All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:06:55
Timcast - EP4 - Journalists Exposed Working With Far Left Activsts
Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:06:45
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Our first story today comes from Dr. Eowyn Lenahan on Twitter, who's done a bit of research digging up a network of anti-fascists on Twitter and linking them to the verified accounts and the companies they work for.
I gotta say, I take this all with a grain of salt.
The first image you'll see, for those that are watching online, is another kind of crime web.
Now they did the same thing, you know, activists did the same thing to me and others on YouTube, so I always say it would be hypocritical of me to try and claim that this is somehow more indicative of wrongdoing for them, but not for me.
And I also don't know the methodology behind what they're doing.
So I do want to go through this.
I want to address it.
I want to be rational and reasonable.
But I can say from my own personal experience, it does seem like Dr. A.O.N.
Linehan does have something here.
And we can scroll down.
And see that he's pinpointed some of the most prominent verified journalists.
Some people who work for Vice, for Mike.com, or did work for Mike.com, and for The Guardian.
And I believe that some of his conclusions are correct.
It appears that we actually have more examples of journalists working, I should say journalists with air quotes, working for major news publications who are anti-fascist activists.
And in some instances have been accused of actually paying Antifa to dox people so they can then publish the news on their platform.
My understanding, and I do know some of these people personally, And that's why I believe it.
But we'll go through it, we'll go through it.
I'll take it with a grain of salt, and I'll give some pushback.
But what they do is, they're essentially activists themselves, and they hide behind the label of journalist to make it seem like their activism is some kind of legitimate news service.
So I want to do one important thing.
I want to show what we're working on before we get into reading through this thread.
I worked for Vice, I worked for Fusion, and I have seen first-hand the far-left ideology, identitarianism, anti-fascist extremism.
I hate how they call it anti-fascist because everybody is anti-fascist except for fascists.
So, you know, I am anti-fascist, right?
But the brand of anti-fascism is particularly Dangerous, violent, extremist, and these people who typically, you know, wear all black and call themselves Antifa, are not regular Americans who believe in freedom.
They're the fringe extremists who tend to be authoritarians.
They use violence to impose their will on others.
So the first thing I want to do is I want to show Subverse, because one of the things we're going to be doing, and we are doing, is making content without an agenda.
The best way I can describe it, our only agenda is knowledge.
And that's an important thing that I think was lost with all these media companies and why we're seeing a story about, you know, journalists who are actually anti-fascist activists.
We're not going to tolerate that as we expand Subverse.
I also want to do one thing else, another thing.
If you want to support my work, I normally don't mention this on this channel, but we're going to be setting up memberships as we expand Subverse for the time being.
You can support me by going to TimCast.com slash donate if you like what I do.
As this is going to be my primary news show and channel, I'm going to be mentioning how you can support me more often.
But let's not waste any more time.
Let's go through this thread.
I'll also add really quickly, easiest way you can support these videos is just to share them or click the like button if you like the video.
Ewan Lenihan tweets, Going to do a long thread on the relationship between verified Twitter accounts, focus on journalists, and Antifa warning could be long.
He says, We mapped the social interactions of 58,254 Antifa-affiliated accounts on Twitter, based on an initial seed of 16 self-identifying and verifiable Antifa accounts, and Mark Bray, who chose not to confirm if he is a member of Antifa, but whose book makes a solid case for inclusion.
Mark Bray wrote the anti-fascist handbook, so most people are going to assume that's the case.
Now, I do want to point out here Something really important when it comes to the Antifa activists.
We can see Rose City Antifa right in the middle.
I often refer to the fact that Antifa isn't just random accounts.
You know, people wonder why the Proud Boys were all banned and Antifa wasn't, and the left often says, well, it's because Antifa is, you know, disparate and decentralized.
Not true.
Here we can see that while cells typically operate independently, They do interact with each other to extreme degrees.
They share information.
So they don't have a direct hierarchy.
But we can see that Rose City Antifa, for instance, is a branded cell.
They have their own merchandise, okay?
Just because they don't have a leader of all of Antifa doesn't mean there's not organized groups that have brands, specific brands.
Rose City Antifa is a brand, okay?
They're making reference to Portland, obviously.
You can see Philly, Antifa, NYC.
But these are specifically branded groups.
They can be individually removed for breaking the rules.
They aren't.
Lenan says, we reduced the dataset to 1.65 of all 58,254 accounts, leaving us with 962 accounts.
These were the 1.65 most connected Antifa and Antifa-associated accounts on Twitter.
Each had a minimum of 8 connections with the initial dataset, most having many more.
He says, here I just want to focus on those Twitter verified accounts that made it into this data set of the most connected Antifa and Antifa associated accounts on Twitter.
Here you can see them highlighted in green.
So, we can then see that he highlights, you know, some specific individuals.
I'm going to use their names simply because they're in this, and I want to make sure I say this before I read individual names.
I was smeared on a list of a crime web as well.
Take it with a grain of salt.
The alternative influence network thing that went around was absurdly, you know, incorrect.
And I want to stress, not to the disrespect of Dr. Lenahan here, But just to point out, it seems like he's basing these off social interactions.
While highly unlikely, it is possible some of these people might have negative social interactions.
I doubt it.
I'm just saying, take it with a grain of salt.
If I would ask you not to trust the Alternative Influence Network, then I would present the same kind of skepticism towards this.
So, there is some things I want to go through, though, that represent what makes the AIN thing different from this, right?
So they claimed that I appeared in videos, and that was it.
It was like, Tim appeared in a video with Andy Warsky.
That's deceptive.
Extremely misleading.
The video in question was someone at VidCon was filming.
I talked to them and walked away, and then later Andy Worsky came up and talked to them, and they claimed that was me collaborating with Worsky.
It's absolutely absurd.
And they had a line connecting Chris Ragon to Richard Spencer.
Never happened.
That's absurd.
So, that I can, you know, definitely debunk.
In terms of this, these are just based off of social media interactions, so it is different.
But again, I want to stress, because now we're going to look at some of these individuals.
We have Jack Smith, formerly of Vice.
We have Tess Owen, I believe of Vice News.
We have Jason A.W., who is of The Guardian.
I'm not sure who some of these people are, but we can also see that we have a ton of smaller accounts, and all definitely Antifa-linked, and interacting with these journalists, which is really, really fascinating.
So it says, at eight connections and above within the data set, the typical verified account is an openly self-identifying anti-fascist and an influential member of the Antifa movement on Twitter.
For example, Kit O'Connell, who points out his anti-fascist affiliation in his bio.
Now, this is actually kind of a sad story because I know Kit personally, and he invited me out in early 2012, I believe, to give a presentation on live streaming technique to some local citizen journalist types.
Kit initially was an Occupy activist guy, and he was rational and normal.
He has his politics.
In 2011, I was filming Black Block Anarchists.
I was getting attacked for it.
The far-left types hated me.
They hated me the whole time.
I refused to make propaganda.
Kit saw through that and invited me out to Austin.
Strangely now, he's become... An extremist would be saying, likely.
He's gone above and beyond extremist.
He sent me crazy-ass messages about... You know, I'm not gonna get into exactly what he said, but... Somewhat threatening messages.
Somewhat threatening.
Just... He's absolutely been radicalized to an insane and extreme degree, where he's... I believe... This is my personal opinion, but I do believe that he may be... How do I say this?
Not- not seeing reality.
Losing the capability to understand the world around him.
I don't want to imply any kind of medical diagnosis, but you see what I'm trying to say.
And I mean that sincerely.
I- I- I met this guy, we've talked online, and I even tried explaining to him, like, you know, how you de-radicalize, and he's just gone off the rails.
And- and- and I- and I- when I say gone off the rails, I mean this dude.
Wow.
Really, really, just...
Living in another dimension.
I seriously think he might need some medication, I mean it sincerely.
Next we have Patrick Strickland, who specializes in reporting on the far right and writes positively on Antifa in Europe.
Note the recommendation from Mark Bray.
This individual, Dylan Petrohilos, just another activist.
We have Dan Arell, who my understanding is that I could be wrong, but I believe there was some kind of like messages from Dan, like he was talking to friends, and he's actually more of just a troll.
And I mean that literally, I'm not trying to disparage him.
Troll gets thrown around a lot.
No, my understanding is that he actually just tries to trigger people.
He's not really far left in that sense.
He just likes jumping on the bandwagon and getting people angry.
There were some messages I saw from him and another person that were leaked or something.
I could be wrong about this, because it's been a long time.
But that's what I thought happened.
Again, I could be wrong.
I want to stress this.
But it was something about him saying, like, yeah, I know it's not true, but I just like getting a rise out of people.
They bring up Emily Gorsenski.
He says, Gorsenski uses Twitter to dox those she deems fascist.
Further, she created the first vigil website that processes court documents to share the personal information of suspected members of the far right.
In cases where people are found innocent, 50% info is still shared.
Now, let's move on to the more interesting stuff, because I don't want to make a ridiculously long video on this matter.
But he does mention that there are people who work for Huffington Post and The Guardian, notably Jason Wilson.
He says, Wilson writes for The Guardian in a recent piece in which he reports on an intelligence report by the ROCIC, which states that Antifa are responsible for street violence, just as the far right are.
He heavily relies on Mark Bray as a primary source to attack the report.
My main issue with Jason Wilson and others is that they're very obviously activists, right?
So when you look at his stuff, you know, he once tried claiming that I was, like, in some way alt-right, because one time I interviewed these guys.
Completely bad faith, activist take.
And masquerading opinion as fact, using heavily biased sources, not ethical at all.
This guy is very obviously an activist.
Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook.
It's very obvious that he's taking, he's asking Antifa and giving them a puff piece, because yes, he is.
We then, we can move on to, this is really interesting because this is Christopher Matthias.
I believe I've met him on more than one occasion.
Lenahan says, Mathias is a senior writer at Huffington Post who specializes in the far right.
In recent pieces he wrote about members of Identity Europa, he spread the doxes of several alleged members serving in the military.
At the time of writing, he had no idea of their innocence or guilt.
As of his pinned tweet, the matter is still only under investigation.
How he came to dox these individuals before they were afforded any new process is interesting.
He goes on to say, anti-fascist news outlet URNinja leaked Discord servers from Identity Europa server in April and Matthias took them from there.
It's a common theme.
Matthias lets Antifa doxers do the heavy work.
He does the national level doxing.
Nate Thayer, another fave of his.
Here he uses HuffPost to- HuffPo to out a prominent, uh, yeah.
Far right guy.
And was instrumental, along with his Antifa network, in getting him investigated.
It later turned out the man was cleared of any wrongdoing and allowed back to work.
Now, I don't believe this is true, which is why I always say take this stuff with a grain of salt.
Because here's the chain of events we have from Huffington Post.
The first story, the state is investigating this guy.
His name is Alex McNabb.
The second story, cleared by investigation.
The third story, he has been fired from his job.
So, I don't believe that Lenahan is correct.
I haven't found any updates.
I don't think he has gotten his job back.
I think Lenahan may be wrong on this.
He was ultimately let go.
He says Matthias harvests info from his Antifa network to cast serious allegations against individuals with potentially career-shattering consequences, and through doxing, opens up the real chance of violence and harm against them.
He then goes on to reference Michael Edison Hayden.
Now, Michael Edison Hayden is somebody who I've mentioned on several occasions because he's repeatedly called for censorship, and himself and another left-wing activist have been censored.
But let's move on to the more egregious accusation.
Matthias is not alone in mining antifa for doxes.
He says that Luke O'Brien at Huffington Post seems to create a constant Nazi scare to fill headlines.
Lenahan says, I spoke to two defectors from a doxing collective who said a health provider offered cash.
He goes on to say that they fed false information to personally harm people they didn't like.
Here the doxer who claimed he has a health post journalist on call admits the individual they are doxing is not far-right or fascist, but they'll give the info just because they have been incentivized.
He says a HuffPost writer incentivized Antifa doxers to provide him with the doxes of the far right.
The doxer admits here in the DMs provided by a member of the group clearly states they had no such people, but they had a grudge against them, so that will suffice.
Notice how eager the doxer states that we got a major publication on him after clearly stating the person they doxed is not far right.
I can't confirm which HuffPo writer incentivized the hunting, but there's at least one whose bylines are extended in all the doxes.
Excuse me.
So I'll say a few things.
We don't know if these screenshots are true.
You know, of course people are going to try and smear the other side.
They tried doing the same thing to me.
I bring this up mostly because I actually, there's been a decent amount of traction on people sharing this thread.
And I don't know how much the initial tweet has.
Actually, I should refresh.
It's got 108 retweets.
And it does fall to 440 retweets as of this morning.
As of the recording of this video.
It's from a couple days ago.
And I want to make a few points.
You know, I want to stress something.
Take all of this with a grain of salt because, again, the Alternative Influence Network, I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Ewan Lenihan because I don't know him personally, I know he follows me.
But just because people interact online doesn't mean their interests are aligned.
I will say, however, some of the people implicated in this I know for a fact to be activists.
And one of the things that I'm going to say as I sign off on this video, one of the projects that we're going to be rolling out with Subverse as we expand, we're hiring.
We've gotten over a thousand applicants.
It's amazing.
We're setting up space.
We're looking for investors.
But here's the important part.
I am a moderate fan of NewsGuard.
You may be familiar with the NewsGuard service.
They give a rating, a nutrition rating, to various news websites.
However, I believe their methodology to be imperfect.
If you're not familiar, what NewsGuard does is they judge things based off a few criteria.
So let's do this.
We'll pull up Huffington Post, who has a near-perfect NewsGuard rating.
But we can see here, I don't know if you can see this because sometimes it doesn't appear, handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly, and they give Huffington Post an X. And they're right.
Huffington Post routinely writes opinion as fact.
But here's the thing.
They should also have an X for gathers and presents information responsibly.
I disagree.
Regularly corrects and clarifies errors I can't speak to.
Does not repeatedly publish false content.
I think they're leaning toward leniency on this one.
That's fine.
Avoids deceptive headlines.
Look, if you're going to give an X on opinion and news, there's going to be more X's, I'd have to say.
It's a cascade effect.
But this is what they do, right?
So this is how their nutrition label works.
Our plan for Subverse, so far now, and I tweeted about this, is to do a random sampling of a hundred articles and then present an X out of a hundred in terms of deception.
So this is the plan so far and if you're interested and you feel like being a, I don't know, a fact checker, I guess is the best way to put it, the goal would be, you know, probably, we have to figure out an appropriate period because we want to make sure people have the ability to correct their mistakes.
But we would start from the day of research and go back something like three months.
Take a random sampling, random, of a hundred articles, read through them, fact-check them, see if they're labeled correctly.
Any fault will be deemed an X. A negative.
Okay?
So basically, if they write a news story, and there is an opinion in it, and it is not labeled, we will give them a negative on that story.
We're going to create a spreadsheet for every news outlet, explaining why we gave this story a negative, and then, uh, We'll put together basically out of the 100 stories we sampled, X out of 100 were factual news.
And then if you click it, you'll have a spreadsheet and you can go and check for yourself.
And if you disagree with us, you know, you can come to us.
But it's going to be very methodical.
We're not going- I don't care about your politics, I just care about if you write a news story that says X happened to Y, or X is occurring in Y place, and in that story you say something like, you know, in reference to the BuzzFeed story recently, the executives have only themselves to blame, X, right off the bat.
That has nothing to do with the story.
If you say, like they did in the BuzzFeed story, there is a moral crisis at YouTube, X. That is an opinion.
You have to label these things as opinion or editorial.
If you are not doing that, you are not presenting news.
So, we will strive to make sure we're only pulling up the news stories.
And in the instance of Huffington Post, we can clearly see NewsGuard agrees.
They do not handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly, nor do most of these sites.
And while NewsGuard is fine, I think they make the mistake of not quantifying.
Because I can easily pull up stories that I know to be false.
So what you'll end up seeing...
Huffington Post would probably get, like, a 71 out of 100 or something.
Probably less.
I think Huffington Post would actually do fairly poorly on this.
And of course, Breitbart and InfoWars would probably get a poor score as well.
As much as many people on the right probably want to believe, you know, they're telling the truth more often, it's not so much whether or not they have their facts straight, it's about responsibly providing information to the public, and if they don't, label things opinion and otherwise.
That's what we're going to be doing.
And we're going to do the same thing for ourselves on the website.
We will absolutely make sure everything is labeled with a correction policy, etc, etc.
I don't want to ramble too long.
I've already gone for 20 minutes.
So, I will just, you know, end by saying this.
I always want to make sure that unless we have something definitive, all I can really say is, this is an interesting bit of information.
Take it with a grain of salt, I lean towards believing that it's, you know, true, for the most part.
But I recognize that I've been smeared as well and don't like the idea of targeting, you know, journalists and linking them this way, because it's basically the same thing.
I'll leave it there.
For those that are listening on the podcast, next story coming up in a couple seconds, and I will see the rest of you at 1pm on the YouTube channel.
Just about a week ago, we heard that a scientist, one of the leading scientists on gender dysphoria, was suspended from Twitter for saying that it was a mental disorder.
And the truth is, it is.
It's listed in the DSM-5.
I'm not completely familiar with what that is, so, you know, don't hold that against me.
I'm not a scientist.
But this individual, Ray Blanchard, I believe his name is, Dr. Blanchard, is one of the foremost experts.
Now, naturally, many in the trans community and on the woke left Don't like him and I'm not and I'm not here to defend him as like, you know the herald of truth or anything But no, he's a researcher and one of the leading researchers on Gender dysphoria and trans issues and it actually sounds like he's tried to be somewhat sympathetic to the politics and the activists but the issue we have here is that Twitter actually suspended this guy's tweet and
where he said, quote, my beliefs include the following six elements.
One, transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder,
which may leave the individual with average or even above average functioning in unrelated areas of life.
I'm not, I don't necessarily understand what he's trying to say there.
Above average functioning?
I'm not sure what that means.
But that tweet resulted in a suspension.
So we can then see this.
Ray Blanchard, PhD.
You have violated our rules against hateful conduct.
This story, by the way, is from CNS News.
That tweet that I just read you was taken down for hate speech, for stating a scientific
fact.
And this is what's worrisome to me when we have this conversation about science, science
denialism on the left.
It exists.
And in fact, Twitter's rules can be weaponized against facts and scientists.
What happens then is, you know what we're seeing is the politicization of science.
Now, of course, science has always been political.
Going back to the story of the heliocentric universe and the geocentric universe and things
Yes, people who try to put forth certain ideas would be mocked and ridiculed because often these ideas conflict with the agendas of individuals.
This is why it's so important to respect the scientific process, recognizing that scientists are often wrong, and that's what makes science work.
Constantly improving and recognizing your mistakes.
I'll read a little bit from CNS News, but we'll move on to... We have an interview with Ray Blanchard from the National Review, which he makes some interesting points that I want to read on.
The story says Blanchard's post is presented in this article.
It is not clear where he engages in hateful conduct or seeks to promote violence against, threaten or harass anyone.
Apparently just stating that transsexualism is a mental disorder is hateful conduct.
Yes, that's the point.
Dr. Blanchard earned his A.B.
in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D.
from the University of Illinois.
He was the chief of clinical sexology services in the law and mental health program at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Ontario from 1995 to 2010.
We can see Ray Blanchard was reinstated.
Twitter has unlocked my account and graciously apologized for their error.
My sincere thanks to the people who expressed their concern during the past 24 hours.
They go on to say that he's currently a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, Blanchard's specialty, and most of his research over the years concerns gender identity disorders and transsexualism.
What's interesting is that Following this, there were some people who tweeted, gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.
But here's the thing.
One of the reasons why Blanche, I assume, I believe this is because of Blanchard, but we'll read some of his personal statements in the matter.
But I looked into this and I tried to understand why is it that you actually do have trans activists defending the idea that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.
And it's very simply, very simple.
For people to get care, to get the medication they want, to get the surgery they want, it needs to be a medical condition.
There are actually activists who want gender dysphoria to be removed from the DSM-5.
Again, I don't know what DSM-5 means, like the acronym or whatever, but it's a list of
like mental disorders, includes schizophrenia, that's my understanding.
If that were to be removed from mental disorders and, you know, officially determined not to
be a mental disorder, then you would, you end up with trans individuals who want to
get medication who won't be able to in some circumstances.
So it's actually an activist-y thing to defend this.
You can see the contradictory nature of those who want, you know, the moral satisfaction of claiming that's not a mental disorder.
And you can even... It's weird.
I mean, welcome to politics in whatever... This era's crazy.
But let's head over to this National Review article.
Meet the bold sexologist questioning transgender orthodoxy.
I actually don't think that's kind of a fair statement to make.
I think he's the leading most expert.
He's not questioning it, necessarily.
He's a researcher who just talks about it, so he questions some things.
The story says, Ray Blanchard is an American-Canadian sexologist who served as the head of clinical sexology services in the Law and Mental Health program at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health.
In Toronto from 1995 to 2010, his research on paraphilias, gender identity disorders, and sexual orientation spans nearly 40 years.
From 2008 to 2012, he was a member of the Gender Identity Disorders Workgroup for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders.
That's DSM.
So, the fifth iteration.
Now, I want to pull up something interesting.
Actually, let's just read the beginning.
Madeline Kearns asks, you believe transsexualism and gender dysphoria to be a mental disorder.
Am I correct in saying that's how it appears in the DSM-5, the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the Bible of psychiatry?
Blanchard responds, yes.
The diagnostic entity is called gender dysphoria in DSM-5.
It was first introduced in DSM-3 under the name transsexualism, and it was still called transsexualism or gender identity disorder.
I forget which, in DSM-IV.
But in DSM-V, the name of the entity got changed to Gender Dysphoria, but the diagnostic criteria are fairly similar.
He's asked, why was there a name change then?
Was that to avoid the word disorder?
And his response?
Yes, it was primarily to make patients and also trans activists and transsexual activist groups feel happy or that they had been listened to.
But I would say that the name change probably owed more to or owed as much to politics as it did any change in the science.
So then he's asked, what does he mean by gender identity?
And this is where there's a really interesting point being made.
Blanchard says, back in the days when I was writing a lot on this topic, which is quite a while ago, I tended to avoid the phrase gender identity because I think it's a trivial concept when it's applied to normal people.
I mean, normal men and normal women know what sex they are.
And they respond to that automatically, like when looking for a washroom.
But I think it's only at very unusual moments that a normal man or woman has a conscious awareness of I'm a woman or I'm a man, and this is often a highly emotional situation.
So I don't find the concept of gender identity useful for normal people.
And the concept of cross-gender identity is really not a normal gender identity,
which has found itself lodged in the wrong body.
Cross-gender identity is a constant preoccupation with, and unhappiness about, the individual's gender.
So I guess you could say, I believe in cross-gender identity, but I don't much believe in gender identity.
This is really interesting because I've thought about this too, especially when it comes to identity politics.
It was a really weird moment for me when I went to Occupy Wall Street and all of a sudden this conversation around identity and race, gender, etc.
came about because people were confused as to what I am.
For those that listen to me regularly, you know Tim Pool is a mixed race person.
Yeah, we get it.
It's a meme at this point.
But the thing is, I never had a moment of racial identity.
Never in my life.
There were a few points growing up where it made me realize that I was potentially in some kind of outgroup.
You know, when my family vehicle was vandalized, our home was vandalized.
You know, people don't like certain things.
But my friend group was mixed.
There was no point where I sat down, looked in the mirror, and said, what am I?
I was always just me.
My friends were what they were.
And it wasn't until The Identitarian Left started to gain traction, and I first encountered them at Occupy Wall Street, that I started to have a concept of, I must be a thing.
And I feel like that's one of their stated goals.
They want to segment people.
It's what they did at Occupy Wall Street.
They created caucuses, that's what they called them, and they were bodies that had voting power based on your identity.
And that was, in my opinion, nightmarish.
In my conversation with David Pakman, he said it was interesting that my opposition to identity politics is, you know, I say I oppose it, but then immediately defer to my identity.
And I think that's a general misunderstanding.
Like, you know, David thought, like, aha, I see, you know, what you're saying doesn't make sense.
No, it doesn't make sense to you.
For me, I have kind of a negative identity when it comes to, like, race.
Because I've never really had one.
And then when it comes to the fact that I'm not, you know, I'm a mudblood, as it were, Then, in reference to Harry Potter, for those who don't know, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I'm trying to be funny.
For me, to see that I don't fit in with either group, right?
The far left hates white people, and the white nationalists don't like mixed race people, where do I go?
Identity politics is a bad thing, because it excises people who don't fit into neatly defined boxes.
So it's really interesting, then, when it comes to the idea of gender identity, because I've also never had one of those!
There was never a moment for me where I, like, you know, looked in the mirror and was like, wow, I'm a guy, what does that mean?
And, like, thought about it.
I just went about my business and did things.
And like he points out, when I go to the bathroom, I look for the little dude symbol.
It was never an issue until Occupy Wall Street, and until as, you know, recently.
We'll read a little bit more of this.
I don't want to go too much.
The main point I wanted to drive in this video is less about, you know, trans issues, activism, and ideology, but more so the risk of censorship and science denialism.
So, you know, I feel like I've definitely hit that point.
We can probably move on, but I'll just say a couple more things.
Right now there are a bunch of activists on the left who are getting banned on Twitter because people on the right, right-wing activists, have realized, you know, it's the, I believe it's Saul Alinsky, make your enemy of play by their own rules.
So what they've done now is they're actually targeting left-wing activists and mass-reporting them.
They've formed groups to seek out Antifa and report them, and many of them have started getting banned and getting locked out.
I believe several permanent suspensions have already hit many left-wing activists.
I can only really say, you reap what you sow.
But then I have to, you know, for me, there's the conundrum of, it's about principle.
So do I like the idea that there are individuals who are upset about censorship using the tools to impose censorship?
Yes, I think that's hypocritical.
You have to be the only person standing up for what you believe in, even if it means you, you know, you get knocked down first, right?
I will absolutely not target someone, you know, for saying things.
I don't think anyone should be banned.
I don't think Louis Farrakhan should have been banned.
Right?
And that's the point.
Often you'll see people on the left say, you know, when we criticize Antifa, that we're calling for censorship.
No, no, no.
We're pointing out a double standard that you can't have rules that only impact one, one group of people.
But this instance with Ray Blanchard is probably one of the more, I don't know, disconcerting instances.
Yes, there will, you know, it's just plain and simple.
What do you think is going to happen?
To all my lefty friends, when the oil industry realizes they can buy up massive portions of Twitter stock and then start banning anybody who pushes the idea of global warming or climate change because it's bad for business.
That's what we're walking into.
We shouldn't allow it.
I'll leave it there.
I got some more videos coming up on, another video coming up on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m.
For those that are listening on the podcast, stick around.
The next video will be starting, the next segment will start shortly.
The last time I made a video about this here fella, the video was suppressed.
It got almost no viewership, and I was kind of surprised, and I think it has to do with his name.
Now, for those that are watching the video, you can clearly see who this is.
And for those that are listening, let's just say that his name rhymes with Rami Tabinson.
That's probably going to do me in anyway.
I always want to preface these videos by saying that I'm not a big fan of him.
I don't care too much.
But there was an issue where he published a fake video.
I called him out for it.
He made fun of me.
So it is what it is.
I don't agree with his opinions.
But I do agree that the suppression of him and locking him in prison and everything he's been going through is nightmarish and terrifying.
For those of you that follow my content, you know that the UK is a nightmarish hellscape.
But the story here today is less about how the UK has gone nuts, like confiscating spoons, and more about how YouTube is actually going to let his campaign account stay up, and BuzzFeed is upset about it.
The story from BuzzFeed News.
There's a new channel, I'm skipping his name, on YouTube that bypasses restrictions on his main account.
YouTube are a complete disgrace, Labor Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper, told BuzzFeed News.
Here's what I think I can do.
His first name is Tommy, and now I will say some words to separate it, and his last name is Robinson.
Because YouTube actually scans what you say, and uses that to weigh or impact your channel.
Yes.
I made a video and used his name.
It got no views.
I changed it from his name to conservative personality or I don't even know if that's fair to say.
I just put a right-wing personality and then all of a sudden views came back.
So I wouldn't be surprised considering his entire channel was put in a limited state, restricted mode.
A new channel was created that documents his campaign.
He's running for MEP.
Now BuzzFeed is upset.
The writer Mark DiStefano tweeted, Update!
YouTube has gone on record about the new channel.
It won't be taking action against the activist campaign team posting on his behalf.
Good little loophole for far-right activists has opened up and responded with Keanu Reeves making a shrug.
And he says this, Worth revisiting Home Affairs Select Committee Yvette Cooper's statement in the story, YouTube are a complete disgrace.
Now, well, you know, Mark didn't come out and, you know, he dances around the issue, but this is the thing that these journalists do.
Clearly, we see he's got a framing of the narrative that it's a bad thing that YouTube won't ban him again.
In my opinion, they shouldn't have banned him in the first place.
He didn't break any rules.
But there you go.
Let's actually take a look at the story.
They say the activist is asking for donations and support for his European election campaign on a new YouTube channel that bypasses sweeping restrictions the platform placed on his main channel video last month.
Let's stop there.
Let me say something.
Okay?
Someone else runs the account.
Okay, not Tommy.
Other people interview him.
It's not Tommy.
Should that be restricted?
Well, then you have to realize what you're saying is YouTube should be able to take down any journalism they don't like.
The challenge is, if someone else is producing content, then can you really take it down?
Where do we draw the line?
Do I have a right to talk about someone else exclusively?
When do you determine whether or not you've talked about someone too much?
So the only thing YouTube can really do is say, look, it's someone else talking about this guy.
There you go.
The new channel, called Vote Tommy MEP for Northwest England, was launched two weeks ago, just a few weeks after the video platform introduced measures to restrict the visibility of his main channel by removing it from search results and preventing it from live streaming.
When approached about the new channel, YouTube declined to comment on the record, but BuzzFeed News understands that the company believes it doesn't breach its guidelines.
Yvette Cooper said it was a disgrace.
We read that part.
On a day when governments across the world are pledging action against the far right,
YouTube are exposed once again for promoting, you know, yada yada yada.
Okay, here's the thing.
Who do you, who gets to, who would you trust to be your censor?
That's the big question.
They clearly don't like this individual and his opinions, but his opinions aren't illegal.
In the UK, he's allowed to have them.
They're trying to jail him for other things.
They seriously are trying to lock this guy up.
He's just got bad opinions.
He's allowed to.
But man, the UK, they don't have free speech.
They confiscate spoons.
They have repeatedly claimed to us that they put restrictions on channel like this, but it's clearly a joke if the restrictions are this easy to get around.
Have you ever watched his content?
He might not like, you know, Islam, but he's certainly not one of these fringe weirdo channels doing fringe weirdo things.
Tommy tries, he's very careful in what he talks about, and that's one of the biggest challenges they have with smearing him.
People like Tommy know full well they can't cross certain lines, but that's also assuming he even has opinions that would cross the line and get him banned in the first place.
This is what I try telling people on the left.
Censorship is a bad idea.
I'm not trying to say this to accuse Tommy of holding any specific opinions, but the point is, if you say certain people have bad opinions and aren't allowed to speak, They just dress up their opinions in a fancier way, they put on a suit and tie, and they get rid of the weirdos.
Then the censorship gets wielded against you.
Because, you know, I was gonna do a video on it, but I decided not to because it just, it happens so much.
Right now, there's a bunch of people on Twitter freaking out because right-wing groups, including, you know, like, um...
The Proud Boys are allegedly targeting left-wing accounts and reporting them to get them banned, using their own rules against them.
What do you think happens when you implement rules, the people you don't like will just say, okay, we'll play by those rules, and so must you, and they get banned.
So it's crazy because if this guy Mark is really upset about this, would he be upset then if someone took down BuzzFeed because BuzzFeed talked about the wrong person?
I get it.
There are loopholes, but you can't get rid of loopholes.
The story says the new channel's main page and each video page includes a disclaimer.
The account is not run by the particular individual, but that Tommy has been distributing the videos on his TR News website and to his Telegram channel.
On several occasions in recent days, TR News has featured YouTube videos on his channel.
The channel also carries multiple links to his main campaign website.
Yep, that's too bad.
Shortly before this article was published, and after BuzzFeed News approached YouTube for comment, another line was added to the channel's main page.
This account is operated by the campaign to elect Tommy as MEP for Northwest England.
Now here's what's really interesting.
Twitter took down his campaign account and Sargon's.
This is actually really scary.
And another thing, too, is Stripe, the payment processor, took down Tommy's Stripe account, but it is going to be restored, I believe, just in a bit.
So here's what's worrisome.
This is it.
This is the corporations, the massive, and for the UK, foreign corporations, determining who should or should not be allowed access to platforms that they need to get elected, including finance and speech.
Now, you know, sorry, UK.
Twitter is based in San Francisco, so I don't know what to tell you.
But is that not alarming to citizens of the UK?
That Twitter, Stripe, payment processors that dominate the internet, even for foreign countries, are going to pick and choose who can or can't be running?
Fascinating, isn't it?
What do you think happens then?
This is cultural imperialism.
That American tech companies can decide, you know what?
We're going to let you have a revolution.
Egypt, remember the Arab Spring?
unidentified
Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
No problem.
Revolution's for you.
Why?
It served America's interests.
Maybe not so much Egypt, because I'm pretty sure Mubarak was in the pocket of the United States.
But you have these other countries.
They absolutely loved what happened, especially in Syria.
What did Hillary Clinton say about Libya?
So when it comes to a revolution in your country, and we don't like your leadership, of course Facebook and these other platforms are going to help out.
Look at Venezuela.
Twitter is removing a bunch of pro-Venezuela, pro-Maduro accounts.
Yup.
This is America pushing its influence.
I don't want to say America as a government, but it's massive corporations deciding we're going to favor particular interests.
Shouldn't that be worrisome to people in the UK, like this dude Mark DeStefano?
He doesn't care that Twitter can decide his politicians shouldn't be allowed to win?
Because it will come!
Do you think That you're, you know, I don't know his politics, but for the socialist types, you think the government's going to support you?
No, you're the outliers.
They want their neoliberal imperialism.
They don't get it.
They say, unlike his main channel, which features YouTube's warnings.
Oh, the limited state.
At the start of each video and doesn't feature in recommendation or searches, the new channel has all the regular YouTube features enabled.
They're so upset about this.
Videos showed up in search and can be recommended to users, while the channel can also livestream.
One of the most effective ways Robinson was able to gain more than 300,000 subscribers.
And what about Vice?
Should Vice be taken down and banned?
Because Vice routinely platforms these same people.
Where do you draw the line?
Is it a bannable offense if BuzzFeed does an interview with Tommy?
I guess so!
Yeah, they don't believe in platforming.
They say the ease with which the new channel has got around YouTube's restrictions illustrates how US tech platforms are struggling to come up with policies on the hoof that deal with UK personalities posting on their platforms during the EU election campaign.
The dude's literally running for MEP!
He's posting on their platforms because he's running!
It's nightmarish the opinions these platforms hold.
They say last week YouTube demonetized UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin.
After he made comments about Jess Phillips.
All out of context.
Buzzfeed is just trash.
I'm just gonna wrap this one up.
They say... There's an update.
Friday, YouTube released a statement which said the company wouldn't be taking action against the new channel.
Balancing freedom of expression with our priority of ensuring that YouTube remains a safe environment for our community is not always straightforward.
That's why we've applied tougher treatment to his channel in keeping with our policies on borderline content.
A third-party run...
The third party run Vote Tommy for Northwest of England channel shares information about an official political candidate running for public office.
We'll take swift action should content on the channel violate our policies.
Welcome to the future.
Massive- I mean, it's basically like all of the greatest fears of the left, but they're not talking about it.
And this is why I feel like I'm in a weird, WALL-E world of nonsense.
On my main channel, I did a test for, you know, the moral foundations, and I'm almost entirely care, fairness, and liberty, but liberty is very strong with me.
I guess these people don't care about liberty, they care- It's weird, it's like they're care-harm authority.
They want the machine to oppress anyone who wants to speak up.
What a weird world.
I don't even know, I don't even know, man.
I'm gonna leave, I'll leave it here.
I got another segment coming up in a few seconds for you listening, but for those of you on YouTube, it'll be up shortly, in like, you know, 6.30.
I'll see you then.
I was told that the, I'm gonna try and tone down the language because now I'm on iTunes and stuff, the lovemaking strike put forth by Alyssa Milano was fake!
The Washington Post claimed it was fake.
Here we have this story.
They say it wasn't real.
Why is there so much coverage?
Because it is real.
Because Alyssa Milano was very influential.
For those that aren't familiar, Alyssa Milano proposed that women no longer make love with men until they get more pro-choice policies.
It's a protest.
But here's the thing.
As I pointed out in my initial video on the phenomenon, All that's really going to happen is they're not going to be hooking up with people who already agree with them.
It doesn't make sense.
Now, there are, uh, conservatives aren't going to be, you know, crossing the political line to go meet up with these women anyway, so conservatives are going to be with their wives, getting along just fine.
So who are they really punishing and what is the protest supposed to do?
But then we see this.
This is from r slash am I the a-hole on Reddit.
Where people post things and ask the community, am I the a-hole?
I have to keep the language at a minimum because of iTunes for those that are watching and wondering.
But I usually don't swear anyway.
And here's the story.
It's really interesting.
Am I the a-hole going on a pancake strike to get back at my wife?
Let me read this.
He says, My wife and I have been married for over 10 years.
Together, close to 15.
We have several children.
Ever since we moved in together, I've made her and eventually our kids, when we were blessed with them, pancakes every Saturday morning.
The only time I've not done so is when I've been seriously sick or away on business.
I'll wake up at 7 a.m.
and make a big pancake breakfast, honey roasted nuts, bacon.
My father did the same thing.
And so it's kind of family tradition in some sense.
Not really, though, as my siblings have not carried it on.
About one or two weeks ago, my wife told me that she would be going on a lovemaking strike that her feminist mom group was organizing.
A Facebook group where moms get together to promote feminism, organize protests.
Now, I've never been a political person.
I just want to live a happy life with my family and nothing more, but I try to be supportive of my wife since this stuff is important to her, and I'm not informed on any of this political stuff.
But this just seemed wrong to me.
Of course she's not obligated to make love with me, but it seemed like she is trying to punish me for something I haven't done.
It really sat wrong with me.
After a few days I asked if this was something she still wanted to do, and she reaffirmed so.
My response was to go on a pancake strike for the first time in our entire marriage.
Absent sickness or being away, my family did not awake to pancakes.
They were very upset.
On the surface, I think I haven't done anything wrong, but on further reflection, I think I might be the a-hole because... 1.
Not supporting something that's important to my wife.
unidentified
2.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Ruining a pseudo-family tradition.
unidentified
3.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Punishing my kids to get back at my wife.
The judgment given here will determine whether my family wakes up to pancakes tomorrow.
I will not contest or argue with anyone's points.
Thank you.
Edit.
Based on current feedback, I will make pancakes for my kids.
But I'm still on the fence about my wife, so keep that in mind when posting upvoting judgments.
So, here's how Am I the A-Hole works.
You post, people in the comments will say you are or you aren't and they'll give their reasoning for it.
The top reply is that you are the a-hole.
But only for dragging your kids into something that is obviously between you and your wife.
If the kids ask why there aren't any pancakes, what are you going to say?
Quote, mommy won't have lovemaking with me.
Therefore, her and the results of our previous lovemaking don't get pancakes until she lets me drop another load.
So I think I would have to agree.
So let's do this.
I do believe he's being a jerk.
We'll put it that way.
Because why are his kids being punished?
Because his wife has some weird ideology.
I do think the bigger... I guess the person in the wrong the most is the wife.
Why are you punishing your husband?
It has nothing to do with this.
And that's the weirdest thing about the strike in the first place.
Why punish people who already agree with you, support you, and have nothing to do with these laws being passed in other states?
Alyssa Milano, you do not live in Alabama or Georgia.
But I get it.
I get it.
I certainly don't agree with, like, there's been a wave of these laws being passed, and I think the very obvious reason is the Supreme Court is now heavily leaning conservative, and they're aiming to overturn some Supreme Court legislation.
I believe they're trying to get some pretty heavy-handed laws in place to force a challenge in the Supreme Court on purpose, because they certainly don't need to be as restrictive as they are.
But let's read a couple more responses, and I want to make a point about the media and the idea of the strike.
I don't know what ESH means.
But this, the second highest, says that the strike is ridiculous and makes zero points since it's really only impacting the two of you and makes no larger impact on the world.
Also, taking pancakes away is also ridiculous and petty and furthermore punishes everyone including the kids who had nothing to do with it.
This next part, uh, the response was that they agree wholeheartedly.
So here's the thing.
The reason I wanted to bring this up is because, for one, it's a really funny and silly story, and sometimes funny and silly is a good thing.
But it shows us that people take these things seriously.
When Alyssa Milano says...
Women should do this.
Well, guess what?
Facebook feminists go and do it and their husbands are confused because they're not political people.
But what do you think occurs when you do a Google search for this topic?
Because I did.
And here's what we see.
First, Unless Milano's strike is a terrible idea.
Because it's not just about heterosexual men.
Right.
But the next one from the Washington Post, and this is what I love.
They say the strike wasn't real.
Why was there so much coverage?
And then the next one is, strikes have always been about patriarchal power, not women's rights.
I'm confused.
I thought it wasn't real.
So why is the Washington Post putting up two articles within less than a day of each other where they're saying the strike is actually about patriarchy?
So they really don't like it because either it's not a real thing or it's completely about patriarchy.
So let's see what they had to say first.
I'm not going to read too much of this.
They say the strike wasn't real.
Why is there so much coverage?
And they say it's meant to be comedy.
It's not supposed to be real.
The humor was lost on some, apparently, including the Washington Post.
Because then we have this.
Strikes have always been about patriarchal power, not women's rights.
They talk about, um, Lysistrata.
They say, Actress Alyssa Milano this month called for an unusual response to the surge in state-level efforts to restrict women's rights.
Well, I shouldn't say women's rights.
I just don't want to read the word because YouTube is going to punish me.
Withholding lovemaking to exert political leverage.
It's as if they think they're the only people who can, you know, who want to engage in this activity.
It's a really weird thing.
So, let's read about why it's about patriarchal power.
They say as Lysistrata opens, the Peloponnesian War pitting Athens against Sparta has been raging for 20 years.
The title character persuades the men on both sides to refuse to make love with their husbands until they end the conflict.
After a great deal of innuendo, teasing and debate, the men agree.
At the play's end, Lysistrata summons a naked female figure named Reconciliation, and the Athenian and Spartan delegates use her body as a metaphorical map of Greece to decide which hills and meadows each side will take.
Can you get to the point?
have achieved her mission, but real-life Greece spent seven more years in bloody conflict.
Since then, strikes have sometimes reappeared in political history, often in radically different
social circumstances.
The play has been studied and performed for two and a half millennia.
This is really, really boring.
Can you get to the point?
I'll read the conclusion.
They say a Lissistrata-style strike probably wouldn't protect reproductive rights in Georgia
and Alabama.
But this won't be the last time that someone proposes- This is a terrible article.
I'm just gonna- I'm not gonna read this trash.
This is- You know, Washington Post, you're awful.
And this is why I no longer pay.
I had a subscription to all the big newspapers.
But this is just a bunch of wasted time.
And I'll point to this one, too.
It's not real.
This is also a bunch of wasted time.
You have terrible opinions, Washington Post!
Let's just go back to the MIVA hole.
And it seems like most people are only saying That it's because you're affecting the kids, but we do have a top opinion where someone says, you are not the ale.
I don't even know what this strike is supposed to be for, but using lovemaking as some sort of bargaining chip is a quick ticket to a breakup and divorce.
If she's doing it for something not even related to you, then she can make a lot more for herself than just pancakes.
unidentified
Woo!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
And they say it's to get men like OP or those who don't care, since it doesn't affect them, to care about the laws.
And this is a good point about the strike in general.
Because I can definitely mock the idea that it's only going to impact the guys who already agree with these women, but it is true there's probably a bunch of poor dopes like this lady's husband who doesn't know what's going on or care, and she's trying to make him care.
Here's the thing.
If you know someone in your life, who is a dude, who doesn't agree with you politically, let's say it's on the issue of choice, and you want them to, showing up and saying, from now on, I will not be doing X until you vote in my direction, is one of the worst things you can do.
Because perhaps you could just explain to them, hey, this is a thing that's happening, and I could really use your support.
And he probably would have just said, yeah, for sure, absolutely.
He even says that he wants to support his wife, and he's not very actively politically, Yeah, that definitely seems like a bad relationship.
person, he'd probably be like, yeah, okay, for sure.
Instead, what she does is she goes to an outside group of feminists to
organize a protest against their husbands when the husbands have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, that definitely seems like a bad relationship.
And I guess that's why it's probably fair to say, sure, Alyssa Milano's strike is a terrible idea.
For more reasons than just the fact that it's not just heterosexual women who want to hook up.
People like hooking up.
So what's the point?
It's like they don't think things through.
And this has been the biggest problem with the whole debate in the first place.
When I read the pro-choice side, the left side, They don't care about Republicans and conservatives think about the issue.
They don't.
They argue to themselves.
They say things like, Republicans, if you don't like it, then you don't do it.
And it's like, I don't think you're listening.
And this is what's been so frustrating for me in basically everything, but I'm going to leave it there because I don't, you know, point made.
I've got one more story coming up in a few minutes.
Um, for those that are listening on the podcast, it will begin now and I'll see you shortly.
Dave Rubin was trying to interview Pete Buttigieg.
Unfortunately, a bunch of the woke brigade got angry and started sending angry tweets to try and stop it from happening.
And this is one of the more frustrating things for me.
Let's talk about Mr. Dave Rubin.
Dave has a wide range of guests, but Dave particularly takes issue with what we call the regressive left.
I think it's fine if Dave wants to do whatever he wants.
I have no issue.
If you don't like Dave because he doesn't host enough of the people you like, well, that's whatever.
It's his platform.
Why are you freaking out?
I have people who point to me and say, clearly your politics don't align with your YouTube videos.
They clearly do because liberty is one of the biggest moral foundations that I recently discovered.
I did a test.
But it makes sense.
I care about people who are trying to strip and force other people to do things.
Strip their rights away.
People complain that Dave won't interview the left.
But what they really mean is that a handful of people they want on the platform in bad faith can't do it.
Now there are some people I think are great.
I think Kyle Kalinske is a really good dude.
And Kyle is very critical of Dave.
And I respect that.
Because out of all the people I've watched on the left, I think Kyle Kalinske is actually one of the best.
He's absolutely fantastic.
And one thing I can cite is that in a discussion about Carl Benjamin, Kyle actually said he
thought Sargon Carl was a good person, something to that effect.
He defended him and said, you know, I understand.
And I have tremendous respect for that because Kyle is willing, for one, to stand up for
principle and say, I understand who Carl is and I respect him for this, that, and this
reason.
I think he's an okay dude.
And that says to me, I believe Kyle is acting in good faith.
Kyle is upset because Dave won't have certain people on.
Unfortunately, the people that everyone keeps throwing at Dave aren't people that Dave wants to have on.
So here's the tweet from Dave.
He said, Congrats to Media Matters, Vox, and HuffPo.
Buttigieg is passing on our interview.
A shame, because I think he's a decent man.
We have some agreement, some disagreement, and we could have opened up a whole new audience to him,
have followed up, hopefully they'll reconsider.
He links to the original tweet.
Media Matters, Vox, and now HuffPo trying to scare Buttigieg away from having an interview
with me.
I treat him with the exact same decent, uh, and respect, decency, and respect I've treated every single one of my guests.
Why is that so scary to them?
Let's take a look at some of the tweets.
We have Angelo Carazon.
This is the guy who wrote a blog post that were extremely, extremely offensive, and he thought it was funny.
And now, that's fine.
I think you can make jokes, by all means.
The issue is the double standard.
This guy now acting like the arbiter of morality.
He said, Hi Chris, if you don't know who Cernovich is and why it's probably not a good look for the mayor.
I hate when they say that.
Not a good look.
Who cares?
Not a good look.
It's not a good look for the mayor that he's passing on doing a high profile interview with Dave who's got over a million subscribers.
Feel free to visit Media Matters or just DM me.
I'll be happy to share.
Sure.
We then have some other tweets.
Carlos Maza of Vox said, Aw, too bad.
Davis had a bunch of mainstream personalities, okay?
He's had professors, he's had scientists, researchers.
That's too bad for you.
Andy Campbell says, this podcast is starting to look like a bad idea for Buttigieg and then cites a guy who literally just posts fake nonsense all day.
The left, you know, something weird is happening with the left and the right.
The left and the right are kind of switching in a certain sense.
Remember 10, 20 years ago, all comedy was like, you know, Jon Stewart.
It was very left.
The ratings for these channels are actually diminishing, and now we're seeing conservatives trying to do more comedy.
It's popping up.
It's not that good, a lot of the stuff I've seen.
But Steven Crowder actually is really good.
He's a comedian.
He's a funny guy.
Now we even have Dave.
I wouldn't call Dave a conservative, but he's definitely on the other side of these woke bunch, right?
Dave does stand-up and he pokes fun at these weird ideologies.
It's interesting now how moderates and conservatives are coming into the more satirical space like Babylon Bee.
So this guy, Nathan Bernard, and the reason I bring this up, Is this dude posts nothing but, like, as far as I know, it's all just fake news.
He takes things that have, like, he's like Alex Jones, right?
You take something that has some kind of basis in truth and then make it ridiculous, stretch it to its unreasonable conclusion.
He posts literally fake things, right?
So, uh, we'll just leave it at that.
You post enough things that are somewhat true, and then you can sprinkle the lies in, and the left falls for this like crazy.
Recently, some, one of these woke bunch people took a quote from Vox, okay, vox.com, the left-wing site, that I had quoted a professor, and attributed the quote to me, and then Paul F. Tompkins, the comedian, assumed it was actually me saying something a professor at a university has said that they thought was anti-Semitic, and then used it to smear me.
Because they're lying!
Because someone actually pulled out the full quote, and it was me saying something like, why would they even say something like this, quote, and here's the quote.
They stripped it of its context to try and smear me, Paul F. Tompkins falls for it.
Here's what's really annoying.
If you're going to complain that Dave Rubin won't host The Left, but then stop The Left from actually interviewing Dave, you're the problem.
Oh, but their defense is, but Pete Buttigieg isn't The Left.
Uh-huh.
Great.
Right.
Pete Buttigieg is not The Left.
He's just running for the Democratic Party.
Just because these weird, fringe, far-left identitarians don't think he's Left doesn't mean it's not true.
So here's the thing.
I want to talk about this.
And I don't know if Dave's, you know, likes this stuff constantly being brought up.
But I'm gonna, I wanna talk about it.
Let me, let me say something.
Sam Cedar often, you know, he tweeted something about Dave debating him, which is silly.
And I responded with like, I don't understand why you talk about this so much, Sam.
Because I've known Sam for a long time.
And then all of a sudden I was brigaded with a ton of, a bunch of Sam Cedar's fans or whatever, just saying nonsense to me.
And I'm like, whoa, like my notifications went crazy.
And I'm like, why am I being brigaded by these people?
When that happened to me, I thought, wow, now I really understand why Dave won't have Sam on.
This is nuts!
All I did was tweet something like, Sam, it seems like you talk about Dave all the time.
That's what I see.
I go on YouTube.
What do I get?
When I get recommended Sam Seder videos, it's like, Dave won't debate me.
Something about, like, putting up a billboard by his house or doxing him, and I'm like, that's weird!
Now let me tell you something.
I reached out to Sam because I've known Sam for years, and I wanted to do a discussion.
I don't do debates.
I do discussions.
I'm not here to own anybody.
I'm here to have a dialectic and find the truth, and just, like, expand my understanding.
I recently did something with David Pakman.
I found it very enlightening, actually.
Dave brought up some really good points that I think helped strengthen my views, and I think we had a good conversation.
But here's the thing about Sam.
When I reached out to him, he said yes, and then he canceled on me.
And you know what I did when he refused to debate me?
Nothing.
I said, okay.
And that was the end of it.
I moved on.
I reached out to Sam.
I said, let's, let's have a, you know, let's, I'd love to have a discussion with you and talk politics.
He said, sure.
And then a few days later I said, you know what?
I can't do it.
Something about family.
And I said, let's reschedule.
He stopped responding.
Did I chase after him?
Did I go on Twitter and start tweeting Sam Cedar won't debate me?
No, I didn't.
So you want to, you want to, let's ask, let's ask this question.
Why won't Dave have on Kyle Kalinske David Pakman, Sam Seder, or ContraPoints.
I can't speak for Dave, but I can say a few things.
I've seen a video from Contra, I think Contra does good videos, and she said something like, debate me, Dave, or something jokingly, and I'm like, right away, you can see the attitude as to why Dave will not have you on.
They say, Dave won't actually interview anyone from the left.
No.
The people you keep naming are the people who keep coming out in the context of why won't Dave debate me.
That's weird.
Should I rally my fans to Brigade Sam because he cancelled on me?
No!
I just moved on.
I mentioned this before.
And I actually booked something with David a while ago and had to cancel because of a blizzard.
So yes, I cancelled on Dave once because there was a blizzard in the New York area and I was like, we can't make the drive to Boston.
We'll have to figure something out.
We wanted to do it in person.
But we eventually did it and I absolutely would love to talk with Contra, Dave, Kyle, Sam, anybody else.
But why is it that it's just these people?
Why can't Dave choose who he wants to talk to about these particular issues?
Namely, Pete Buttigieg.
They go after him and try to shut it down.
Because these people... For one, I'll say this.
Especially with someone like Andy Campbell.
This dude's written... This dude's written some really, really stupid fake news before.
It's like... And I know I'm... I'm gonna say this.
I'm pretty sure the dude knows he's lying.
It's fine.
I've met him and some other people.
I get it.
They lie.
It's what they do.
Carlos Maza has also produced some very misleading statistics, where one of the things he shows is that there's many, many stats showing that going to the past, we can see that Republicans are rather static.
They're moving slightly right, but their values are relatively the same 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today.
The Democrats have veered far left.
What that means is, with more far left policy, Republicans are less likely to work with the Democrats because they want to implement things that are well outside of the Overton window.
He shows the stat and claims Republicans are becoming too extreme because they refuse to work with Democrats.
That's how he, you know, frames.
So these people are absolutely bad faith actors.
They're coming after Dave and trying to stop a real interview with a Democrat, and then they complain that he won't debate the people they want him to debate.
So let me put it this way.
If someone kept ranting on Twitter and making numerous YouTube videos over and over again saying, why won't they talk to me?
And yelling, do you think that person's going to be like, oh, that's someone I want to have in my house?
Are you insane?
They want Dave to, like, they want Dave to bring people into his place of work.
Should he bring in these people who are obsessed with him?
No, he shouldn't.
He shouldn't.
Do I think... I think Kyle Kalinske would be great.
Maybe a Skype interview, but I don't know.
I think Dave primarily... He's done a few when he had to.
Kyle, I think, is a good person.
But I have to still say, you know, to Kyle and to David, who I think... I think David and Kyle would be fantastic.
Here's the thing.
David made a video because someone asked Dave Rubin at an event why he wouldn't have them on.
And Dave said because they've lied about him.
David then makes a video about it.
I haven't seen Dave Rubin make any video or commentary about any of these people.
So I want to point one thing out that's very important.
If you are someone on YouTube, and you make videos about people, and about how they won't debate you, don't be surprised when they stop, when they don't even talk to you, and they ignore you.
Because that's weird.
I would never make a video where I'm like, why won't Sam Cedar debate me?
No, I move on.
I try to talk about core concepts, ideas, and I often talk about individuals that I think are in positions of power or influencing the world in certain ways, that needs to be challenged, and that's fair of them too.
However, they're not making a video about Dave Rubin's ideology.
They're making a video about college students saying, why won't you debate Sam Seder?
And then they talk about Dave and themselves.
It's kind of weird.
It's, it's just, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll end by saying, wrapping things up, Dave will not be interviewing Buttigieg.
And that would have been fantastic.
It would have been.
Dave's had some, some very high profile individuals on his show before.
Cameron Kasky, for instance, right?
Parkland Survivor was on his show.
Cameron Kasky's a good dude.
I think, you know, a lot of people give him flack, but he's actually a pretty good dude.
Him and Kyle Kashuv, I think I'm pronouncing your name right.
So I think, look, Dave's interview style is lightly adversarial, and people don't like that.
I have no problem with it.
If you don't like his show, don't watch it.
But then to go online and constantly complain that he won't have on your four people, then don't be surprised when he doesn't.
Have your people contact his people.
If he won't do it, well, that's too bad.
Whatever, man.
I'm over it.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you guys tomorrow.
There may be another segment after this for the podcast, but for everybody else, I will see you at 10 a.m.
▲
Export Selection