in a second.
This is a story from Pointer, which shows that It's poorly formatted, but journalists are the largest, most active verified group on Twitter.
The reason I highlight this is just to very quickly, before we move on, to show you the amount of leverage that journalists have over Twitter.
I think this could lend itself to the idea, it's possible, activists have purposefully entered journalism knowing that they will have leverage over public spheres of influence.
It's also more likely, much much more likely in my opinion, that it's not so much a left-wing conspiratorial activist thing, more so that these journalists are being radicalized by the spheres on Twitter and social media addiction.
But also, they've found a quick path to followers.
You know, by promoting more radical hot takes and far-left propaganda on these ideas, you know, targeting people like Dave Rubin, etc., they gain followers from outraged groups.
Because they're the largest group of Twitter users, they can then pressure Twitter to take action, and they have.
In this story from The Daily Wire, talking about the Learn to Code meme, They talk about how NBC reporter Ben Collins suggested the meme was an ingenious cover story of highlighting journalistic softness with Learn to Code, then expected cruelty underneath.
The issue here is actually that Ben Collins' personal friends at NBC were being targeted.
So he quoted a far-left activist in the story as if it's fact, and this is a common technique we see among these individuals.
They will act like far-left activists are authorities on certain issues and platform them to give them credence, but also to shape a narrative.
The narrative being that Learn to Code was some kind of extremely, you know, I don't know, nefarious far-right thing, when in reality, it was just kind of a meme.
It wasn't necessarily conservative, though it was used by many conservatives, Learn to code was meant to poke fun at how journalists hold disdain for the working class individuals, namely coal miners, who would lose their jobs and then many stories were run saying, learn to code.
John Levine.
Said, I am told by a person in the know that tweeting Learn to Code at any recently laid off journalist will be treated as abusive behavior and is a violation of Twitter's terms of service.
However, many journalists then jumped to the defense of Twitter and claimed this was fake news.
But in fact, it was true.
Some of these tweets have since been deleted, when it was uncovered, actually admitted.
That Jack Dorsey said perhaps we were too aggressive in banning some accounts.
The point I'm bringing up here is how factual information that people who are tweeting Learn to Code were being removed wrongly, journalists rushed to the defense of the activists and other journalists to protect them from criticism, putting pressure on Twitter.
And I think this shows that they understand the power and influence they hold working in media, and they're using it to personally advantage themselves.
But let's move on to another couple examples.
Here we have a tweet from Mark DiStefano, highlighting the fact that Tommy... I'm not going to say this individual's name because YouTube will absolutely just derank my content, so I'm going to avoid saying too much.
But Mark DiStefano is targeting a certain personality in the UK.
And the example here is how they claim to be journalists, but they repeatedly, repeatedly highlight specific actions by certain individuals and then demand action.
And when they don't get it, they're actually rather outraged or angered.
In one instance, posting a reaction meme shrugging, why aren't they doing what I want them to do?
And then quoting people saying YouTube are a complete disgrace.
Clearly we can see what they're trying to make happen.
Next we have the story of Joe Bernstein, who wrote a negative story about A 14-year-old on YouTube.
Once again, Joe Bernstein has tweeted things in the past.
He's apologized for it.
I recognize that.
But he's shown himself to be aligned with the politically activist left.
So these are more simple examples, but we'll move on very quickly.
We can see, uh, Mark DeStefano is very, very actively targeting specific YouTubers.
And I have to wonder why.
If you're somebody who covers, uh, specific topics, I can understand that.
But to go after individuals and do this, they do this thing where, you know, uh, Oliver Darcy, for instance.
We'll move on to Oliver.
He says something to the effect of, I'm just asking questions.
I'm just reporting on it.
And at a certain point, that's okay, right?
Yes, absolutely.
There was an instance where I reached out to Patreon about a comment on a far-left Patreon account, and then he immediately banned them.
I realized the danger of giving out names of specific accounts, and I no longer do it.
However, what this uncovers is the absolute exploit in that these people in media know by pointing this out, these people will get banned.
But they do it anyway.
In fact, they wield it on purpose.
We can then see the direction that Oliver Darcy takes.
Is Oliver Darcy a reporter?
Absolutely not.
Though he may have been in the past, he absolutely isn't.
And I'll stress this too, I don't think he ever really was.
If you do a search on Oliver Darcy's history, you'll find that he was actually a staunch conservative who made gotcha videos.
They've since been deleted.
He then went to work for Business Insider, where he actually interviewed me about my position resisting censorship.
Later, he goes on to be one of the principal actors pushing for censorship.
Sounds to me like he doesn't actually have principles.
He's looking for a quick exit.
So he tweeted this.
Excuse me.
He goes on to say, related, and it's a link to Matthew Gertz.
After it fell apart, Fox said it would investigate what happened.
It's unclear whatever became of that probe.
The results were never announced.
Neither has neither was any disciplinary action for those responsible.
Excuse me.
He goes on to say related and it's a link to Matthew Gertz.
Someone responds with pot kettle and I would agree.
Oliver Darcy doesn't highlight wrongdoing in media.
He specifically targets InfoWars and Fox News.
And by all means, I have repeatedly criticized InfoWars.
I have repeatedly made light or made fun of Alex Jones's ranting about Extra dimensional aliens or people doing drugs.
And I have also reported on Fox News retracting conspiracies and other such things.
But curious then why Oliver Darcy as a media reporter doesn't focus on other scandals at other media outlets.
Namely, the president of NowThis News giving a presentation in California saying that they've brought in anti-Trump activists to the highest levels.
Another example of journalism becoming an activist haven.
NowThis News is generating a lot of hits on Facebook.
I don't know where they're at now.
But it's a well-funded venture.
And now this president said on the stage at VidCon that they've brought in anti-Trump activists.
Curious why that's not an issue for Oliver Darcy and CNN.
Curious why other big scandals and retractions aren't a big story.
Now they claim sometimes, oh no, we do cover these things.
Not really.
Let me point this out.
One of the things that I've repeatedly brought up, this is a good example of the hypocrisy of CNN, as well as action taken by a reporter in activist means.
What you're looking at now is a website called News Diffs, or for those that aren't looking or only listening, What News Diffs does is shows you previous versions of articles that have been changed and how they've been changed.
I'm not sure if this site is still active, but what we see here is a story called The Life and Death of the Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory from the Washington Post.
Change log.
We can see the story was originally published May 24th, 2017 at 1024 AM.
But strangely, was edited in November of that year.
What happened so that six months after the story was written, they had to make changes?
Well, the truth is, it would seem that the original story was fake.
What the writer David Weigel claimed Was that he believed, based on no evidence, Kim.com, the famous hacker and founder of Mega, was trying to hack into the email account of Seth Rich to plant emails.
Seth Rich, of course, was a former DNC staffer who lost his life.
There was a conspiracy about him being the source for WikiLeaks, though it's very contentious with people saying it is or it isn't, and the mainstream, you know, official narrative, there's no real evidence to suggest that.
However, what you're seeing now, or I can explain to you, are the changes made.
The changes to the story alter it from being about a hacker in New Zealand trying to break into Rich's email to someone maybe trying to do it.
Essentially what it appears happened is that the story was published.
It was pushed out by many journalists, a narrative that someone was trying to fake a conspiracy theory.
Why?
Curious, why?
Why did they need to write a fake news story, making it seem like the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was propped up by individuals faking it?
But then several months later, in November, altered the article to remove much of the evidence.
In fact, the article does not... You can see here, check it out.
Nowhere in the revision do you see update or correction.
No.
It was changed six months later.
Think about what that means.
Let's say you read this story.
You share it with your friends.
You spread the lie.
They all believed it.
Six months later, they cover up their tracks and they don't post a correction notice.
The average person would come back to this and just think maybe they got it wrong.
There's no log.
Fortunately, we have a website, NewsDiff, to prove.
In fact, Washington Post altered a story several months later, six months later, and buried a lot of the evidence.
In fact, I find this whole thing to be very, very strange, but indicative of the behaviors of people who work in media and how they seek to push political agendas.
We have this story from Oliver Darcy, which I think we've talked about Oliver enough.
It says Facebook touts fight on fake news, but struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned.
At the same rate, I would ask why ancient aliens And other obviously fake news videos aren't banned.
Who gets to be the arbiter of truth?
In this instance, it appears that Oliver Darcy, if I was to do an analysis of his actions, it's mostly an easy target.
He knows that his tribe doesn't like Infowars, so he can point the finger at them while ignoring stories like what The Washington Post did.
And yes, I'm pretty sure he knows about this.
Many people know about what The Washington Post did, and I've actually gotten some other journalists to apologize for it and correct the record after the fact, not realizing they had been duped.
Journalism does still exist, let me stress, but activists are taking a massive step in pushing forward.
Now what we have here is probably the best and most recent example of how activists are working in journalism specifically for political means.
This is a Twitter thread from Nick Monroe.
Far-left media cowards deplatformed Dave Rubin from Buttigieg interview.
While I certainly don't want to use the word cowards, I think it's a bit hyperbolic and unnecessary to convey the ideas.
Essentially what happened, however, is that Dave Rubin reached out To Chris Meeker, who is the, I believe he's the press secretary or manager for Pete Buttigieg, who actually responded to Dave with, DM me.
Would sound if they were interested in doing an interview on the Rubin Report.
However, a journalist from the Huffington Post, Media Matters, now Media Matters is
an activist organization, so we'll skip over him, but we have the Huffington Post, we have
the Young Turks, we have, this is just another activist, we have an individual who appears
to be just another, I'm not sure who this person is, it's a pop culture and politics,
we have a person who's an author, Occupy Democrats.
So many of these people are in fact actually, actually activists.
But we can see we've got Huffington Post, The Young Turks.
We have Ben Collins once again popping up, trying to de-platform Pete Buttigieg from Dave's show.
And Ben Collins works for NBC News.
Now, in no uncertain terms, Ben Collins is an activist.
He produced a fake news piece citing another far-left activist as a source.
This is not journalism.
It is not how you are supposed to accurately report information.
And here we have him tweeting negative information about about Dave Rubin, and this is a tactic, right?
So this is something they do that allows them to effectively mask their activities.
He claims, I'm just reporting it, but in fact, it's more slamming Pete Buttigieg for daring to consider this interview.
I will also stress, you know, what eventually happened.
Let me continue.
We also have a Vox reporter, Carlos Maza, who also called it absolute madness that they would consider going on Dave Rubin's show.
Here we can see many people who work in media are actually aligned with far-left activists and doing their best to put pressure on people for political ends.
What's the problem if Dave Rubin interviews Pete Buttigieg?
And I'll stress, Pete Buttigieg apparently pulled out.
According to Dave, if Pete Buttigieg cannot take the heat from some activists on Twitter, then he will never be able to defeat Trump.
I'm sorry.
Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders have gone on Fox News.
You know, Yang and Tulsi have gone on Rogan.
They're willing to stand up and actually speak on principle.
Of course, the machine doesn't necessarily like that, and if Buttigieg went on some certain channels, then maybe the activists within media would cause him harm.
This is Pete Buttigieg bending the knee, and this is the power of activists in media and
how it's harmful to our discourse.
Why should we care about a Vox reporter calling something absolute madness?
In fact, why would journalists try to stop something from happening?
You'd think journalists would encourage the interaction, and then they could highlight
information and carry on with their stories.
However, it ultimately ended up with Dave Rubin saying that, essentially, it's done.
Media Matters, Vox, Huffington Post, they lobbied Pete Buttigieg not to do his show, and it worked.
I've got a couple other tweets.
We have Bridget Fatassi making the point I kind of just said, but I wanted to highlight her statement, that if Pete Buttigieg thinks he can beat Donald Trump, the emperor of all trolls, but caves to pressure from random blue checks, he's already toast.
Now I want to move on to one last thought on the repercussions.
Hopefully what I've shown you is not an exhaustive list, but we can see here how activists absolutely do work in media, how they manipulate articles, how they lie, how they cheat, how they smear, and they do it for political means, they do it for monetary means.
We can see how they would even go back and alter a story six months later to cover their tracks.
This is the current state of media.
But now we have this.
The final thought.
Confirmation from the Guardian that a certain individual has been banned from Facebook and Instagram.
Great to see the rules applied.
I can't name this individual, unfortunately, because YouTube will absolutely just derank my channel for mentioning his name.
This is from Mike Stutchberry, who was cheering for censorship.
We then later saw Mike Stutchberry shocked to find that even he could not talk about it.
And that's the end result of censorship.
You create rules, the rules will be used against you.
But I'll leave it at that.
Ultimately, the point here and our final thought on the matter is that, yes, activists are in media.
The greatest example is from Raheem Kassam, how what BuzzFeed did was they took accounts they wanted to get banned, brought them to Twitter and said, why won't you ban these people?
And sure enough, many of them got banned.
I don't see BuzzFeed news doing the same for the far left.
I don't see BuzzFeed News targeting Antifa or other accounts.
In fact, there are many journalists completely aligned with Antifa who produce fake news and lie, and I know who they are.
But you know what?
They're allowed to lie.
They are.
It's the First Amendment.
It's just a huge problem for discourse, and it's going to cause a complete and total breakdown.
So I'll end it here.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will have more videos on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6pm, then 630, then 7, and all of this content will be appearing Presumably.
It will be on iTunes, Spotify, Google, etc.
as a podcast audio version for those that aren't aware.
If you want to support the video, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate to help me out.
Donate monthly.
Cryptocurrency.
And I have a physical address.
Share the video.
Click the like button.
It really helps.
Or just spread the word.
I'm not really sure how you promote podcasts, but on YouTube, it's very reliant on the algorithm, which is why it's very dangerous to say certain names and use certain words.
But we'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Or if you're listening to the podcast, just stick around.
