Timcast - EP7 The Left Normalizes Political Violence And Encouraging Escalation
This morning Nigel Farage of The Brexit Party was hit by a milkshake in the latest in a series of "milk shakings" taking place in the UK. While milkshakes are seen by some as silly and even encouraged it is quickly escalating into bricks and yes even fish.Other Segments IncludeCNN's Jim Acosta Called out For LyingThe left eats its own againFar Left AJ+ Goes Full Anti Semite41% of College Students oppose Free SpeechChinese Social Credit is Here already
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, was just hit with a milkshake.
And it's unsurprising because many people have been getting hit by milkshakes.
If you were going to ask me, Nigel Farage, as he was out campaigning, I believe it was in Scotland, if you would get milkshaked, I would have told you yes.
Because it's not just what we will read through this story, but we've also had Carl Benjamin, Sargon of Akkad, hit with a milkshake fourth time in a week.
So, look.
Do I really care about food items being thrown at people?
To an extent, yes.
It's not the biggest deal in the world.
The real issue is the escalation and potential for violence.
People aren't going to stop with milkshakes.
When someone gets hit with a milkshake, they don't simply say, ahaha, it was a milkshake.
No, they get angry, and they chase people down the street.
Fights break out.
Other people start throwing eggs.
Eggs turn into rocks, and this is escalation.
If things weren't so politically tense and divided, you might say, eh, it's a milkshake, whatever, we'll move on from this, these things happen.
But we're coming off of years of street violence with people being bashed over the head on numerous occasions, where 40,000 people surround a person of color in Boston, Vashiva, accusing him of being far-right fringe, you know, I'm not going to use the certain terminology that they called him, but, you know, It's a—an Indian guy.
That's how insane things have gotten.
So when I see this repeatedly happening in the UK, it's actually kind of worrisome.
Again, milkshakes aren't that big of a deal.
It's the potential for escalation that we have already—and the escalation we are already seeing.
So before we jump into this story, what I would like to do is tell you you can support my work over at TimCast.com slash donate.
Feel free not to.
Feel free to hate me.
That's fine.
But there's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency options, and a physical address.
And of course, you can just share this video and click the like button because that really does have an impact.
But we got some photos here of Nigel Farage.
Now, it's important to note that the Brexit Party is currently leading the polls.
They're holding 34% of the vote.
It's just from a couple of days ago.
So this is a pretty big deal.
I mean, this is the biggest party being targeted and pelted with milkshakes, albeit other people like Tommy and Sargon have been hit as well.
Metro says, the Brexit Party leader was reportedly heard telling his security it's a failure before he fumed.
How did that happen?
That's a really good point, right?
If I can predict he's going to get hit with a milkshake, how did security not stop this?
Now, granted, you can throw a milkshake from really far away, so maybe there's something you can do about it.
He was quickly whisked away from the scene in a car with pictures and video showing his dark suit covered in milk.
Yesterday, Burger King was accused of endorsing violence after reminding customers in Scotland that it sells milkshakes.
It was seemingly in response to McDonald's being ordered to stop selling drinks near a rally Farage held in Edinburgh on Friday.
McDonald's said police had requested they stop selling them after other European election candidates were targeted by protesters.
Uh, they mentioned other people like Sargon.
So here we have a, uh, a video I'll play just a little bit.
You can see, uh, Nigel Farage being whisked away, they say, while he's covered in milkshake.
So I, I don't, you know, I gotta be honest.
It's a, it's a, it's an annoyance to these people.
I really don't think, actually, I think Tommy was the, the most angry.
He actually chased the guy down the street, at least in one video.
Nigel and, uh, and, and, uh, Carl are probably gonna- Actually, I think Sargon might actually make jokes about it and laugh about it.
Cause he's a hard guy for you to actually get angry, you know?
Um, but let's look at- We will look at some more of these photos, but then I wanna- What I wanna do is jump over to this article from Human Events.
That breaks down the issue of why this is a big deal.
They say the Brexit leader was visiting Newcastle ahead of the European elections on Thursday.
He was surrounded by security and activists at the time, but a protester still managed to get close enough to hurl the milkshake near to Grey's Monument.
Covering pro-Brexit politicians in milkshake began in the northwest of England when Stephen Yaxley Lennon was hit twice in two days.
In the first instance, he was hit with a milkshake.
Yeah, we get it.
So here's the thing.
Right, so we know that Carl Sargon was hit.
This is an article from Human Events by Rahim Kassam called, Today a Milkshake, Tomorrow a Brick.
Corporate-backed political violence is here.
The reason why I want to talk about this story is, for one, it's kind of breaking news.
Nigel just got hit.
It's not the most important thing in the world, but it is a sign of the times.
Yesterday, I made a video about how the mainstream left is encouraging And cheering on the escalation of political violence.
It's not just the milkshakes.
I have tweeted, this is probably the lowest level of what you could consider violence.
It's a milkshake.
It's annoying.
You get dirty and sticky, go wash it off.
You're not going to be permanently injured.
I guess there's the rare circumstance where someone is so deathly allergic to dairy that you die, but that's possible.
So don't attack people.
But I do think milkshakes aren't the issue.
The issue is mob mentality and the escalation.
We've seen mainstream personalities cheer on political escalation.
And I'm not talking about milkshake.
I'm talking about bricks, bottles, bike locks.
They say, go out and attack people who believe in your First Amendment right.
I'm not exaggerating.
I am absolutely not exaggerating.
I actually think I have something pulled up here.
Look, look at this.
This is from 2017.
Always punch Nazis.
And it says, in reference to Spencer, they say he should be, if he wants to talk, talk all that ass, he should prepare to get hit.
Same goes for anyone else thinking their, their speech, hate speech should be protected.
So yes, there is an active call for years, not to, it's, it's not about, look, nobody wants to defend the fringe far right wackaloons, right?
We're trying to find Moderate, reasonable policy to move forward with our country and find compromise and make sure we can live together.
But what they do is, they dangle the worst of the worst in front of you, so that these regular old people who aren't paying attention go, oh yeah, those people are bad.
But then they call everyone a Nazi, far right, fringe.
She says in that video, anyone else who thinks hate speech should be protected.
That's the First Amendment.
Anybody who believes in the Constitution and the First Amendment, they're saying they will attack you.
But this is the escalation.
In the article, Rahim says, there's a snippet here, I'm not worried about some sugar-crammed Burger King shake hitting anyone.
I'm worried about the unwieldy power of big corporates in politics.
Burger King tweeted we're selling milkshakes all weekend.
So here's the thing.
I don't care that Burger King is saying, oh, you know, you come by a milkshake, throw it at a politician.
What's worrisome here is that you can see... I'll tell you what my opinion is.
The intern or whoever was running the social media account...
In their mind truly believes everyone, everyone opposes people like Farage and Sargon and Tommy.
Not realizing that Brexit is the top polling party.
They're in a bubble.
They think I'm on the right side of history and those are the weird crazies no one actually likes when in reality they're the weird crazies.
So they tweet this message thinking that they're joining in the fun.
Haha!
I'm gonna make a joke because this is what everyone thinks.
Wrong!
It's what some people think, and those people are weird crazies on Twitter.
And this is what's driving the left insane, partly.
On Twitter, the left has gone insane because, well, they don't get banned for breaking the rules.
They can, for years, post racist things like, you know, Sarah Jong, who's probably the most notable example.
But there's so many examples you can see of people breaking the rules and getting away with it.
So then what happens is when these people on the left see the mindless Twitter riot, the digital riot that is posting nonsensical calls to violence and things like that, they join in the fun.
It's a mob mentality.
The right doesn't have that luxury because they get cleaned up when their crazies get banned.
So here we have Burger King thinking it's funny to join in calls for political violence.
Again, a milkshake, it's a milkshake.
It's the escalation.
Because people then showed up with eggs.
Other people then started picking up rocks and bricks.
When someone throws a milkshake, okay, I'll put it this way.
I have been on the ground at these, at riots, at events.
It never, usually, just starts with someone chucking a brick or bashing people over the head.
It starts with a water bottle.
It starts with a water balloon.
It starts with something really... You know, something that no one really cares about.
Like a milkshake!
But as soon as someone else sees an object thrown from the crowd, they don't know what it is, they pick up what they can find and start throwing whatever they can.
So if someone throws something, you're in a big crowd of people, people use the crowd as cover, rocks start flying.
And we've already seen that happening.
So no, we should, you know, considering how crazy things have gotten over the past few years with street battles across the US, and now, you know, the tensions escalating in the UK, we should probably try and walk back the escalation, unfortunately.
In my opinion, many of these high-profile personalities, celebrities, etc., on the left, They're not activists.
They just want to appease the mob.
That's their job.
They're celebrities.
It's what they do.
They don't care about politics.
They care about, you know, virtue signaling to build followings so that they can be marketable.
They're advertisements.
They're walking billboards.
So when people start joining in and throwing milkshakes, they start giggling and laughing and then join in too.
Why did they all, not everybody, but so many people start going crazy on the punch a Nazi thing.
Because it was a mob.
Mob mentality.
Everyone else is doing it, so they join in.
Look at Covington!
Covington's a really good example.
The left is overrun with mob mentality.
And so here's what I'll say.
People like to pull up my videos, and I mention this every so often.
And say like, oh, clearly Tim is focused too much on the left, and it's like, are there conservatives forming mobs and chucking things at the left?
Why are there no conservatives or right-wing individuals buying milkshakes and throwing them back?
Serious question.
If the left is now saying, this is okay, and you should do it, and Burger King is joining in the fun, the fun, I'm doing air quotes, how come there are no conservatives saying, okay, we'll do it too?
Where are the conservatives calling for censorship?
Where are the conservatives trying to shut down people's bank accounts?
Where are the conservatives calling for people to be banned on social media?
I'm not seeing it.
Where are the conservatives pulling out bike locks and bashing people over the head?
Just not seeing it.
So yeah, you want to talk about freedom and liberty, it's not coming from the left.
The left is joining a mob and just doing whatever they say, you know, escalating tensions.
And where's Twitter, Facebook, or anyone else saying, hey, maybe you shouldn't post this, Burger King.
Context matters.
Well, unfortunately, when it comes to social media, context is slightly broken.
So here's what I can see happening.
For years, mainstream personalities have been saying, yes, hit first, and force that Overton window.
You know, one of the points I made in my video yesterday about the escalation of violence is that CBS show, The Good Fight, where one of the characters talks to the camera, breaks the fourth wall, and says, What's the point of having Overton's window if it doesn't come with some enforcement?
The Overton window is an idea of what's publicly acceptable in terms of speech.
Think about that.
A mainstream television show telling you, yes, punch people who don't fit within Overton's window.
Here's the problem.
A lot of ideas that we think are acceptable today didn't fit Overton's window a couple decades ago.
Think about it, you know, 60 years ago, or maybe 70 years ago, pot smoking.
Even drinking during Prohibition.
More importantly, LGBT rights.
Yeah, for a while, that wasn't part of Overton's window.
So I think we're seeing dangerous escalation here.
Nigel Farage is just the next person to get milkshaked.
Admittedly, I'll end by saying this, do I really, really care about a sugary drink?
No, absolutely not.
I agree with Rahim on this issue.
It's when you have major brands joining in, getting involved, when you see the news, when you see all these personalities cheering for this, How is people not getting banned?
These are direct calls for violence.
You have many people on the left cheering for it, saying, go do this.
Twitter isn't banning them.
Why?
It's a direct call for violence against an individual.
Why isn't it being shut down?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, stick around.
More segments to come.
For those watching on YouTube, the next segment will be 1pm.
For everyone else, stick around.
It's about to play now.
I think CNN is complete trash and I just started laughing because I was thinking about...
When I put a segment like this... Actually, let me stop.
This story is from the Epoch Times.
It's titled, Why Many of Today's News Reporters Believe It is Their Duty to Lie to You.
And I was laughing just before hitting record because I was thinking, like, man, Jim Acosta really is worse than Don Lemon.
And that made me laugh because Don Lemon is just so awful.
You know, look, I always go to it, but Don Lemon once asked a panel if the missing Malaysian airline was sucked into a black hole.
That's hilarious.
And his panel guest then said, and I'm just like, am I listening to CNN or InfoWars?
And that's probably why they hate InfoWars so much, but I gotta say.
I do think Jim Acosta is quite, he's probably the worst person in media.
He is the definition of a grifter.
He lies.
He know he lies.
He's putting on a show.
He's showboating.
God, the man drives me insane with how awful and disgusting he is.
Let's talk about opinion content.
This is about as opinionated as I get.
I think Jim Acosta is the worst of the worst.
I'll say it, worse than Don Lemon.
The story's actually interesting.
Jim Acosta comes up because Brian Cates, who writes for the Epoch Times, points out, he breaks down how Jim Acosta lies and decontextualizes what Trump is actually saying in reference to asylum seekers.
Jim Acosta does this, in my opinion, likely to build a following.
Before we jump into this, go to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency options, physical address, or just hit the share button, hit that like button, leave a comment, because that really, really helps.
If you do those simple things, it tells YouTube, must be a good video.
Greatly appreciated, or do nothing.
Feel free to hate me, whatever.
Let's read the story from the Epoch Times.
Brian Cates writes, President Donald Trump rolled out a new immigration plan in a press conference held at the White House Rose Garden on May 16th that focused on addressing the major flaws in America's current immigration laws and border control system.
During his press presentation of his new plan, Trump said the following.
Now I want to stop here and make a point.
The role of a journalist, it's not just to give you facts or convey information.
It's to help you understand what is most likely to be true.
Context is extremely important.
Framing is extremely important.
Intellectual honesty.
So let's see what Donald Trump said.
Trump is quoted as saying, We must also restore the integrity of our broken asylum system.
Our nation has a proud history of affording protection to those fleeing government persecutions.
Unfortunately, legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by those lodging frivolous claims.
These are frivolous claims to gain admission into our country.
Asylum abuse also strains our public school systems, our hospitals, and local shelters using funds that should, and that have to, go to elderly veterans, at-risk youth, Americans in poverty, And those in genuine need of protection.
We're using the funds that should be going to them and that shouldn't happen.
If you have a proper claim, you will be quickly admitted.
expedites relief for legitimate asylum seekers by screening out the meritless claims.
If you have a proper claim, you will be quickly admitted.
If you don't, you will be promptly returned home.
Let me break this down for you as a journalist should.
Something to the effect of, in a statement made at the Rose Garden, Donald Trump expressed that many legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by fraudulent claims, and by weeding through those that are falsely claiming asylum, we can better protect asylum seekers.
That's the context, okay?
Trump says, hey, we have a long history of this, let's help asylum seekers, and there's a lot of people trying to abuse this system because it's an effective way to get in the country, let's stop that so we can really help people.
That's a good thing.
That's a very good thing.
What did Jim Acosta do?
Well, according to the Epoch Times, in an act of brazen dishonesty, here's how CNN's Jim Acosta summarized for his audience what the president said.
Quote, Trump in Rose Garden speech paints asylum seekers with broad brush, accusing them of misleading immigration authority to the border.
Quote, these are frivolous claims.
That bit of sophistry quickly drew the ire of the official Trump war room account on Twitter which called out Acosta's dishonest reporting.
How can you do this and go home at night thinking you've turned in an honest day's work as a journalist?
And Acosta said Jim Acosta knows what he's doing, because he is a vile and disgusting, awful human being who's trying to prop himself up and make money, get himself a show, and that's been the opinion.
The transcript also notes that Trump uses the term asylum abuse.
Trump clearly is accusing asylum seekers of misleading immigration authorities, as I said.
Jim Acosta knows what he's doing because he is a vile and disgusting, awful human being
who's trying to prop himself up and make money, get himself a show, and that's been the opinion.
You know journalists don't like him.
It's not, it's an open secret that the actual press corps thinks he's a disgusting, vile,
human who is doing a disservice to true journalism.
Look, there are very few people that I truly despise.
Truly, truly despise and truly think are evil.
You know me, Tim Poole, the milquetoast fat sitter.
I've repeatedly referred to, you know, left-wing activists.
I've called Mike Stuchberry, quote, one of the good ones in a video.
If you don't know, he's an Antifa activist.
I think maybe he's taken a darker turn in recent times, but I've absolutely defended people like him.
I believe they are true believers.
I believe that Mike really does believe what he's saying.
Okay.
It just because you have a different moral standard doesn't mean you're wrong or evil.
It just means when I see someone like Mike, I think he doesn't understand certain concepts.
That's fine.
It doesn't mean he's trying to be evil.
It just means he's wrong.
And the best thing we can do when we look to people is not assume they're evil.
It's to figure out what they're wrong about and have a real conversation.
Unfortunately for a lot of these people on the far left, they don't want to have it.
They won't hear it.
I don't know the solution, but I also know they're not typically evil.
However, if I was going to point to a handful of people... Oh, and I've got a list.
Jim Acosta is near the top of evil.
He knows what he's doing.
He doesn't care.
He wants followers.
He wants fame.
That's why he grandstands.
That's why he won't shut up.
He's not asking real questions.
He's hurting journalism for personal gain.
That, to me, is evil.
Pure evil.
Jim Acosta is not a true believer.
He doesn't actually believe what he's saying.
He knows he's lying.
That's just my opinion.
Now most, back to the Epoch Times, now most people who saw what Acosta did here will wonder how he thinks he has any integrity whatsoever as a journalist after engaging in this kind of absurd behavior.
Brian Cates adds, I happen to know quite well how people in the DNC media complex like Jim Acosta can do this kind of thing every single day and actually think of themselves as being heroic for doing so.
He says, let's go back to 2008 for a minute.
The Associated Press's Washington bureau chief, Ron Fournier, introduced the concept of accountability journalism publicly back in 2008, which gives reporters a license to go beyond just reporting the facts of a news story in a neutral and objective manner, to instead begin putting their thumbs on the scale and start pressing down hard to ensure a desired politicized outcome is clearly seen in the reporting.
It gives them a duty to shape the story toward political outcomes.
Fournier basically endorsed the idea that journalists need to stop seeing themselves as neutral relators of facts and begin shaping narratives for the public in order to hold the powerful accountable.
No.
Pundits do that.
Political commentators do that.
Activists do that.
Not journalists.
Now, you can be both.
You can be a journalist and an activist.
But you have to know when to separate the two, and it depends on what your activism is about.
I know many people who are far-left activists that I would absolutely call honest journalists.
The issue is, they only focus on issues pertaining to their subject matter that they advocate for.
And I, uh, fall into a very similar category.
Now, when it comes to what we do over on- there's a caveat here as to why I would, you know, come to my own defense.
What we do over on Subverse is called journalism.
You'll notice that our stories are not about my personal opinion, perspective, and they're not related to subjects that I think are important.
If you look at my Tim Pool channel, which is my name, you'll see it's very much so, me talking about issues I think are more important than anything else, but clearly hyper-focused.
This, I would say, you could call, to a certain extent, advocacy journalism.
I'm not lying.
I'm being completely honest.
I'm just only focused on these core issues, freedom of speech, liberty, the escalation of conflict rhetoric from the left, and things I find extremely damaging and threatening to us.
So that is, In a sense, advocacy journalism.
I advocate for free expression, free speech, open internet, the free flow of data, and I was doing that long before I was ever a journalist.
However, you'll notice over on our Subverse channel, where I do actual journalism, there is, you know, there's definitely stories on censorship.
But we have expert interviews.
We talk about bacteria eating oil and methane.
We talk about 3D printing, Norma generation, internet platforms and censorship.
We talk about tech giants, the acceleration of unprecedented extinction.
A lot of these issues are things that I don't typically talk about.
On my personal analysis and opinion programs.
This is called journalism.
But look at someone like Jim Acosta.
This is where the line shifts.
Jim stands up on a grandstand and pushes for something without actually doing journalism.
So, here's the thing.
Can we call Jim Acosta a journalist?
The answer is a resounding no.
Accountability journalism does not exist.
You know why?
It should be called accountability sophistry.
Manipulating facts to manipulate people into your desired political outcome.
That's not journalism.
Journalism is relaying facts and trying to frame them as honestly as possible.
Now it's true.
I'm wrong often.
I don't know everything.
So when I do a video, be it this one or even any video on my main channel, that's my research.
That's what I found and what I truly believe to be true.
I can say the same for many people on the far left.
They focus on research, they do the same thing.
I try my best to break through barriers.
I browse anarchist subreddits, far left subreddits, as well as right-wing ones and places like 4chan, so that I can actually try and see where is, you know, where are people's mindsets in this country.
You do have a lot of people who believe they're honest and put out fake information.
It's just a part, you know, of journalism.
People aren't always 100% correct.
Jim Acosta, on the other hand, grandstands, stands up, shouts, argues with the president, doesn't actually ask any substantive questions, just tries to get into fights, and then lies on Twitter.
There you go.
Brian writes, In our modern age, such quaint notions as journalistic objectivity and neutrality have been utterly dispensed with.
What was once considered ethical malpractice in journalism is now expected and even encouraged in many newsrooms.
You can read more here about the entire accountability journalism philosophy and how some media outlets immediately embraced it while others quickly questioned it.
So let me go back and stress on my work, right?
I think In accountability journalism, it's probably fair to say it can exist to a certain extent in that you can focus on the problems of a certain group or individual without putting your thumb on the scale necessarily.
When I make videos on my main channel.
I try to make sure all of my sources are credible.
I use various fact-checking organizations to make sure the sources I'm using are fair and accurate.
And it is still somewhat an analysis and opinion video.
But when it comes to what we're doing with Subverse, it is entirely just regular journalism.
I don't tell you what... Like, often when we record these videos for Subverse, you know, so admittedly, most of the work is being done by someone else in terms of research and fact-checking and script writing.
I'm, you know, I do this.
I read those stories and I'm sitting there looking at the story like, I have to say something about this.
We don't.
We leave out, you know, 99.99% of opinion.
Sometimes there's some stuff in there.
It's just a normal part of, you know, news.
We try to make sure it's not in there.
But that's called journalism.
That you might personally disagree or need to say something about the dangers or the problem of And you don't.
We've done a bunch of stories on global warming.
We stick to the facts and expert opinions.
And I disagree with some of it, politically.
And I think, you know, there's certain issues.
But it's the expert's opinion, not mine.
We report the facts.
That's journalism.
Is CNN doing that?
Please.
They target people for suspension.
They reach out to Facebook and try and get people banned who don't even break the rules.
And I'm gonna... It's mathic media.
They did this.
CNN did this.
They reached out to Facebook and said, Why are you allowing this?
They're funded by Russia.
Not against the rules!
Facebook suspended them anyway.
So is CNN journalism?
No, of course not.
It's absurd.
Or at least Jim Acosta.
Yes, CNN does journalism, don't get me wrong.
So, I don't want to read through this whole thing, but I'll put a link to the story in the description so you can read it.
But basically, there's a really important point to be brought up, is that In today's landscape for media, they can't just tell you the facts because the facts are simple.
People want a fight.
They want the villain.
So there you go.
But admittedly, when it comes to these big corporations, these big, you know, VC-backed digital media outlets, they hire people on purpose.
We know that, according to the Outline, a news outlet, Mike.com was being run by, like, tech bros, not social justice activists.
But they hired these people to produce that narrative they wanted.
So, admittedly, I will say this.
There's a big difference between Tim Pool as an individual making opinion videos, okay?
I get it.
I have opinions.
I'm very opinionated.
I talk about these things.
I try to make sure my opinions are based in fact, and I'm reasonable and willing to actually try and understand the other side in good faith.
The organization we're putting together, Subverse, we just do news.
We're going to do interviews, expert interviews, and it's going to be regular old boring journalism.
That's the goal.
CNN is trying to get people banned.
CNN is an activist organization.
There's a difference.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will come up shortly.
For those on YouTube, youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m.
for the next video.
And I will see you then.
We often hear the phrase, the left eating its own.
The left eats itself, or as Obama put it, a circular firing squad.
There's a weird paradox to the left, and I think it has to do with the fact that they don't really know what's happening outside of their bubble, so they're only really mad at themselves.
Think about it.
Jonathan Haidt's research shows that liberals can't predict conservative behavior, but moderates and conservatives can predict liberal behavior.
What do you think that means?
In my opinion, it's a few things, but for the most part, I think it shows that liberals aren't paying attention to conservatives, don't know what they think, and kind of don't care.
I have a story here, which I'm not going to read, but as an example.
Rich white men rule America.
How much longer will we tolerate that?
By Nathan Robinson.
I don't know who Nathan Robinson is, but apparently people are outraged because Nathan Robinson himself is a rich white man.
Why is he then criticizing himself?
Now, We can see an interesting paradox here.
Sam Harris tweeted, A paradox of our time.
The far left is disproportionately white, wealthy, and well-educated, so extreme wokeness is now one of the most glaring symptoms of white privilege, thus showing us the strange hypocrisy, or the paradox.
This is why the left eats itself.
It can't see outside of its own sphere, and it's targeting itself.
Why are they anti-racist?
Because they themselves are racist.
I'll give you an example, one I often cite.
They claim affirmative action is going to hold back Asian Americans.
And that's a good thing because Asian Americans are overrepresented at Harvard.
What they don't tell you is that Asia is a massive continent of varying ethnicities, and Indian people and Laotians are completely different in appearance and culture.
In fact, I think they're like a thousand miles or more.
I don't know how far.
Asia's big.
They're very far from each other.
Yet, It's the left that wants to lump them together.
They think they're all the same.
So then they claim to oppose racism, and this is why they think everyone is racist, because they are.
Now, before we go into the in-depth... I want to talk about how the left keeps essentially owning itself because they can't think about what the others... They don't try to, at least.
They don't understand conservatives.
So I have a story from Jim Carrey's art.
Which, apparently it was supposed to be offensive to conservatives, but kind of wasn't, right?
And then, I have a few other stories that show this example of how the left keeps trying to make a point about conservatives, in fact only agreeing with them because they don't actually understand conservatives.
And this is why, again, they keep eating their own.
Before we move on...
Check out TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
You can donate monthly through PayPal.
There's a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, you can always just share this video, click the like button, that really, really helps, and comment.
Comment whatever you want!
Tell me I'm cool, tell me I'm dumb, tell me I'm wrong, but commenting really does help, so if you want to do that, by all means, go for it.
But let's check this out!
Jim Carrey posted on Twitter what was supposed to be, I guess, some kind of offensive imagery that was pro-choice.
The Daily Wire says, Jim Carrey's art of Alabama governor is most gruesome yet, but pro-lifers are thanking him.
I think if you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes governor of Alabama.
That's what he did.
And so here's the image.
Those that are listening, you can't see it, but it's essentially the governor of Alabama being sucked through a tube.
Well, here's the thing.
Conservatives are not unhappy with this.
In fact, it's in line with the life argument.
You know, often you see these activists showing pictures of fetuses.
So, it's showing a kind of disturbing image.
It's not... I don't think it's going to do what they think it does.
So let's just read... They call them abortionists.
Let's read the... I want to see the final thought.
Why do you think conservatives are happy about this?
They say, if the woman cannot make it to a clinic to give birth to her dead child, she might be advised to give birth to the child on a toilet, he notes.
If the mother does not make it to the clinic, but the child does not fully come out, a dilation and evacuation procedure must be performed, yada yada.
Pro-lifers note that Carrie's attempt to bolster the pro-abortion side backfired greatly.
And here we have some people saying, at least you seem to know how grisly it is.
Your image is accurate down to the abortionist's cannula suctioning out the brain matter of the fetus, sort of like a serial killer at work.
Matt Walsh tweeted, this is one of the most effective advertisements for the pro-life
cause that I've seen in a long time. Thank you for your service.
So I guess what I want to clarify the premise of this opinion piece I'm doing is we keep seeing
them eat themselves, but there are several examples showing how they don't actually bother
with what the right actually thinks and they don't realize they're actually promoting the right.
So here we have this image, and you can see conservatives saying, great!
Thank you!
Like, I don't understand!
But it gets better.
Let's take a look at Alyssa Milano, right?
Alyssa Milano said, how about in this debate, you go on strike.
Women will no longer be making love to men.
But it's like she didn't think about it.
Because she posted this image.
She said, our reproductive rights are being erased.
Until women have legal control over our own bodies, we can't risk pregnancy.
Join me by not making love until we get our bodily autonomy back.
Do you know what the response was from conservatives?
Complete agreement!
I was so confused!
Why are you...
That's the conservative argument!
Don't hook up if you don't want to risk getting pregnant!
How is that hard to understand?
Well, it's simple.
If you go on Twitter, you'll see hot take after hot take making some ridiculous point that no one argued.
Because they're not actually arguing against the life side or the conservatives, they're just virtue signaling.
I'll throw it back to Jonathan Haidt's research.
Now, as to why the left can't understand conservatives but conservatives can understand liberals, I think it has to do with another interesting data point.
Jack Dorsey said on the Sam Harris podcast, and reiterated to me on the Joe Rogan podcast, that in the lead up to 2016, left-wing journalists only followed each other, but conservative journalists followed everybody.
He said it's changing.
But that's a good example.
What do you think's going to happen if you only follow your own side?
You're going to be grossly misinformed, or uninformed.
But conservatives were following everybody, so of course they understand.
So, it's no surprise to me then, Alyssa- when, uh, it's not surprising to me to see Alyssa Milano coming out and pushing what is essentially- you could be found on 4chan!
Imagine this!
You know, you have all these women complaining, so it's entirely in line with the MO of any kind of online hoax, where they're like, let's convince women not to, you know, make love.
I've got to keep the language toned down for the podcast.
But not to make love, so that, you know, they don't end up having to need an abortion.
That's a conservative argument.
Yet for some reason Lissa Milano is promoting it, because they don't actually understand what conservatives are thinking.
The story from the Daily Wire says the blowback was instant and widespread, including some on the left who weren't jumping on board with Milano's La Sistrata train.
It's not just that.
It's like the idea was so ill-conceived.
For one, it is the conservative argument, and two, all that really means is dudes who don't agree with you or who are already interested in you aren't going to be getting laid, which makes no sense because conservatives with their families are probably going to do just fine.
But it doesn't end here.
I have another really interesting example.
This one's a little old.
This one's from 2017.
CNN reports, Texas bill would fine men $100 each time they masturbate.
Yes, that'll teach these men who want to regulate women's bodies.
And my immediate response is, I don't think you ever actually talked to a conservative.
You know why?
You know the Proud Boys?
You know one of the rules of the Proud Boys is you're not allowed to masturbate?
You know that in Christianity, and I think other religions too, it's considered like, you're not supposed to touch yourself?
I'm pretty sure there's something in the Bible, in the Torah, about not spilling the seed or something.
So why is it?
They think this is an argument against those who are pro-life.
No!
That's an argument for them!
They agree with you!
That's what's really frustrating to me.
I find myself politically and policy-wise center-left.
But I find that the average liberal who pushes these policies has no idea what they're talking about and have never actually sat down with a conservative to go over the best way to move forward.
How can you have effective policy?
How can you actually have a real debate if you don't talk to them?
But now look where we are in this world.
For one, this bill in Texas, which, look, I'm not saying every single conservative opposes masturbation.
That won't actually sit down for a conversation, can't actually understand, and then there it is.
An article like this.
Rich white men rule America.
How much longer will we tolerate that?
We?
Apparently this dude's a rich white man.
So apparently, they can only see themselves, and for some reason, they hate themselves.
I guess.
But you know what?
It's an interesting phenomenon.
That it turns out, you know, the woke left tend to be overwhelmingly white and wealthy.
Yet they will call non-whites white supremacists.
They do everything they claim to be fighting against.
But then ultimately, I guess they just eat themselves.
And there you have it.
Because they can't actually see outside their bubble.
It's not absolute.
It's just many of them.
Like Alyssa Milano.
Who are you talking to, you know?
I'll leave it there.
I've got a couple more segments coming up shortly.
Stick around and I will see you soon.
Our next segment comes from Human Events, and boy oh boy did the mask slip Al Jazeera.
The story is titled Al Jazeera, and then there's a quote that's extremely anti-Semitic, which I'm not going to read, because I don't even want to take it out of context.
But they say a recent video promoted by the Qatari state-backed Al Jazeera network accuses Jewish people of exploiting the Holocaust, as well as claiming it's different from how the Jews tell it.
Interesting.
Al Jazeera Plus.
One of the wokest of woke, in terms of digital production.
Based in San Francisco, at least that's the last time I checked, and they produce some of the wokest race-baiting rage-bait you'll ever see.
Non-stop police brutality videos, far-left rhetoric, and it always confused me why this stuff is heavily influential and damaging to public discourse, it's funded by a foreign government, no one seems to care.
Why?
The Russia stuff is pointed at the anti-SJWs.
It's pointed at conservatives.
Heaven forbid the media calls itself out when the media is promoting a far-left agenda.
A woke social justice regressive agenda.
So of course Al Jazeera gets away with it.
It's really, really interesting though.
You see the mask slip now.
Al Jazeera was extremely embarrassed, but apparently now people are digging up other Al Jazeera Arabic videos.
So this was in Arabic.
Of course they hold this negative opinion about Jewish people because they're, you know, they're based in Qatar, they're pro-Palestine, and so they're going to smear Jewish people, particularly Israel.
But this shows something else that's really, really important.
People often say...
Why is it that Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite?
She's not criticizing Jewish people, she's criticizing Israel!
And then you look at the rhetoric from Al Jazeera Arabic.
When they talk about Israel, they are talking about Jewish people.
It's not always.
There's principled opposition to the actions of Israel, for sure.
But I want to bring up this point that David Peckman made a good point about this a while ago.
What you have to understand is, the U.S.
funds many countries, and Israel is something like 6-7% of how much we spend.
I believe it is not even the most we spend in terms of foreign aid, but in terms of an autonomous government, it is.
However, you can look at Kenya, you can look at other countries, where we're giving half a billion dollars.
No criticism.
Sudan.
I mean, there's a bunch of bad stuff happening around the world, and the U.S.
funds it, but it's always, always Israel.
You look at who Ilhan Omar associates with.
The Women's March, Linda Sarsour, etc.
Overt anti-Semites.
We know it!
New York Times reported it.
You see this.
The story from Al Jazeera Plus Arabic was not denying the Holocaust.
It was claiming that they were exploiting it for personal gain and Zionism.
Because they're actually talking about Israel.
So you see the connection, right?
Let's read a little bit of this.
Human Event says, A recent video promoted by the Qatari state-backed Al Jazeera network accuses Jewish people of exploiting the Holocaust, as well as claiming it's different from how the Jews tell it.
The video went viral for all the wrong reasons earlier this week, as the network's AJ Plus channel rebranded to hide the Al Jazeera moniker, and aimed mostly at young people online published the clips, now archived by memory.
The cap- I'm not- I can't even read these captions, seriously.
That's like, it's- it's- The stuff- Look, I'm not surprised Al Jazeera's producing this, and I'm especially not surprised the media is duplicitous and just full of, you know, full of BS, okay?
Think about it this way.
Why is it that Al Jazeera Arabic will put out this extreme anti-Semitic content, but Al Jazeera in the United States will be woke?
Ask yourself that question.
How could they seemingly conflict their own narrative, right?
They want to defend marginalized groups in America, but they oppose the Jewish people for their Arabic language stuff?
You know the Al Jazeera Plus Arabic isn't only targeting foreign countries.
There are people in the United States who speak Arabic.
Not only that, Think about Al Jazeera Plus, who they associate with in the United States, the woke left, and then you can look at the Women's March, and you can see how it all comes together.
The mask has slipped.
We know it.
It's one of the most frustrating things, and why I frequently call out these fringe wingnuts.
They are racist, bigots, sexist, anti-semites.
They are, and they use the mask of social justice to push this insane behavior.
Let's make one thing clear.
If you oppose racism, then you also oppose people who would target someone for being white.
Racism doesn't know color.
It's just discrimination based on race.
It could be positive or negative.
Why, then, do these people think that's not true or try to change the definition?
Because they are racist!
Period.
I do want to highlight this, though.
The Guardian says, Interesting, right?
Very, very interesting.
It's always about Israel.
Guardian says, Al Jazeera suspended two journalists after they published a video that suggested Jews had exploited their supposed control of media, financial, and academic institutions to exaggerate the extent of the Holocaust.
Yeah.
Surprise, surprise, AJ+.
The clip, posted by the Qatari broadcaster AJ Plus social media service, describes the deaths of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis as a narrative.
I don't even want to read some of this stuff, it's so crazy.
Al Jazeera said it had removed the clip.
The video, content, and accompanying post were swiftly deleted by AJ+, senior management from all AJ Plus pages and accounts on social media, as it contravened the network's editorial standards.
The broadcaster is funded by the Qatari government as part of the Gulf country's Soft Power campaign around the world.
The Raw will focus attention on the differences between Al Jazeera's English language service, aimed at audiences around the world, and the Arabic language channel, which often adopts a substantially different tone.
The clip, which attracted hundreds of thousands of views before it was deleted, was posted by the youth-focused AJ+.
So why is it that CNN and these other, you know, BuzzFeed aren't targeting them?
Why isn't Media Matters coming after them?
Because it's not about principle.
It's not about politics.
It's about tribe.
as LGBT rights, racial inequality, and religious freedom, but there has been less scrutiny
of the output of the Arabic language videos created by AJ+.
So why is it that CNN and these other, you know, Buzzfeed aren't targeting them?
Why isn't Media Matters coming after them?
Because it's not about principle.
It's not about politics.
It's about tribe.
These people are insane.
Okay?
They believe crazy anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
They conflate.
They're purposefully trying to make it about Israel specifically because Israel is, in my understanding, the only Jewish state in the world.
That's another thing that really bothers me about these people like AJ+, these far leftists who pretend to not be anti-Semites in that... I ask people this.
How many countries are Christian?
A lot.
How many countries are Muslim?
A lot.
Dozens for each.
Two of the biggest religions in the world.
How many countries are Jewish?
Israel.
And that's it.
So then it's very easy for them to say, oh, no, no, no.
We're not targeting Jewish people.
We're targeting Israel.
Right, sure.
The only Jewish state.
At least my understanding.
I could be wrong.
I don't know if I'm wrong.
Then you see them using the woke narrative to push their ideas.
But as it turns out, they are who they claim to be fighting.
Do you think we're going to see the narrative of the far right, Al Jazeera Plus?
Are they going to call AJ Plus now far right?
Of course not.
It's all part of the game.
The video said that along with others, Jews faced a policy of systematic persecution which culminated in the final solution.
But it went on to suggest that because the Jewish community's access to financial resources and media institutions, they claimed that it was able to put a special spotlight on suffering.
And then they suggest the ideology of the Israeli state was influenced by Nazis.
And there you have it.
There you have it.
The story is about Jewish people and the persecution they face, but then there it goes, straight to Israel.
Al Jazeera completely disowns the offensive content in question, and reiterated that Al Jazeera would not tolerate such material.
I believe that is a full-on lie, because people have pulled up other content from them.
The Executive Director of the Digital Division, he also, that's from Yasser Bashir, the Executive Director of the Digital Division, he also called for staff to be given mandatory bias training.
Aww.
Two suspensions.
Yes.
Just go home and wait for this all to blow over.
Because you know they wanted it.
They approved this!
It wasn't the two journalists who were at fault.
It's the whole network for giving editorial control and allowing this content to persist.
They say, among other issues, Saudi Arabia has demanded Qatar cease funding Al Jazeera, which they believe is responsible for fomenting dissent in other Arab countries by promoting challenges to established leaders.
Al Jazeera has previously been accused of promoting anti-Semitic tropes in its coverage.
Previously been accused!
They literally did it!
In one of the most insane things I have ever seen.
And look at that, AJ Plus logo right in the video.
So do you think we're going to see the woke brigade come after them?
Of course not.
You know why?
They believe it.
They agree with it!
I was so confused when they stood behind Linda Sarsour, who New York Times and Tablet Magazine have outed as an overt anti-Semite with crazy conspiracy beliefs.
They stood by her.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke at the Women's March.
Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, they're all friends with them.
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are very pro-Palestine.
So it's no surprise they believe this and are aligned with these people.
And this is what bugs me.
So I wonder if then we're gonna see, you know, I don't know, like Right-Wing Watch or other far-left or left-wing groups agree with me on this issue.
It's all there.
I don't think anything I said has been completely incorrect.
I obviously have my opinions.
But am I wrong?
They did this.
Look at this.
It's mind-blowing.
And they do it on purpose.
You know what their true agenda is.
They're trying to push a narrative, and they're using social justice to push, I guess what I could only call some kind of fascistic ideology.
I'm going to leave it there.
I don't want to prattle.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you shortly.
I am no defeatist, but I'm pretty sure we are going to lose freedom of speech in the United States, First Amendment or not.
One important thing you need to understand is that there are limitations on speech.
Now, my understanding is that a lot of people have said you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but I think, you know, a bunch of people have sent me an article saying, hey, that's actually not true.
You can yell.
You can do that.
So that is protected speech, but there still are limitations, incitement to violence, direct instruction, things like that.
Unfortunately, we now have two surveys I'm going to show you where it seems like we're getting dangerously close to a future without free speech.
The reason I bring up the first instance is because the Supreme Court can change their opinion on freedom of speech and say there are certain limitations.
So, sure.
There are some people who are complete absolutists.
I am not one of those people.
I do believe there are some limitations.
But I believe the true intent of the First Amendment is to protect expression.
So I don't believe incitement is expression.
It's a command.
So I do believe there's a line.
We have this from the Knight Foundation.
New report.
College students support the First Amendment, but some favor diversity and inclusion over protecting the extremes of free speech.
We have a similar study from the Cato Institute that we're getting dangerously close to a majority believing the government should regulate hate speech.
Now before we read into the Knight Foundation article, go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, there are cryptocurrency options, a physical address, or just share this video.
Sharing the video will help, but you can also just comment and click the like button, because if you do those things, it tells YouTube this is really good content, you're interacting, and then YouTube will promote it.
And it's all about the exponential gain, right?
If no one ever donated but I was getting a billion viewers, yeah.
Hey, PewDiePie's rich.
But until then, you know, I am nowhere near as big.
I have, uh, this channel has 370,000 subs, which is awesome.
I'm very happy that all you guys come to watch, but certainly nowhere near any of the big YouTubers.
So, uh, liking and engaging really does help.
So, from Knight Foundation, May 13th, we see this.
Views on free speech versus promoting an inclusive society sharply divide based on gender, race, orientation, affiliation, and religion.
As college students across the United States continue to test limits and protections of the First Amendment, a new report by College Pulse reveals that students show support for these rights but are divided on whether it's more important to promote an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups or to protect the extremes of free speech.
Opinions sharply diverge by gender, race, orientation, affiliation, and religion.
Supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the report used a mobile app and web portal to survey 4,407 full-time college students enrolled in four-year degree programs in December 2018.
It builds on previous surveys of college students and their views on the First Amendment supported by Knight in 2016 and 2018.
The report showed that more than half of students favor protecting free speech.
That's the good news, right?
However, nearly as many, 46%, say it's important to promote an inclusive and welcoming society.
Now, here's the thing.
I believe in both of those things.
I believe in the right to free expression, and I also believe in promoting an inclusive and welcoming society.
Those things do not contradict each other.
You can do both.
In fact, if someone came from a Muslim nation and wanted to stand up in the street, you know, with a sign preaching Islam, I have absolutely zero problem with that.
You come, you respect the traditions and the culture and our Constitution and our laws, and you are absolutely given your- you have a God-given right to express your ideas and your faith and your religion.
The First Amendment protects not only speech, but religion, too.
Bring them together, bam!
By all means, come here and talk about what you think is good, and we're listening.
That's America.
So we can absolutely be inclusive of your beliefs and your religion.
Doesn't mean we're gonna agree with you, because I have a right to my religion and my beliefs and my speech, too.
Which means...
If I'm gonna give you speech, then you have to give me mine.
And that means when you stand up and preach for your culture, I will stand up and preach back.
Both of those things are good things.
And I don't think it's exclusive or divisive to say so.
They say.
At the same time, 58% of students said that hate speech should continue to be protected under the First Amendment, while 41% disagree.
And this is where it gets more worrisome.
I don't know if it's true that we're trending in this direction, but it certainly feels like it.
College students, 41%, think hate speech should not be protected under the First Amendment.
Hey, these things can change.
The Supreme Court can issue an interpretation of the Constitution that changes how things function in this country.
Now, of course, it can go back and forth, and I'm sure for many conservatives, they're happy with a very conservative court.
I'd say if you're pro-free speech, you should be very, very happy with it.
They go on to say, the report's exploration of perceptions by race, gender, orientation, yadda yadda, further highlights stark differences in students' views on these issues.
I'd be willing to bet it turns out that it's white men who mostly favor free speech.
They say, there's a new class of students on college campuses, increasingly varied in background and ideology, who are grappling with the reach and limits of free speech and what it means in the 21st century.
and their views is key to understanding the impact that they may have on rights that are
fundamental to our society," said Sam Gill, Knight Foundation Vice President for Learning
and Communities.
So, we'll come back to this.
This is from May 13th.
Now, here from the Cato Institute, October 31st, 2017, they say, they did a similar survey,
40% think government should prevent hate speech in public.
So it's only been a few years, and we can see that, you know, while not entirely the same, it is rather static.
I don't want to act like it's going up or going down.
It's around the same number.
They do say, however, according to the Cato research, an overwhelming majority, 79%, agree that it is morally unacceptable to engage in hate speech against racial or religious groups.
Thus, the public appears to distinguish between allowing it and endorsing it.
Now, the left can't seem to understand this.
Seriously.
I absolutely do not endorse hate speech.
I loathe it.
I detest it, and I encourage everyone to avoid doing it.
It doesn't add to the conversation.
It makes things worse and more divided.
But you're allowed to.
I'm not the arbiter of morality.
I might not be right.
I believe that I know better.
I believe that being more calm and reasonable and having a real discussion is a good thing.
It tends to be the left throwing things.
It tends to be the right saying mean things.
But you know what?
I would rather someone say a mean word to me than get hit in the head with a brick.
Plain and simple.
I think most people would.
So there's the dividing line.
Right?
I think it's fair to point out how most people think hate speech is bad.
But we should be allowed to do it.
There's some more data from the Knight Foundation we'll go through.
They say opinions on whether it's more important to promote it.
They say 6 in 10 college women say that promoting an inclusive society is more important versus 28 of men.
71% of college men favor protecting free speech over inclusivity.
That is not surprising.
Only 41% of college women express this view.
Black college students are more likely than students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds to say that inclusivity is a more important value than free speech.
More than 6 in 10 black college students agree that promoting an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups is more important than protecting free speech.
49% of Hispanic students and 42% of white students hold the same view.
A majority of white students and half of Hispanic students say protecting free speech rights should be a higher priority.
So that was my bet.
White men were going to be more likely in favor, and we can see it.
A majority of white students, but also a much larger 71% of men.
A majority of Mormon, White Evangelical Protestant, White Mainline Protestant, and Catholic students say that protecting free speech is more important than promoting inclusivity.
In contrast, a majority of Jewish students, students who are members of East Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and religiously unaffiliated students say that promoting a welcoming, inclusive society is more important.
That's really interesting.
Christians believe in free speech.
That's kind of weird.
It's very weird.
Most college students agree that hate speech defined as attacks on people based on their race, religion, gender, etc.
ought to be protected by the First Amendment.
Good news.
Opinions diverge by gender, race, etc.
So they say.
Nearly 6 in 10 college students believe hate speech should be protected.
53% of college women say that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment.
Only 46% say it should.
A majority of women do not believe in free speech.
A majority of white students agree that hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
In contrast, less than half of black college students believe that hate speech should be protected, while 51% say it should not.
Similarly, about 52% of Hispanic students say hate speech should be protected.
Interestingly, Hispanics and white students agree on protecting free speech.
64% of heterosexual students say that hate speech should be protected, while only 35% of gay and lesbian agree.
They go on to say, 68% of college students say their campus climate precludes students from expressing their true opinions because their classmates might find them offensive.
31% disagree.
And that's probably why you'll see so many people say free speech must be defended.
Because, actually, this is a really good example.
Look.
If 68% of college students Say they can't express their opinion because they'll be viewed as offensive.
How do you think it's going to translate into elections?
Are you surprised at all that Donald Trump won?
A ton of people are going to claim they wouldn't support the president, but then secretly support the president, and then Trump wins.
That's the problem of creating this pressure on society.
You don't know what people truly think.
Now, of course, they could just get rid of the Democratic Republic system of the electoral process.
Then you can just guarantee whoever you want won't make it illegal.
So, let's see their final thoughts.
The study allowed us to meet students where they are engaging in a digital survey and analytics.
Okay, I'm not going to read through this.
The point I want to bring up with this is that I'd be willing to bet, as time goes on, especially with these universities, we are looking towards the end of free speech.
However, we do have a Supreme Court that's leaning more conservative.
They'll probably defend that.
I don't know if a conservative Supreme Court is a good thing necessarily, because I believe in kind of a middle ground.
unidentified
But at least free speech will be protected, I guess.
But it's also possible that this causes a backlash.
That the more people are forced to hide their views, the more stressed and anxious they become.
And then finally they snap and vote in someone like Trump.
There you go.
Anyway, I'm gonna leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
For those listening on the podcast, there'll be one more segment.
For everyone else, I will see you tomorrow at 10 a.m.
As always, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate to help me out.
Or just share, like, and comment.
I will see you all next time.
Adios.
China's social credit system is a dystopian nightmare and many people feel safe because this is all happening in China.
We can see what's happening.
We can see how terrifying it is, but we're over here in the United States and fortunately for us, We have a constitution which protects us, protects many of our rights.
Unfortunately, one of the biggest aspects of the culture war has been the private platform argument.
That Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
can ban whoever they want because they're a private platform.
When you then realize that financial institutions, you know, credit card companies, web service providers are all private institutions as well and often work together to ban people they don't like, Maybe then you'll start to realize we are entering the exact same social credit system, and no constitution can protect us.
On top of this, we're seeing many of the same practices extend to other British Commonwealth nations like Australia, the UK, and many countries in Europe want to censor and restrict speech, and the big tech platforms are agreeing to it today.
Let's take a look at the China social credit system and how similar ideas are going to become pervasive and, in my opinion, they're going to become the norm even in the U.S., even with our constitution.
But before we get started, hop over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option.
Cryptocurrency option a physical address, but of course you can just share this video and click the like button comment below because Interacting with the video does a lot to tell YouTube the video is worth watching Let's start with this story from the New York Post about China's new social credit system It starts by saying, imagine calling a friend, only instead of hearing a ringtone, you hear a police siren, and then a voice intoning, be careful in your dealings with this person.
Would that put a damper on your relationship?
It's supposed to.
Now it wouldn't for me, I know who my friends are.
Welcome to Life in China's social credit system, where a low score can ruin your life in more ways than one.
Say you arrive at the Beijing airport, intending to catch a flight to Canton, 1,200 miles south.
The clerk at the ticket counter turns you away because, you guessed it, your social credit score is too low.
Not only are you publicly humiliated in the ticket line, you are then forced to travel by slow train.
What should have been a three-hour flight becomes a 30-hour stop-and-go nightmare.
Now, I will point out, I don't know if in China these are private trains, but that's certainly been one of the arguments.
It's a private platform.
Would the argument then stand if a public service denied you?
In the U.S., it wouldn't.
But it could potentially fly in other Western countries, especially in Europe.
But let's read on.
All because the government has declared you untrustworthy.
Perhaps you defaulted on a loan, made the mistake of criticizing some government policy online, or just spent too much time playing video games on the internet.
All of these actions and many more can cause your score to plummet, forcing citizens onto the most dreaded rung of China's deadbeat caste system, the Laolai.
But I will say, for those of us in the West and in the US, there is no quantified number as to whether or not you've, you know, crossed into untrustworthy territory.
But it certainly exists in some nebulous capacity.
Say the wrong thing, you will be excised from every platform.
You'll be labeled a, you know, a hateful bigot.
And then all of a sudden you'll find your bank accounts closed.
Many conservatives Have had their bank accounts closed, been banned from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
And it seems that people who follow a certain orthodoxy, far-left intersectionality, tend to be left alone.
So one of the things I typically bring up is how on Twitter you'll see the far-left saying crazy things, calling for violence, and then on the right, people get banned.
Let's read a little bit more, but we'll move on because there's some more pressing information.
They go on to explain that a low social credit score will exclude you from well-paid jobs, make it impossible for you to get a house or car loan, or even book a hotel room.
The government will slow down your internet connection, ban your children from attending private schools, and even post your profile on a public blacklist for all to see.
According to Australia's ABC News, the government has produced a deadbeat map via an app on WeChat, which shows a radar-style graphic identifying every laulai in the vicinity of the user.
Tapping on a person marked on the map reveals their personal information including their full name, court case number, and the reason they have been labeled untrustworthy.
Identity card numbers and home addresses are also partially shown.
We'll wrap up on the story and we'll go through what's happening to us here in the West, in the United States.
So, yes, we'll end by saying China's already formidable police state has been upgraded using big data, machine learning, face recognition technology, and artificial intelligence into a fearsome cyborg of state control.
The Chinese Communist Party has given birth to the world's first high-tech digital dictatorship.
Not content to incarcerate its own population in a virtual prison, China is busily hawking its creation to like-minded socialist dictatorships.
Maduro's Venezuela was China's first customer.
Do you know who else is one of China's customers?
Australia.
Because in fact, this story from just in April.
China's people monitoring software being deployed in Darwin.
This is from lifehacker.com.au, so presumably they're talking about the city of Darwin in Australia.
They say, the city of Darwin has been looking at adopting smart city technology and has
decided to implement facial recognition software and other monitoring solutions in order to
detect anomalous behavior.
Or if a known criminal or someone banned from entering a specific area, the software will
then alert authorities who can intercede when someone traverses what the council is calling
a virtual fence.
Now when you read this, you think, well, we're talking about suspicious activity and, you
know, criminals.
But anomalous behavior should raise flags.
is anomalous behavior. Well, it's not too dissimilar to the idea of someone being untrustworthy.
Have you seen Captain America Winter Soldier? The premise of the movie was that S.H.I.E.L.D.
was infiltrated by HYDRA and what they were trying to do was eliminate anomalous behavior.
They were going to launch gigantic helicarriers, flying ships, which use an algorithm to target anyone they deemed to hold, I don't know, anomalous behavior, you know, to behave In anomalous ways, and it was going to wipe them all out.
Fortunately, Captain America intervened, and they targeted themselves, the ships did, and took themselves down.
But that's not... While more extreme, right, no one's talking about ending anyone's life here, they want to end your life through financial means, by ousting you from society.
They will create a two-tiered system, with those who fall in line and play to the mob being protected, and those who dare challenge the system being pushed out.
Now we can see things like this has been a long time coming for the UK, right?
The story from the time Britain has more surveillance cameras per person than any other country except China.
Interesting.
Interesting.
That's a massive risk to our free society.
Well, of course it is.
You may then ask, what's wrong with surveillance?
Well, you see this.
This story is from a few days ago.
A man was fined 90 pounds for hiding his face from police facial recognition cameras.
That's right.
A truck had cameras on top.
He pulled up.
It was actually quite cold, he was saying.
He pulled up his sweater to cover his face.
They stopped him and they fined him 90 pounds.
His only crime?
He wasn't a criminal.
He just didn't want them filming his face.
But there you go.
The system is being set up.
And don't think it's going to end with China.
It might not take the same form with an actual credit system.
But we are facing the same thing.
Take a look at this.
From Fortune, just about a week ago.
Zuckerberg vows Facebook will work with governments on hate speech.
Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.
They are working with all of these countries that don't believe in free speech.
And when it comes to the idea of protecting the right to free expression, what do we hear?
It's a private platform.
They can do whatever they want.
And therein lies the bigger problem.
What do you think is going to happen in the future?
There won't be a government-implemented social credit system.
We are already seeing the social credit system of big tech.
So take a look at this story.
This is from Human Events.
Paul Joseph Watson was banned from Facebook because they said he was dangerous.
Has Paul Joseph Watson ever encouraged any kind of physical assault on an individual or a violent attack?
He hasn't.
In fact, he's done quite the opposite.
He's denounced it.
But unfortunately for Paul, he was removed, at least in my opinion, not because he's actually dangerous, but because his name runs afoul of our currently proto-social credit system, the media.
The narrative that persists through the mainstream press and digital media is that he is an other.
He's an outlier.
He's a bad person.
And the line keeps moving.
The way I've often described it is, we're all standing on a cliff.
And the water keeps splashing against the cliff, eroding the cliffside.
And there are people in front of me.
I'm watching them fall.
I believe in liberty.
I don't believe... I don't even believe that Paul J. Watson actually ever broke any specific rules.
Not that they mentioned.
They just said he's dangerous.
What does dangerous mean?
What is their opinion on dangerous?
Well, one thing I've brought up in the past couple of videos is this video from Akilah Hughes, where she says, if you talk S prepared to get hit, same goes for anyone else thinking their hate speech should be protected.
The first amendment of this gun in the United States protects the right to speech.
And the Supreme court believes there is no, there's no hate speech.
It's an opinion is an opinion.
Therefore it is protected.
If you believe in the United States, Supreme Court ruling, if you believe in the Constitution, Aquila is saying you should get hit.
Numerous mainstream publications championed this.
CBS champions this.
Let's talk about what's dangerous.
This is dangerous, right?
We've, you know, I've brought up several times over the past few days about how Burger King was joining in the mob mentality to encourage violence.
What is dangerous?
That is Clearly, the issue isn't whether you're dangerous or violating the rules.
The issue is whether or not you run afoul of the current construct of what is a social credit system.
It's, again, not a number.
It's not the same as China.
But we are absolutely seeing you will be removed if you run afoul of orthodoxy.
And you may think, so what?
Paul Joseph Watson has bad opinions.
Sure.
What about a scientist?
What about one of the leading researchers on gender dysphoria, whose work intended to keep gender dysphoria listed as a mental disorder so that trans folks could continue to get financing money for medical treatment?
Because if you remove gender dysphoria from the DSM, which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, It will be harder to get medical treatment for trans people.
Well, he was suspended from Twitter for posting his professional scientific opinion because he runs afoul of mainstream orthodoxy.
This is the world that's being built.
Do you think people are going to want to speak up?
Do you think anyone's going to want to admit they're going to vote for Donald Trump?
Of course not.
What do we see?
Trump wins in 2016, flying in the face of the media and the press.
Brexit happens, flying in the face of the media and the press, and now in Australia.
And we're hearing the same thing may happen in India.
People are terrified to speak about what they really believe because of the looming social credit system.
but then they push back on it.
So maybe that's a light at the end of the tunnel.
You know, if you're someone who thinks that, you know, I'll actually, I'll back up.
When I went to all these Trump rallies and spoke to young people,
they said political correctness worried them.
But what about when, what about when the rules are unclear, right?
We can stop there and say, sure, maybe some personalities, some more right-wing conservative groups will rise from this and can help push back.
But what about when Right now, the rules are completely unclear.
How do you actually fall in line with the social credit system?
Let's say you decided, you know what?
I don't want to fight the machine.
I just want to live my life.
Unfortunately for you, you can't.
You can't just live your life.
It doesn't work that way.
The rules don't make sense, and it's on purpose.
One of the things I've brought up in the past is the idea that women, spelled with an X, was considered inclusive and exclusive simultaneously.
One group said, how dare you use the word women with an X, Wimixin, because trans women are women and don't need a special word.
At the same time, a black feminist group at a university said, no, you must use it to be inclusive of all women.
It was both simultaneously offensive and inoffensive.
So what do you do but bend the knee?
This tweet from Matt Walsh went viral.
He said, gender is a social construct, but I am woman, hear me roar.
But anyone can be a woman, but no uterus, no opinion.
But trans women are women, but I demand women's rights.
But men are women, but men are scum.
But drag queens are beautiful, but appropriation is evil.
It went viral for a reason.
There's been a lot of tweets from people.
They say this all the time.
Even Pete Buttigieg said this.
Men should not have an opinion on the issue of life and choice when it comes to this debate.
Because it's a woman's body, it's her choice.
But then we see at the same time people saying male silence is violence.
Silence is violence.
Why aren't men speaking up to defend women?
Because the rules don't make sense.
If you speak up about your opinion, you're told you're wrong and it's offensive.
You shouldn't have one.
If you don't speak up, you're told it's wrong, it's offensive.
What do you do?
But shut up and bend the knee to the rise of the authoritarian tech oligopoly, which will eventually become our social credit system.
How about if you're someone who is mixed race and believes in liberty and Christianity?
Well, then you will be called a white supremacist.
Seriously.
Seriously, how can an article like this exist?
It seemingly makes no sense.
The point is, what I'm bringing up is that there is no way to actually understand the principles of what this new oligopoly orthodoxy religion is.
All you can do is shut up and bend the knee to those who want the power because there is no way to be trustworthy in our social credit system.
Sam Harris tweets the other day, a paradox for our time.
The far left is disproportionately white, wealthy, and well educated.
So extreme wokeness is now one of the most glaring symptoms of white privilege.
The Overton window is being shifted by venture capital and by the fringe left.
And even when you try to say, you know what, okay, I will do what you want, you're told you're simultaneously offensive, you're inclusive and exclusive at the same time.
No matter what you say, it will be offensive.
That quite literally means you can only bend the knee.
Lastly, you might be saying, you know what?
How about I just don't say anything at all?
How about I just stay out of the political fight and mind my own business?
Because if you don't agree to bend the knee, they can just lie about you.
And they do.
They lie about me all the time, they lie about tons of people, and it results in them getting banned.
Do you think Chase Bank wants to do any research on an individual?
If they get a bunch of activists inundating them with emails saying, this person is bad for this reason, do you think they're going to sit there and say, let's dig into the history of this individual?
Or do you think they're going to say, I don't know, man, let's just back off?
Look at Count Dankula in the UK.
Admittedly, it's much worse in the UK and other Commonwealth countries.
He's called everything in the book because he made a silly joke on YouTube.
Admittedly, a joke substantially less offensive than anything George Carlin has ever said.
He just taught his dog to do a stupid trick as a joke.
And what happened?
Newspapers smeared him, lied about him, and they tried to destroy his life, and he was actually criminally convicted.
They took the money from his bank account.
Fortunately, we have a First Amendment.
But when it comes to how to remove ideas from public, they can just snap their fingers and say, you're a bigot.
Maybe you won't speak at all.
Maybe you'll be tepid.
Maybe you'll say, I believe in freedom, but I condemn hate speech.
Well, this is where it gets really fun.
Because we have a new post about Joe Rogan's voice being faked almost perfectly.
I'm not going to play any of the audio.
Actually, no, I don't think I can actually play any of the audio.
But the issue here is, we're already entering a world Where Photoshop exists.
Fake photos can emerge.
Fake screenshots have actually gotten people in trouble.
But now they can actually simulate your voice.
Nearly perfectly.
And make you say whatever they want you to say.
And then they can just release it.
And who's going to believe you?
The court of public opinion doesn't demand evidence.
And as far as they're concerned, it's an audio recording.
It is evidence.
So lastly, I'll wrap all this up in a nice, fine bow.
It's coming.
The dystopian future is upon us.
It's quite literally hell on earth.
I have one story.
They're blacklisting 13 million people from using trains and planes.
You won't even be able to fly on a plane when they deem you an anomalous or untrustworthy individual.
And even if you're someone who says, I'll mind my own business, no.
You have to bend the knee.
You have to agree to their rules and their orthodoxy, or they can just fabricate your voice and lie about you anyway.
Now, admittedly, fabricating your voice, I think, is far away.
But they've posted fake photos, they take things out of context, they snip segments, they make fake audio already.
They've done it to me over and over and over again.
And then people reach out to celebrities, and celebrities retweet it.
If you don't bend the knee, they will come for you.
That is our social credit system.
It's coming.
And then what happens?
Well, you're going to be put on watch lists.
You're going to be refused service.
Your credit card will stop working.
Your bank will shut you down.
You'll be booted from online services.
Twitter, Facebook, they'll ban you.
Because as we've already seen, Paul Joseph Watson is dangerous.
He's a dangerous person for being a mean, snarky individual on the internet.
But of course, Akilah Hughes saying, prepare to get hit, you should, for anybody who believes in free speech.
Ah, that's not dangerous at all.
In fact, she's been promoted in the mainstream.
You see where this is all going.
The nightmare is coming.
It's already in China.
Some of this technology is already being implemented in Australia.
And whether or not we ever get hit by something as egregious as what they've done in China, we have a constitution that protects us, the private companies will do it anyway.
Because what law protects you to make sure you can use your credit card?
You know that cafes in New York, many of them aren't even taking cash anymore.
Go to New York, you walk into a business and all they have is square.
You know what Square is?
It's a financial transaction service that's, I believe it's owned, it's run by Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter.
So where do you think this is all going?
As Square continues to take a massive portion of the market share in financial transactions for businesses who now no longer accept cash, where do you think it's going to go?
Mastercard has already gotten some people suspended from their bank.
Chase has done this.
I think you're gonna find that you will be relegated to the backwoods.
You'll be deemed untrustworthy, you'll be excised from society, and you'll go live off in the wilderness.
But you know what?
For me?
I'm kind of okay with that.
I would love to do nothing but kick back in the wilderness and go fishing.
But who knows?
Maybe they won't even allow that.
So, I'll leave it here.
Thanks for hanging out.
Again, if you want to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
And again, hit the like button, click the share, share the video, it really helps.
And I guess if you've made it this far on the podcast, you've listened to over an hour and a half or so of content, Then give me a good rating, because apparently that helps too.
