EP.9 - MeToo Backfire? Men Refuse To Save Women Over Fear Of False Accusation
A new survey of data shows that men are less likely to help women suffering form heart attacks due to a fear of being accused of assault.Segments includeFacebook maintains a wrongthink databaseOcasio-Cortez accused of insulting democratsRight wing populism wins againPentagon admits to tracking UFOsDemocrats lie, cities rife with disease and homelessness
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a new story from the Daily Mail, we're learning that women are more likely to die of a heart attack for a rather crazy reason.
Men are less likely to perform CPR on a woman over fears of being accused of a Me Too, if you know what I mean, right?
Being accused of some kind of Impropriety, to say the least.
The story says women are more likely to die if they have a cardiac arrest in public because people fear performing CPR on them could be seen as, you know, a violation.
A cardiac arrest occurs when the heart suddenly stops pumping blood.
Some 68% of women, cardiac arrest patients, received CPR from a bystander.
In comparison, the figure was 73% for men.
The story says basically the same thing.
Dutch scientists found 73%.
We read that.
So here's the thing.
we read that, fears touching a woman's chest may be seen as harassment may put people off
from helping to restart their heart, scientists say.
So here's the thing. I made a video in June of last year called,
Why Men Are Refusing to Help Women and Children. And I go over a lot of these issues.
I don't know necessarily if it's if it stands up today. It was based on news and research stuff
at the time, but I'll put a card to it in the video. It'll appear over there in the top corner.
But I think it's fair to point out.
With the increased scrutiny over issues like this, there have been a lot of instances and there have been a lot of stories about men refusing to help women and children.
And so we'll go over some of these ideas.
We'll read this, but I got to do one thing first.
This video is sponsored by Virtual Shield.
They're helping pay the bills.
Virtual Shield is a virtual private network service.
That means you have a basic level of security, kind of hiding and encrypting your data.
So hackers, governments, private corporations can't steal it from you.
Of course, there's always ways to, like, try and capture your data.
But the way I describe a VPN service, like Virtual Shield, it's very simple.
You know, if somebody really wants to break in your house, they can kick your door in.
But the lock does stop a lot of people, and it's there for a reason.
You know, we lock our windows or doors, we don't expect people to kick our doors, and hey, it happens.
So VPN is that simple layer of security where if you're browsing the web, You can have your data protected.
It's very simple.
And if you're doing, like, credit card stuff, if you're, you know, logging into certain websites you don't want people to know about, because of your privacy and your right to privacy, VPNs make a lot of sense.
If you go to hidewithtim.com, they're doing a huge deal for Memorial Day.
It's 35% off.
You can get it just $3.24 a month.
Special shout-out to Virtual Shield.
They were my first sponsor, so that's why I still routinely, you know, we'll push stuff out for them.
Look, we're in the era of mass demonetization.
It's really hard to do political content on YouTube.
I wish- I would love to make videos about, you know- Actually, I'm going to be doing a vlog once the van is done.
But doing political content, especially this video, is probably going to be demonetized.
So I'm very grateful that Virtual Shield is here and willing to support the kind of content I make.
So, um, I ask, you know, if you guys are interested in a VPN, check out Virtual Shield.
They do a lot to sponsor a lot of different YouTubers, especially in the political space.
I think they're a great company.
So again, hidewithtim.com, link is in the description below.
Thanks for listening to that, but let's get back to the story.
An expert commenting on the study also claimed that bystanders may be scared of hurting frail women by performing CPR.
So it's not just that they're scared of a potential Me Too incident, but I think that's fair to point out.
The researchers warned people are less likely to realize the seriousness of a woman's condition and may be slower to realize they need help.
This may lead to delays in calling the emergency services, hindering the survival chances of female patients.
The British Heart Foundation said the finding that women were 7% less likely to get CPR from a member of the public was worrying.
So let's clarify some of these points they're making right here.
For one, Women are 7% less likely to get CPR.
So the likelihood that women are going to die from a heart attack,
it's actually more than just not getting CPR.
It's the fact that people don't realize they're hurt, and people...
and they're less likely to call emergency services.
So it's not just that guys won't perform CPR is lowering their chance of survival.
It's compounding.
But that's definitely one of the issues.
Okay, let's see.
Figures show more than 30,000 cardiac arrests occur each year outside of hospitals in the UK compared to 355,000 in the US.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, I think we get the point.
I don't wanna- I don't wanna go on too much, but, uh, let's- here we go.
Dr. Sarah Perman, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, offered another explanation for this finding.
She said, similar studies have shown that there is an over sexualization of women's bodies.
However, she was not involved in the study. Dr. Perlman added, many feel hesitant to provide CPR
if there's a notion they're doing something incorrect that was perceived to be assault or
harassment. She said, people are more likely to think a woman has just fainted and said,
many have a fear of causing injury because the women are more frail.
Sarah Askew, head of survival at the British Heart Foundation, said the new insight is particularly worrying.
We already know that women who have suffered a heart attack are less likely to receive the appropriate treatment.
Now it appears the case is the same for women of cardiac arrest.
So we get the point.
I want to talk a little bit about this.
What do you think is going to happen, right?
Am I saying this is directly tied to the Me Too movement?
Not necessarily, but you have to consider it's, you know, the analogy I often use, grains of sand in the heat.
The MeToo movement has made people very, very uncomfortable and self-conscious in private interactions, like men and women.
There was a study I did a story on a couple days ago.
60% of men are uncomfortable with women in work settings and social events because of the MeToo movement.
And look, I don't blame the women who are calling out these abusers, but I'm also not surprised men are kind of scared.
I will point out, the fact that it's only a 7% difference, they say, or 68 to 73 is only 5%, shows that it's actually a small percentage of guys who don't want to perform CPR on a woman for these reasons.
So it's not like it's the end of the world, it's not the biggest deal ever.
But one of the stories I want to highlight, and this has to do with the video I made a long time ago, is there's been story after story in the press about men being bad, men being predators.
There are stories about men on airplanes, and they'll be sitting next to a child, and someone will ask them to move.
Like the flight attendant will be like, would you mind switching seats with someone, because we don't want a man sitting next to a child.
And there have been some stories where the guys get really angry and other stories where guys are like, I don't care.
I've been asked to move before and I'm just like, whatever.
Just give me an aisle seat.
I don't care.
I'm not a big fan of window seats or middle seats.
So give me an aisle seat and I'll move.
I don't care.
But why is it?
Why are men being asked to move?
The same reason, the same social stigma, plays into men refusing to help children who are lost, and men refusing to perform CPR on women.
One of the stories, I read this blog post, I think it might be in the video from last year, it's been a while since I did a video, but there was a story about a guy, it was written by a woman, she was a journalist, there was a guy at a shopping center or a mall, And there was a child alone and crying.
And this journalist noticed a guy walked up to the, like, looked at the kid, and then quickly turned around and, like, scuttled away.
Security came and got the kid, and the journalist went up to the guy to ask him, you know, why wouldn't he help?
And, essentially, the guy said, if he goes near that kid, people are going to assume he's trying to kidnap the kid, and the kid doesn't have the wherewithal to tell them, no, I'm lost, and this guy's helping me.
So why would a man want to put himself in that position?
Think about the CPR, right?
Why would a man want to put himself in a position where he's putting his mouth on the mouth of another woman and touching her chest, especially in the climate we're in?
He's not going to want to do that.
Some people aren't going to want to do that.
So, you know, the story kind of prattles on quite a bit.
But I do want to just wrap up how they bring it to a close.
So, Sarah Eskew of the British Heart Foundation says it's particularly worrying.
We already know that women who have suffered a heart attack are less likely to receive appropriate treatment.
Now it appears, cardiac arrests, regardless of gender, the overall survival rate for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is shockingly less than 1 in 10.
Every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation reduces the chance of survival by up to 10%.
Mrs. Skew added, that this is why knowing how to perform CPR is essential and doing something is always better than doing nothing.
The research was published in the European Heart Journal.
So, I saw this on Twitter and a lot of people are asking, is this the Me Too movement?
Now, I don't think it's fair to say that the MeToo movement is the direct cause of this kind of statistic.
This stat probably goes back a bit further.
But I do think it's fair to point out that, you know, you look at the narrative in media, right, that men are the bad guys, men are, you know, the ones committing all the harassment, and women are the poor victims.
You look at Pew Research.
Peer research shows that men are overwhelmingly the victims of harassment.
FBI crime stats show that men are overwhelmingly the victims of violent crime, murder, theft, robbery, etc.
The perpetrators are men, but it's not targeting... You know, men target men.
That's a fact.
With harassment, it's men targeting men.
Women do get more sexual harassment online and in public.
And it's that narrative that results in things like this.
What guy wants to be the person who gets, you know, falsely accused?
And there was a story recently, it was published, a bunch of outlets covered it, Daily Wire had it.
Some guy stops to help a woman who was trying to change her tire and she accused him!
She falsely accused him!
So now you've got guys who are like, I ain't going anywhere near these women.
You've got guys who don't want to work with women.
And the crazy thing about it is, that was a direct result of Me Too.
LeanIn.org published this study and found that up from last year, 32% of men don't want to be in like a closed space or like working alone with women.
And I can't blame them.
I know people who have been falsely accused.
And it's not just about a false accusation.
I know people who have been, you know, their intentions were misinterpreted and they were accused.
That's not necessarily a false accusation, but the way I explain it is, if I pat my male friend on the shoulder and say something like, good job, they're not going to misconstrue that.
But if you do that to a woman, she might be like, oh my god, he touched me and it was inappropriate.
And you're going to get in trouble for it.
And that's a mark on your record.
Unfortunately now, people who need real medical help might not get it.
But I'll leave it at that.
Stick around.
I'm going to have more segments up throughout the day for those who are listening on the podcast.
It'll be in a few minutes, a few seconds.
And the next segment will be at 1 p.m.
It's confusing because I'm doing this as a podcast and as a YouTube channel.
So bear with me.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to get all this going.
But the next segment will begin shortly.
And for those on YouTube, it'll be at 1 p.m.
And I will see you then.
Oh boy, do we have a lot of disclosures for this video.
For one, it's a negative story about Facebook, and you'll notice, like, right there, the Minds.com slash Timcast things appear.
Because I think Facebook is awful, nightmarish, and it must be stopped.
Even the co-founder of Facebook agrees, Facebook needs to be broken up.
The next little caveat, this is from Breitbart, which is a very contentious source, but it's from Alam Bakari.
Uh, Breitbart is not known to publish fake news.
They're just very partisan and they mix opinion with their stuff.
So this, uh, I would lean towards this is likely accurate.
And we have seen this reporting backed up by a couple other outlets.
Not this specific story, but essentially.
Facebook's hate agent lists includes British candidates for the European election.
And get this.
They're talking about Carl Benjamin, known as Sargon of Akkad, and one of his slights speaking neutrally about a Proud Boy, condemning the alt-right.
This is how insane Facebook is getting.
They're thought-policing as anyone who dare talk about an idea is going to be put on one of these lists.
So, I think Facebook is awful.
I think we're entering a nightmarish dystopia.
And allow me to take the opportunity now, excuse me, to give a shout out to the sponsor of this video.
Helps pay the bills.
It's VirtualShield.
VirtualShield is a simple layer of defense.
It's a virtual private network.
The way I usually describe it is, you know, you don't expect someone to break into your house.
You still lock your doors and windows.
If somebody really wanted to break in, they'd kick your door in.
But having that simple layer of defense protects you from, you know, it's a basic level security.
So when you're browsing internet, you want to protect your data.
It's not perfect, but it is the simple layer of defense.
It's only $3.24 per month.
Virtual Shield is doing a big Memorial Day special.
You can go to hidewithtim.com if you want to sign up.
Again, in the era of demonetization, Virtual Shield was my first sponsor.
They've repeatedly helped me out.
It's been a rough demonetization week.
And considering the nature of some of these stories talking about big tech, they tend to get demonetized.
So I'm very grateful for Virtual Shield.
One last point.
It protects your data.
It encrypts your data.
When you browse the web, it protects you from hackers, governments, big businesses.
Again, not perfect, but you do, you know, if you want that simple layer of defense, you don't want to be exposed, I recommend VirtualShield.
HideWithTim.com.
Thanks for listening through that, but let's get back to the story and figure out what Facebook is doing.
They say, The leader of a British political party and a candidate in tomorrow's European elections are both included on Facebook's list of potential hate agents Breitbart News can exclusively reveal.
Carl Benjamin, YouTube star and candidate for UKIP in tomorrow's European elections, that's today actually, and Anne-Marie Waters, founder of the For Britain Party and director of Sharia Watch UK are both included.
The inclusion of electoral candidates is significant given that Facebook has been under siege by the media for over two years for the facilitation of election meddling.
Now, I will say whether or not significant is an opinion, but I would agree with that opinion.
The issue here is actually, it's, it's, this is, look, it's really terrifying, right?
You may be saying, yeah, well, Sargon broke the rules.
Sargon, you know, it's a private platform, whatever.
Look, when Carl, aka Sargon, was producing his criticism or his neutral, look at this, neutral representation of John Kinsman, a proud boy, It was before he announced he was going to be running.
What this means is there are people, everyone has the potential to run for office in a liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy does not mean left liberal and it does not mean direct democracy.
Liberal democracy refers to Western nations and the institutions we uphold where we can vote to elect our representatives.
That's what liberal democracy means.
So in the US, we're in a constitutional republic.
The UK is a parliamentary system.
It's not constitutional and it's not a republic.
So they're different, but they have similar voting systems.
It's, you know, that's what liberal democracy is.
I know people get mad because they don't, you know, they conflate liberal democracy with like liberal versus conservative.
It's not the case.
The point is in the UK, in the US, anyone has the potential to run for office for the most part, right?
Some people, you know, Twitter took down Carl's campaign Twitter account.
He wasn't even running it, nothing to do with it.
It was an account just telling people what he was doing and where, not run by him.
Same thing for Tommy.
I'm not going to say his last name because YouTube will absolutely restrict this video if I do.
So let's go through... You get the point, right?
These big tech social media companies are interfering in elections, even if the policing was before they announced.
The point I'm trying to make is what happens when you eventually say, you know what?
I want to run for office to fight for what I think is right.
And they've already listed you as a hate agent.
They're already going to restrict access to the public space to you.
How will you run and win if you have no access?
So let's read a little bit of this.
They say, A Facebook insider tipped off Breitbart News to the existence of the hate agents list last week, revealing that Candace Owens was included on it.
A Facebook spokeswoman later confirmed the existence of the list while stressing that Owens has not yet been investigated.
The list encourages Facebook employees to collect examples of signals, both on the platform and off of it, to determine if individuals ought to be categorized as hate agents.
So they say there's level 1, level 2, level 3, ranked by time.
Level one, the most serious, is a signal that occurred within the past year, whereas a level three is a signal that occurred within the past three years.
So they mention simply speaking neutrally about a Proud Boy is a level two signal.
Speaking neutrally!
If you're a journalist and you say, the Proud Boys did X and Antifa did X, they're gonna be like, oh, that's a hate agent signal.
Seriously, I wonder if I'm on the list for talking about them.
Look at this.
Level three signals.
Here we have underlevel3signals, the author of the list notes, and the platform has removed several pieces of content from Benjamin's Facebook and or Instagram pages in the past three years.
They list the following, some of which are tagged as borderline cases.
Delete.
Hate speech.
Intersex result of inbreeding genetic deformity.
Now here's the thing.
This post from Carl isn't him saying it.
It's a screenshot of other people saying it.
Delete.
Supporting statement of inferiority against Germans.
I don't know what that is.
Now, come on.
I'm not going to apologize or excuse Carl's more bad behavior where he said things that are extremely offensive.
But I do believe in free speech, so there are some things where it's like, if Facebook's going to be collecting a list of things they deem hateful, some of these things I recognize as like, okay, that would fit the list.
Do I think it's right that Facebook has a list in the first place?
No, that's freakish and terrifying that they're going to start suppressing people and organizations, and they've done it.
They've suppressed certain organizations.
I don't want to get into all the detail on the censorship stuff, but we know they're biased.
We know Facebook holds this bias.
In other leaks from Veritas, we saw that they view meme culture as, like, far-right.
Like, IRL means in real life.
That's just internet slang.
It's internet initialism.
It's not an acronym.
Yeah, it's just people saying the internet IRL.
They said IRL was like an alt-right thing.
These people are nuts!
Now, they said Sargon did use a slur, which I can't read.
In a column marked, individual promotes the creation of an ethnostate, an entry is inexplicably added in which Benjamin mocks the position of the alt-right.
Get this.
Mocking the alt-right's position is deemed representing the ideology of an ethnostate.
That's it, that's it, that's it.
Basically, I think this is their fake Fake evidence.
They want to be able to ban someone and then eventually be like, well, here's why.
And they can just say it.
They never have to prove it.
They can say, oh, well, he was representing, you know, the ideology of an ethnostate.
He was talking about against it.
So when they say, you know, Facebook said you can only speak about InfoWars and Alex Jones if you're speaking negatively.
Right?
We've seen if you speak neutrally about certain groups, they'll flag that.
Granted, you know, Carl hasn't been banned.
But even when you're speaking against it, they'll claim, oh, but you're representing it.
See, this is how they do the fake evidence.
Then they'll later say, you know, they'll ban him and say, he was repeatedly making posts about, you know, an ethnostate and the importance of one and stuff like that, making it seem like he's saying it when the posts themselves do and he mocks them.
Under notes, a Facebook employee makes a critical concession.
Most content is anti-communist, anti-fascist, feminist, socialist.
He's not explicitly hateful and even criticizes the alt-right for wanting to build an ethnostate.
Although not categorized as hate signals, the notes field also contains more examples
Why should we find this acceptable in any capacity?
In any capacity should we allow these companies to do this?
There has been talk of passing bills that would shut them down.
No tracking.
You can't track it.
And that's what they should do.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
I do not believe they should have a right to create these kind of databases based on their subjective opinion.
And so I'll give a shout out.
This is why I did the disclosure for Minds, because we're doing an event.
IRL.minds.com.
We're doing an event in August.
But also, I think Minds is great.
Not perfect.
Nobody is.
But they just rolled out a jury system.
So get this.
You're on Facebook.
You say this.
What do they do?
They put you in a database.
They accuse you of doing all these crazy things, even if you didn't do anything wrong.
They ban people, call them dangerous, which is smearing them.
What does Mines do with the new jury system?
If you have a post that breaks the rules and it gets flagged, you can appeal it to a jury of 12 randomly selected people.
Don't think it's perfect.
I personally think the number should be way higher, like 1,000 people, to reduce any margin of error.
But the 12 people then get to see the post and choose whether or not it actually breaks the rules, and they're people who don't follow you.
So the likelihood... Like, let's say you tweet at someone, I think you're dumb.
And they say, that's harassment.
And then a bunch of their fans brigade it.
You get flagged.
It goes to 12 random people who are not associated with you, who can say, is it harassment to call someone dumb?
Well, it's up to the jury to decide, right?
And so I think there needs to be guidelines.
I think this is kind of like a proto version of it.
But I'll say this.
Doing a jury system for moderation, while maybe not perfect yet, is a million times better than Mark Zuckerberg's digital, you know, secret police creating a database of wrong think and banning people for, you know, like Paul Joseph Watson's Instagram was all just like selfies.
And they banned him for it.
Welcome to the- You know, look.
I'm gonna give a quick shoutout to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who deserves some credit.
I'll put it this way.
I don't care for Tribe.
Okay?
I'm gonna do a video later on the absurdity of Cortez for the main channel.
But here's the thing.
She said, I don't want to see an authoritarian surveillance state, whether it's run by a government or whether it's run by five corporations.
authoritarianism and fascism. She expresses concern after a House Oversight Committee
hearing on facial recognition. But here's the thing, she said, I don't want to see an
authoritarian surveillance state whether it's run by a government or whether it's run by
five corporations. Referencing American tech companies, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook
and Microsoft, all five companies have worked on private and public facial recognition platforms.
Although one, Amazon, has been especially aggressive in marketing its own tool recognition to law enforcement agencies.
Bravo!
When Trump does something good, I will say it.
Absolutely.
Not a big fan of the Trump guy.
Not a big fan of the AOC lady.
And I've praised some of her positions, you know, when she first announced, and then she's kind of devolved into a basically... She's Lady Trump.
I call her Lady Trump.
But it doesn't matter.
My personal opinion on how she makes me feel or how Trump makes me feel is irrelevant to the fact that if they're going to talk about something important, good.
There's a lot of people who are saying, well, Ocasio-Cortez is more aligned with the faction that says private platforms can ban whoever they want.
Sure.
Yeah, absolutely she is.
And Trump is, you know, has said very critical things of Islam and immigration.
Don't care.
I get it.
Okay, I shouldn't say I don't care.
Of course I do.
But the real issue is solutions.
If Ocasio-Cortez says these big companies are making a surveillance state and must be stopped, I'm gonna say sign me up.
If we can agree on this and actually come together and stop these tech giants from doing this crazy kind of weird secret police databases, yeah.
I'm on board.
I do not think these big tech companies should be creating this massive surveillance apparatus.
I don't care if it's the NSA or Facebook.
They're both bad.
So I will absolutely stand behind AOC.
I'll still criticize her.
I'll still be critical of Trump in terms of foreign policy.
And for good measure, I'll throw in Trump's rhetoric against Saudi Arabia.
when he was campaigning versus where he's at now with like, well, we got, you know,
we're getting a good weapons deal from them and they're bombing Yemen.
There's, there's, there's reasons to be critical of a lot of people.
I'm not trying to be, you know, duplicitous.
I try my best to stand on principle.
I think AOC is ripe for criticism, but if she's going to come out against these big
tech giants over the issue of facial recognition, Bravo, spot on.
And if she's going to frame it in the, in like the rise of authoritarianism and fascism, sure.
I don't care.
Like let's, let's break these big companies up.
Let's figure out how to do it.
Let's figure out how to protect the right of the individual over the massive, authoritarian, technocratic, fascistic state.
Okay?
I think there's a lot we'll disagree on when it comes to actually how to deal with these companies.
But if we can at least all recognize the danger of these companies, we're gonna be a lot.
A lot better off.
So anyway, I will leave it there.
Technofascism, whatever you want to call it, it's scary.
And I really, really want to stress in this story from Breitbart that speaking neutrally, a neutral representation of a Proud Boy was marked as a level two, right?
That's insane.
They're putting people on lists for not hating someone, for not speaking ill of a group.
What about journalists?
Welcome to the future.
Facebook's going to ban you.
We just saw in San Francisco a journalist get raided by cops for refusing to turn over their data.
So yeah, we got some problems, man.
And we got to fight them where we can.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
More segments to come.
The next video will be on my main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast.
For those that are watching online, that'll be at 4 p.m.
But stick around.
Another segment will be starting shortly for those on the podcast.
If you want to support this podcast, leave a good review on iTunes or wherever it is you're watching.
Greatly appreciated.
And I will see you all in the next segment.
I gotta admit, I almost fell into the trap of misunderstanding the context of the story, the poll, and what Ocasio-Cortez said.
Here's the story from Daily Caller.
Most Democrats believe Ocasio-Cortez's claim that she said only a sea sponge would believe.
There's some truth to this, but it is a bit more complicated.
The context.
Ocasio-Cortez said on more than one occasion, the world will end in 12 years unless we do something about it.
Recently she backtracked and said, that was just dry humor.
I don't think it was necessarily dry humor, I think she was being hyperbolic, I think she was just speaking off the cuff, and she was speaking figuratively, but being taken literally, something that Trump experiences all the time.
I gotta do this, but just for the context of people who might not know, Donald Trump in the debates with Hillary Clinton said she acid-washed her server when she wiped the emails.
NBC News, I believe it was, fact-checked this and said, false.
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive substance on her server.
Seriously, we understood what the man was trying to say.
Now, when it comes to Cortez, I gotta admit, because of the news reporting, I actually believed she was being serious.
Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator, said he didn't believe she was being serious.
And I looked into the actual segment where she was speaking, and it does seem like she's trying to be hyperbolic.
Albeit, she is using the hyperbole to boast, you know, to push her position, the Green New Deal, etc.
She walked it back claiming that it was a GOP strategy to fact-check jokes.
It's not.
The Hill, RealClearPolitics, who else?
Washington Post, they all reported this as definitive fact.
The problem is the media, okay?
But I want to break this down.
Because now the narrative that's kind of going around is that Ocasio-Cortez insulted Democrats when she was trying to insult the GOP.
She kind of did.
Kind of.
And we're going to go into that and I'll explain why.
But before we do, check out timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
Monthly donation option.
Cryptocurrency option.
There is a physical address.
Or just share the video, click the like button, comment below.
The engagement really, really does help on YouTube.
So let's take a look at the story and try and understand what actually happened.
The Daily Caller writes, More than two-thirds of Democrats believe Democratic New
York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's claim the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address
climate change, despite the Congresswoman later saying you'd have to have
the social intelligence of a sea sponge to take her literally.
I think what we're seeing here is a mistake on the Daily Caller's part,
misconstruing her hyperbolic statement with what the actual poll says.
The poll for Ms.
Mucin shows that 67% of Democrats think that if we don't make changes within 12 years there will be irreparable damage to the planet.
So here's what I think is happening.
You have some people who are taking Cortez literally instead of figuratively, like the world will literally just blow up, the end is nigh, as opposed to what she may be trying to convey as an urgency in explaining, yes, there is an IPCC report that says we have 12 years to make changes, otherwise there will be irreparable damage to the planet.
I would like to point out, however, we've heard this stuff over and over again over the past few decades.
You know, Al Gore was like, we've got 10 years to make some changes, and it's been 10 years, it's been longer.
Where are the problems, right?
A lot of people like to point to extreme weather events and claim that's the case.
I ultimately fall on the side of being not an expert, not a scientist, so I'll defer to the IPCC.
But, we've done some reporting on Subverse.
No, the world is not going to end in 12 years.
There may be some irreparable damage, but it is seriously not even... It's like, we don't want these problems to happen, but to act like they're world-ending events or contributing to a potential world-ending event?
It's just wrong.
It's just wrong.
Yes, irreparable damage.
There's consistently irreparable damage.
We get it.
So here's the thing, though.
The people polled weren't asked, do you think the world is going to end?
They were asked, do you think there will be damage if they don't tackle climate change?
So it seems like there's always this partisan jump to try and, like, get Cortez, like, haha!
You claimed only the GOP would fall for this, but Democrats believe it, too.
But there's some context that needs to go into this.
So Cortes said, millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we're like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how we're going to pay for it?
Ocasio-Cortez said during an interview in January.
The freshman congresswoman also doubled down on the claim in April, again, warning that there's only 12 years remaining and that for everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh, but your grandkids will not.
So here's some real criticism.
You can't Say something, then later complain about people making jokes, then claim you were making a joke.
So some criticism for Ocasio-Cortez in that regard.
But I do think it's unfair to try and claim that Democrats believe the world is going to end, simply because they believe there will be some damage.
They go on to add that Ocasio-Cortez later flipped her position in early May, referring to the 12-year deadline as merely dry humor and sarcasm, and asserted that those who took her literally have the social intelligence of a sea sponge.
Can I just stop right now?
And I actually agree with Ocasio-Cortez 100%.
Those that took her literally have the social intelligence of a sea sponge.
Now, she's trying to blame the GOP.
That I don't agree with.
But this part, you're gonna love it.
Why?
It was the media who took her literally, okay?
I went back and I watched through a segment and I was like, I see what she's trying to say.
Admittedly, at the time, I fall into the same trap.
I'll point this out.
Anyone who thinks they're immune to the social manipulation, you're wrong.
One of the first things you'll learn when you're dealing with hacker culture and social engineering and stuff is that everyone is vulnerable.
I saw the Washington Post, RealClearPolitics, The Hill, BuzzFeed, The Verge.
They all reported a similar line.
She said this.
And I said, wow, she must have really meant it.
Then when I saw people saying, look, she's saying it was a joke.
She was being hyperbolic.
I'm like, ah, I get it.
Look, I think she's definitely pushing the urgency a little too extreme.
A little bit, uh, to the extreme.
But I do think it's fair to point out she was being more hyperbolic and figurative.
And the media does the same thing to Trump.
That's why I find it hilarious, the treatment she gets.
Look, I have criticisms of her and Trump.
And if you watch my channels, you know, I've brought them up.
I will say this though, in, you know, in, in terms of why, why do I have like, I think it's like 2% of my videos are like directly about Trump.
Ocasio-Cortez has basically, to a certain extent, a lot of progressive media on her side, and she needs to be criticized when she does dumb things.
that many. But it's because, like, for one, the media is just a nonstop anti-Trump fest.
I think we all get it, right? Ocasio-Cortez has basically, to a certain extent, a lot
of progressive media on her side, and she needs to be criticized when she does dumb
things. And she does. A lot.
This is not one of those things, however.
This is quite literally The Hill and Washington Post and other outlets taking her literally, and I think it's because they've found the Ocasio-Cortez bump.
You know, when Trump says the fake news is the enemy of the people, I think he's being hyperbolic.
But then I see stories like this and I'm like, listen, man.
The media has taken Cortez out of context before, and she's pulled the Trumpian fake news against them as well.
I think Trump has said a bunch of gaffes.
I think Cortez said a bunch of gaffes.
I think Trump and Sarah Sanders have said a bunch of misinformation, as has Cortez.
I'm not going to accuse Cortez of being a liar, because that implies I understand her intent.
It's possible she's just dumb.
Same is true for Trump.
They track all of these lies from Trump, and I'm like, yeah, maybe he's just wrong, right?
So you have Trump supporters who look at Trump and say, I get it, I get what he's trying to say, he was wrong, but you trust him.
And if you trust him, you don't think he's a liar.
And the people on the left feel the same way about Cortez.
I think what we really see is, for one, we shouldn't fall into the tribalism trap of, you know, just hating Cortez for being the other side or hating Trump for being the other side.
Criticize them for what they do wrong, praise them for what they get right.
I brought this up in my Actually, I should have brought this up, but maybe I didn't.
I mentioned in a video that Cortez is criticizing the big tech giants.
Yes, please.
Please criticize.
So I will absolutely give credit where credit is due.
Ocasio-Cortez, you want to go after the big tech oligopolies?
I will shake your hand.
I will be right there and say, let's do something about this.
This is a problem.
You're going to claim that a $21 trillion accounting error can fund Medicare.
When you want to do this hyperbolic 12 years to the end of the world thing, I'll be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, chill out, right?
Because we did report on this.
But I think it's fair to point out the media definitely loves to rile everybody up.
And the media goes after Cortez in this way.
It's similar to what they do to Trump.
It's the Ocasio-Cortez bump.
They know when they write this Ocasio-Cortez that the world's going to end and try and make it seem like she's waving a sign in the air, it makes her look bad.
Then what happens is people like me, other people who are taking a critical eye to this far-left sect of the Democrats, are sitting there with like, wow, is she crazy?
And then what happens?
Well, you end up having her come out and say it was dry humor, and I immediately was like, oh please, come on, you're trying to walk back your claims?
But in reality, I think it is fair to point out, and, you know, it really does come down to who you trust in the media.
When I see the media reporting all this stuff, I'm like, nah, nah, nah, I don't believe you.
But then there are certain people who come up and say, really, take a look at it, and I'm like, oh, okay.
I think she was just being hyperbolic.
She was trying to exaggerate to make a point.
You know, she was trying to be shocking.
I don't think she literally thinks the world is going to end.
And so what happens then is you get this poll from Esmussen that says there's 12 years until there's irreparable damage, and The Daily Caller makes its, you know, because I think The Daily Caller is operating off the fact they're taking her literally.
Well, you know what?
Whether you like her or not is besides the point.
I think we would all do well to try and avoid taking people literally, especially if you're someone who, like, watches what the media does to Trump.
I think it's important to point out the media is going to do the same thing to Cortez to an extent.
She definitely has the progressive activists on her side, which means the media is way more favorable to her than they are to Trump.
But it is important to point out that, look, 67% of Democrats believe the U.S.
has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be, quote, disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world.
That's very different from saying the world is going to end.
So, by all means, if you think she was being serious and was trying to walk it back, for sure.
But it's not—the Democrats don't believe the world is ending.
They believe the IPCC.
And that, I think, is fine.
So, you know what?
I don't want to just be the tribalist bear of opposition to people like the fringe far left.
No, I want to make sure we call out the media.
And that's kind of more of my shtick, you know?
I think the media are full of liars.
And I think they'll lie about Cortez.
They lie about Mafic Media.
They lie about Tulsi Gabbard.
They lie about, to an extent, Andrew Yang.
And here's what's really crazy.
You get Bernie, Tulsi, and Yang going on Fox News.
Pete Buttigieg going on Fox News.
That is honorable.
And so I'm like, okay.
Right?
Okay.
But then what happens when Tulsi Gabbard goes on CNN?
They say like, why do you hate America and the world?
What happens when Kamala Harris goes on CNN?
They say, what's your favorite song?
So yeah, I'm not a big media person.
And I think, you know, politically, There are some positions that Cortez holds that I agree with.
I am no fan of private prisons.
I don't know where it stands on the death penalty, but I'm absolutely 100% against the death penalty.
And there are some things that I think Trump has done really, really well.
The economy is really good.
I think it's good sometimes to point out that, you know, Cortez coming out against the big tech giants and the surveillance state, I'm like, yes, please.
Yes, please.
I will support a politician.
If they're doing something that's good, and I'll criticize them if they're doing something that's bad, so... Anyway, I think you get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Be wary of the media.
I try my best.
I'm not perfect.
As I mentioned, I'm vulnerable to the same fake news as everybody else.
I can only use the sources that I have and we know that media has been... I don't know.
I don't even... I'm not gonna swear.
It's been awful.
Okay?
So I do my best to try and fact check and double check things and I think context and benefit of the doubt sometimes are a good thing.
So I'll leave it there.
I got some more segments coming up for you shortly.
Stick around and I will see you soon.
Indian PM Narendra Modi and his party just swept India's elections.
It was a stunning victory for Hindu nationalism.
You may be saying, Tim, why do I care about what's happening in India?
I'm not Indian.
I don't know a lot about their country.
Well, admittedly, neither do I. And I got to admit, I'm not super concerned about Indian politics.
But someone sent me this story, said you really got to check this out because this is another right-wing nationalist victory.
And you all remember what happened just a few days ago.
The right-wing populist playbook keeps winning from Bloomberg opinion.
Australia's shock election result is one more sign 2016 was no fluke.
Let me ask you this before we get started.
Why does this keep happening?
Why did Trump win?
Why did Brexit win?
Why did Australia's right-wing party win?
Why did Modi win?
Why does this keep happening?
I'll tell you one thing.
I think it has to do with social media making the left go insane and fall apart.
And the media, you know, is supposed to tell us what's happening, and they have no idea.
They are so out of touch, the polls are wrong, and the right-wing nationalists keep on winning.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're gonna look a little bit into what's going on with Modi and his victory, and then we're gonna rate about 2016 being no fluke.
But before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work in doing these segments and videos.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, just share this video, click like, comment below, it really, really does help.
The engagement makes YouTube think it's a good video and they should support it.
So if you want to, or if you're listening to the podcast, give a good review.
It really, really does help.
But let's check out what's going on with Modi from Vox.com.
The world's largest democratic elections have concluded.
India's pro-Hindu nationalist Prime Minister and his party are on pace to win by a landslide.
The early results from India's week-long general election show a clear victory for incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi Bhartiya Janata Party, sorry, which has so far won 300 of a
total of 543 seats in parliament.
The BJP seems to have trounced its main rival, the Congress Party, led by Rahul Gandhi, the
scion of the famous political dynasty.
So let's go a little bit down.
Media reports have noted a dramatic rise in hate crimes during the five years Modi has
been in power.
Vigilante groups have sprung up around the country to protect cows, which are sacred to Hindus.
A report by Human Rights Watch found at least 44 people were killed between May 2015 and December 2018, most of them Muslims, accused of storing beef or transporting cows for slaughter.
Oftentimes, the guilty were not punished, and hate crimes were encouraged by speeches from senior BJP leaders.
In May 2017, the Modi government banned the sale and purchase of cows for slaughter.
So, you can tell by the narrative.
Look, this is VOTS.
And I gotta admit, I do not trust them.
Especially when they're trying to frame this narrative.
Look, if you've got a religious group and a dominant sect that says, don't eat cows, I'm gonna be like, okay.
If people are doing that, well, okay, then maybe you've got a problem.
In the US, it is frowned upon to eat dogs and cats.
And if people started snatching up dogs and cats for food, you'd have a problem.
And people would stop it for animal cruelty.
Because culturally, we accept eating some animals and not others.
You don't have to agree with it.
It doesn't have to make sense.
That's just what is socially acceptable.
If in India, it is not socially acceptable to eat cows, and it's not.
I know some Hare Krishnas and some Hindus.
I've talked to them about this.
Then, I guess I can put it this way.
We love dogs.
Over there, cows are sacred.
So that's very, very different.
So, let's read a little bit more.
I just want to read a little bit about the right-wing nationalism stuff.
They say, Modi's grand economic promises have not been met, unemployment in the country is now at its highest in 45 years, and there are growing concerns of an economic slowdown.
So in the 2019 election rolled around, Modi decided to lean into his nationalist platform, which served to divert attention from the country's more pressing problems.
Now that the results are in, it's clear his gamble paid off.
I think, you know, Vox is very clearly anti-Trump.
And I think, I can only assume their framing is on purpose because they don't like the idea that nationalists keep winning.
Let's read the conclusion to this story.
They're saying that nationalism is a distraction from the country's problems.
Um, but I just want to read the conclusion.
We'll go over it to this other story about why right-wing nationalism keeps happening.
They say, um, well, they're just, they just kind of trail off.
So we'll, we'll leave that where it is.
And let's go to this from Bloomberg.
Right-wing populism is still going strong.
Uh, that's what they say, right?
Um, if you enjoyed the right-wing populist surge that led to president Donald Trump and Brexit, let's make that a little bigger.
And we have got some good news for you.
It's still going strong.
It even got a new electoral shocker to its credit this weekend when Conservative Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won re-election after basically zero polls suggested that it was possible.
David Fickling and Dan Moss note the result echoes those aforementioned 2016 surprises in the US and UK, in that wealthy liberal cities are growing more alienated from economically struggling rural areas.
Australia's outcome is one sign of many that right-wing populism is still ascendant around the world, writes Tyler Cohen.
In upcoming European Parliament elections, for example, Euroskeptics are poised to win more than a third of seats, notes Ramesh Ratnasar.
They're thriving on turbulence and fraying party ties, Ramesh writes, trends that aren't going away.
Now, admittedly, by the time you see this video, I don't know when the MEP elections are going to end, but you've got Brexit Party leading the polls in the UK.
And if this trend continues, listen, Brexit, Trump, Australia, Modi, and now these MEP elections, I would absolutely bet, and this might come out after the fact they've lost, but I'd bet they're gonna win.
I bet Brexit Party, they're polling really, really high.
But here's the thing too, the polls have been wrong, wrong, wrong.
So we can look at a couple ways.
If the polls said the right wing was gonna lose, Trump was gonna lose, Brexit was gonna lose, and they underestimated the support, What does it say, then, when in the UK the polls say that Brexit Party is leading for the MEP elections?
If they're underestimating Brexit voters, then it may actually turn out way more people vote for Brexit Party.
Now, again, I'll admit...
By the time you watch this, it may all be said and done, and maybe it's the anomaly, I don't know.
But from where I'm sitting, the elections, my understanding is they're still happening at the time of filming this video.
Then, I'm gonna have to think they're gonna win.
I think it'd be crazy to bet against them after the fourth instance, which is Modi's victory.
So let's go a little bit... Okay, so I guess it's a very short article, but let's read a little bit about the right-wing populism.
The collapse of Austria's coalition government this weekend, after a corruption scandal took down the country's far-right vice-chancellor, is a setback for populists throughout Europe, writes Leonid Bershidsky, following plans for a European nationalist coalition.
But the Austrian scandal's impact may be limited, Ramesh suggests, and a longer-term solution to rising European populism is to directly address its root causes.
That's what Bloomberg's editorial board writes.
By giving opportunities to the working poor, reforming immigration, and becoming more responsive to citizens' needs, Europe's biggest economy, Germany, sure isn't helping matters by insisting on running a budget surplus rather than stimulating the continental economy, writes Melvin Cross.
So I have to say this.
They're quite literally saying, perhaps the solution is populist policy.
If the right-wing nationalists keep winning, and then you're talking about helping the poor and reforming immigration, you're just talking about their policy positions.
Like, what do you think Trump campaigned on?
Manufacturing the middle class, losing jobs and needing help?
Reforming immigration, building the wall?
Being more responsive to citizens' needs?
I don't know, that's kind of vague.
But what do you think the right-wing populists are doing that's working?
Now, I can't tell you why the left-wing populists aren't working.
I have no idea.
I do know Bernie Sanders is very popular, but Joe Biden is still more popular.
I think when it comes down to it, the media that's trying to act like the left really is popular, they're out of their minds.
So Joe Biden's polling at 31% or whatever, I don't know his actual percentage is, but let's say he's at 31% among Democrats.
What does that mean?
If they polled 10 people and 3 of them said yes, right?
Like, how many people does that really represent?
If only, you know, 30 million people in the US want to vote for Biden, who cares what the percentage is?
It matters if you're going to beat Donald Trump.
And as the media goes insane, the polls, the pollsters are wrong.
And social media is riddled with like fringe left-wing insanity.
I think regular people are looking at this and saying, I'm going to go the other direction.
I mentioned this.
There was a tweet from someone.
I don't want to misattribute it.
I can't remember who tweeted this, but they said what people in the media don't seem to realize is that given the choice between the regressive left and Trump, people are choosing Trump because Trump is old guard, right?
I know he's not really old guard.
He's kind of a weird outlier.
But people would rather be like, hey man, if Trump represents what was and we know kind of worked in some ways, I'd rather have that than these weirdos who want everything shut down and everyone banned, right?
But also the economy is doing really, really well.
What can you say?
They say investors seem spooked by European populism, but fine with the likely re-election in India of Prime Minister Modi.
But John Micklethwaite wonders if investors have reckoned with what a second Modi term would look like.
He suggests it would probably be much more nationalist, much scarier for minorities, and less investor-friendly.
And Modi's first term wasn't exactly bold on economic reforms anyway.
Here's Shamar notes.
But hey, more economic pain leads to more populism.
They're going to be like, dude, everything's going great.
Don't change a thing.
I think Trump's poised for a victory.
That's not my opinion.
It is my opinion, but it's based on all of these economic models, these predictive models.
Politico wrote about it.
I think it's going to happen.
And I think, I think Brexit party is on it.
I don't know.
You know, parliamentary elections in Europe are not the same.
Like, you know, you could have in the U.S.
Trump wins as an individual, but it could be that Brexit party just takes a very strong lead.
They win a decent amount of seats.
We'll see.
They're polling at 34%.
Maybe they go more.
But they're definitely going to win.
They're going to win a lot of space.
I'm not super... I don't know a lot about how EU politics works.
A little bit.
I've watched a couple videos about it.
So my understanding is... I think it's proportional representation.
I know... I believe that's accurate.
Because Sargon was talking about it.
So... We'll see what happens.
But for whatever reason...
Look, it doesn't matter if you like or don't like right-wing populism.
The far left clearly doesn't.
The fact is, whatever the left is doing is not an effective strategy to combat and win against right-wing populism.
Plain and simple.
They keep winning.
Well, the media's lost their gourd, so whatever.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
I got one more segment coming up for those on YouTube.
For everyone else, two more, but stick around and I will see you soon.
The Pentagon has finally come out and admitted it.
Now this is kind of a follow-up on a story, a couple stories I did a while ago where there was like some, the Navy was going to start taking credible reports of UFOs and actually starting to investigate them, but some researchers reached out to the Pentagon and the Pentagon said, you're right.
We're doing it.
And so apparently this is like a big shock that the Pentagon is actually admitting it investigates UFOs.
And I want to make one thing clear contextually.
For one, I'm no conspiracy theorist.
I do not believe they're aliens.
I believe the most important reason for investigating UFOs is that if a foreign adversary has access to technology we don't, we better damn well know about it.
Japan didn't know about the nukes that the United States had and it didn't fare well for them.
The U.S.
essentially used the nukes to prove a point and force their surrender.
It's best if there is some kind of technology we don't know about that we do know about it and that requires us, you know, reporting technologies or some kind of phenomenon we don't understand.
So let's check out.
I've got this, but I've also got these really, this is from history.
My understanding is, yeah, this is from a couple days ago about really interesting traits seen as being reported by a former Pentagon investigator.
This is fascinating stuff.
I think this is amazing.
I hope you guys find it fascinating, too.
But before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
Help me keep making these videos.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, physical address, but of course, like and comment.
Tell me what you think, because the engagement really helps the video.
YouTube then says, oh, okay, you know, it must be good, and we'll share it, and, you know, whatever.
Or if you hate me, you can just ignore it and do nothing.
Whatever.
But let's get back to the story.
In a statement this week, the Pentagon officially confirmed that not only did it track reports of UFOs, or as they call them, unidentified aerial phenomena, for several years, it's still doing it to some degree.
In a statement provided exclusively to the New York Post, a Department of Defense spokesman said a secret government initiative called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.
They call it AATIP.
Though the AATIP was officially shut down in 2012, Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood acknowledged that the DoD does still investigate reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by U.S.
military aviators.
They would be insane not to.
Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If people keep seeing the same thing, and apparently they've got five traits seen of these vehicles, Then you've got a pattern here.
And I think the likely outcome is some kind of weapon or technology from someone we don't know.
It could even be US, you know, top-secret stuff.
It could be us.
I mean, there's a possibility it's aliens.
I don't think that's the case, but it's important that we investigate.
The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment, as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland, Sherwood told the Post.
The Department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by U.S.
military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation's adversaries.
For a reaction, The post turned to Nick Pope, a journalist and author who once ran the British government's secret UFO investigation team, who called the Pentagon's admission a bombshell revelation.
Previous statements by the department said Pope were deliberately ambiguous about the nature of the investigations, leaving open the possibility That they simply monitored potential, next generation aviation threats from aircraft, missiles, and drones, rather than what the public would call UFOs.
The term used by Sherwood, unidentified aerial phenomena, Pope pointed out, is the same term the British Ministry of Defense used as an attempt to get away from the pop culture baggage that came with the term UFO.
They go on to say, while a Pentagon spokesman going on the record to acknowledge the Department's investigations may be something of a bombshell, information about ATIP and the Department's continued investigations into sightings was revealed to the public over a year ago.
The New York Times broke the story, the Pentagon's mysterious UFO program.
It's really fun and cool, isn't it?
In the $600 billion annual Defense Department budgets, The $22 million spent on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was almost impossible to find, which was how the Pentagon wanted it.
For years, the program investigated reports of unidentified flying objects, according to Defense Department officials, interviews with program participants, and records obtained by the New York Times.
It was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo, on the fifth floor of the Pentagon's C-Ring, deep within the building's maze.
Talk about a badass job.
I mean, to me, that sounds like one of the coolest jobs ever.
Official government intelligence security tracking UFOs.
If they were aliens.
I mean, I guess it's just another boring military job trying to track potential threats from foreign adversaries, so still kind of cool.
You know, national defense is an important thing.
The Times noted the department had never before acknowledged the existence of the program, which it says it shut down in 2012.
I'd be willing to bet there's a new program.
Something else.
But said backers and officials with the program revealed that it remains in existence, continuing to investigate episodes brought to them by service members while also carrying out their other Department of Defense, Defense Department duties. It would
be insane if they stopped taking reports on strange aerial phenomena. Because like I
mentioned, and they mentioned, what if it's a foreign adversary is going to ignore it? No
way. The program began in 2007, the Times reported, and its biggest advocate was former
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who is a space phenomena enthusiast and whose longtime
friend, billionaire entrepreneur Robert Bigelow, benefited from the millions of taxpayer dollars
directed toward his aerospace research company.
So why should anyone be concerned at all about UFOs?
A lot of people might think it's silly, but History.com has this interesting story called the Five Observables.
Five UFO traits seen by Navy fighters that defy explanation.
I've read that there are a bunch of different people who fly planes for the military who have witnessed this and commercial pilots who have witnessed this.
There's a pattern.
Maybe it's a weather phenomenon.
I don't know.
Maybe it is.
I think that's kind of, you know, look, a lot of people are going to claim there's no way it's weather, but no, seriously, there are some really weird weather events that are rare.
Ball lightning apparently is a real thing.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was.
So weird things happen.
You know?
And so a lot of people might see something, think it's something else.
There could be weird kind of, like, light projections.
And often we feel these explanations are just BS.
Maybe they are.
But let's look at these traits and see, you know, what is the pattern that's being witnessed?
The story says, you know a UFO has earned its unidentified status when cockpit transcripts from elite Navy fighter jets include this frantic pilot exclamation.
Holy S, what is that?
I have to say, if you're someone who flies a lot and multiple people have seen this, you got something going on.
When Luis Elizondo ran a small team at the U.S.
Department of Defense investigating military-based reports of UFO, they call it UAP, he heard numerous such accounts by some of the most highly trained aeronautic experts in the military.
They describe objects that appear to be intelligently controlled, possessing aerodynamic capabilities that far surpass any currently known aircraft technology.
Now pursuing his investigations as part of To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences, Elizondo is an integral part of the investigative team featured on History's Unidentified Inside America's UFO Investigation, where they have continued to gather eyewitness accounts.
So let's take a look at the five observables.
Anti-gravity lift.
Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the Earth's gravity with no visible means of propulsion.
They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings.
In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic-Tac candy.
2.
Sudden and instantaneous acceleration.
The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the G-forces.
They would be crushed.
Unless we could explain anti-gravity and instant acceleration.
If they can operate outside the confines of spacetime.
I am not a quantum physicist, I am not an astrophysicist, but based on my cursory readings of Star Trek fan fiction,
my understanding is that the general idea of a warp drive is that you warp space and time around you,
so you're not actually moving through space-time, it's more like you're in between space-time being propelled,
so you're not constrained by the laws of physics.
You then wouldn't experience the G-forces, presumably, and you'd be able to travel instantaneously.
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I just read some Star Trek fan theory stuff.
So Google that, but maybe that is an explanation.
They say hypersonic velocities without signatures.
If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves signatures like vapor trails and sonic booms.
Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.
Unless they're traveling through a different means or something.
They're not within the normal confines of our spacetime.
Low observability, or cloaking.
Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them, either through pilot sightings, radar, or other means, remains difficult.
Maybe because they're not in spacetime or something like that.
Warp drive!
I'm just talking to my ass.
Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.
Transmedium travel.
Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space,
the Earth's atmosphere, and even water.
In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning disturbance
just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another aircraft
had entered the water.
USS Princeton radar operator Gary Voorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.
No one has yet gotten close to crafts that display these traits, so their origins are still unknown.
Are they a super top-secret U.S.
defense project?
Do they hail from Russia, China, or even from further afield?
The only thing we do know is that their capabilities exceed any technologies currently in the U.S.
arsenal.
Or perhaps there's a simple explanation for all of this.
We live in a simulation, and what we're seeing is a GM, a game manager or an admin, using a developer-only tool to easily travel and moderate certain communities.
I'm half-kidding.
Simulation theory is a fun thing, but ultimately, people have witnessed these things.
There's observable traits, there's patterns that have been recognized.
Maybe we're all NPCs in an MMO, and only the players know they're actually in the game and don't say anything because they can't.
Right?
But I guess it's all just fun to theorize and wonder what the hell's really going on.
But the Pentagon finally admitted it.
They do track these things.
I love these stories, man.
This is fun stuff.
So, you know, if more fun stuff pops up, I'll definitely have it.
Thanks for hanging out.
If you want to support my work, timcast.com slash donate.
I'll have more segments starting tomorrow at 10 a.m.
For the rest of you, one more coming up in a few minutes.
And I'll see you all next time.
My interest was piqued by a story talking about the return of medieval diseases in unsanitary conditions in California.
I did a video about this a couple days ago, or a day ago, and then I saw this story from, it's an opinion piece from the New York Times, that says, America's cities are unlivable.
Blame wealthy liberals.
The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.
Now, Farhad Manjoo, who writes this, is not sparing any Republican in this criticism.
But it is important to point out the massive cities that are very, very liberal, very progressive, that are doing a pretty bad job in terms of taking care of the poor, with an expansive homeless problem, with San Francisco hiring a rat and poop patrol.
Yes, something is going on within these cities.
Now in the video I made about the spread of disease, I said I don't think it's entirely
a liberal policy.
I think it's a fact that big cities attract people and access to resources will result
in homeless populations.
However, Farhad actually brings up progressive politicians' policies, which shows it might
actually be, at least to a certain extent, the fault of liberal positions.
Now before we get into all of this, check out timcast.com.
Don't forget, if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, there's a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course you can just share this video, click the like button, and comment, because when you engage the video, you tell YouTube you really like it, it really does help, and I do rely on your support, so it's really appreciated.
Let's pop over to this New York Times story and see what Farhad's talking about.
He says, to live in California at this time is to experience every day the cryptic phrase
that George W. Bush once used to describe the invasion of Iraq.
Catastrophic success.
The economy here is booming, but no one feels especially good about it.
When the cost of living is taken into account, billionaire brimming California ranks as the
most poverty stricken state, with a fifth of the population struggling to get by.
Since 2010, migration out of California has surged.
The problem is the steady collapse of livability.
Across my home state, traffic and transportation is a developing world nightmare.
Childcare and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest.
The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives.
What was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality.
California.
Hollywood.
Progressive activists.
As I looked into these stories about celebrity hypocrisy, right?
The story that I did yesterday.
Well, all these celebrities claim to be big progressive activists.
They don't seem to put their money where their mouth is.
Some do.
I'm not trying to say that every single celebrity is an activist.
I'm not an absolutist.
But certainly many of the high-profile celebrity activists are just saying this.
Now, I will issue a quick correction caveat for those that watched my video yesterday, as an aside.
I believe I misinterpreted Trevor Noah's statement about faux anger.
But I put the correction in the video so you can check it out if you want to watch that video.
I'll put a card to it.
So I just want to make sure you guys know there's an update on that video.
I don't want to get too much into it so we can move on.
Farhad says, Just look at San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi's city.
One of every 11,600 residents is a billionaire, and the annual household income necessary to buy a median-priced home now tops $320,000.
Yet the streets there are a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a black mirror hellscape.
Homeless veterans are surviving on an economy of trash from billionaire mansions.
Wealthy homeowners are crowdfunding a legal effort arguing that a proposed homeless shelter is an environmental hazard.
A public school teacher suffering from cancer is forced to pay for her own substitute.
The hypocrisy is glaring.
Absolutely.
And you know, people wonder, why Tim?
Why would you talk about this?
Why would you blame liberals?
I grew up in these cities.
I grew up in these places.
I don't know rural areas.
So when I see this, I'm like, yup!
I grew up in Chicago.
I have seen what it's like in the glorious blue state.
It's got a lot of problems and hypocrisy.
I've experienced it.
Let's read on.
And there is no end in sight to such crushing success.
At every level of government, or our representatives, nearly all of them Democrats, prove inadequate and unresponsive to the challenge at hand.
Witness last week's embarrassment when California lawmakers used a sketchy parliamentary maneuver to knife Senate Bill 50, an ambitious effort to undo restrictive local zoning rules and increase the supply of housing.
It was another chapter in a dismal saga of nimbiest urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities.
Not in my backyard-ism is a partisan sentiment.
I'm sorry, is a bipartisan sentiment.
But because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats, many in states under complete Democratic control, this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.
Bravo, Farhad.
Bravo.
I absolutely agree.
When I was reading the story the other day, check this out.
Medieval diseases are flaring as unsanitary living conditions proliferate.
I always want to be fair and rational, okay?
So I want to point out the weather in San Diego and LA, it's beautiful.
And this is a big factor in attracting homeless people, okay?
However, as I've been digging more into this, I think it is clear this is very much contributed, one of the biggest contributors to the story, To this crisis is failed liberal policy.
And I don't know exactly which policies, but we can point to Farhad's opinion about these democratic states with democratic cities not doing what they need to pricing out people, making it harder to get jobs, making it harder to live.
And I have this.
Oops, this is the wrong story, but we'll come to the Poot Patrol one.
Forbes.
The cities with the most homeless people.
New York City with 78,676 and LA City and County with 49,955.
The reason this is important.
Weather is not the primary factor.
New York has pretty harsh summers and pretty cold winters.
People who are homeless aren't going there because the weather's nice.
Although it does play a role in San Diego and Los Angeles, for sure.
Seattle and King County, which also has decent weather.
I mean, it's always cloudy, which kind of is depressing.
Only 12,000.
Something is happening in these big cities.
It could be their population.
Seattle has way less people than LA.
So actually, maybe per 100,000 residents, Seattle may have way more homeless.
But why would homeless people go to New York City?
The population of New York City and L.A.
County are comparable.
Why would New York have more?
Well, I don't know.
But Farhad believes these democratic, liberal, you know, havens, it's part of the problem.
And what you see is a typhus outbreak.
In fact, in one of these stories I was reading the other day, a medical researcher said there is a real risk of bubonic plague in Los Angeles.
I kid you not.
I don't know if it's in this story, but let me just see if it's in It's not in this story, it was in another story I was covering more recent, where they said because of the rats.
There are so many rats, they say, you know, that there's a genuine fear of a resurgence of these diseases.
But you can see, look, medieval diseases are flaring in California.
Why?
Seriously, why?
Let's read some more of what Farhad has to say.
say. It's very, I think this is a great op-ed.
There are many threads in the story of America's increasingly unlivable cities. One continuing
tragedy is the decimation of local media and the rise of nationalized politics in its place.
In America, the local problems plaguing cities are systematically sidelined by the structure
of the national media and government, in which the presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme
Court are all constitutionally tilted in favor of places where no one lives.
There are more than twice as many people in my mid-sized suburban county, Santa Clara, as there are in the entire state of North Dakota, with its two United States Senators.
But this is actually a really fantastic argument for the Electoral College.
Making sure your representation stays local and not national.
The national popular vote would ensure that cities that aren't in the, like Seattle for instance,
aren't going to get the attention they need to solving their problems at a national level.
The nationalization of politics shows that if people don't care about their own backyards and they
aren't focused on these issues, the issues never get solved. People in California are
probably super, like, actually let me do this.
Why is Alyssa Milano, why, you know, Snoop, why are these celebrities protesting?
Well, not Snoop Dogg, but these are individuals that said they were going to leave the country because of Trump.
But why are these activists complaining about Alabama and Georgia, a state they don't live in?
It's the nationalization of politics.
Meanwhile, the state they actually live in has a medieval disease problem, has a massive homeless problem, but these celebrities are concerned about what's happening in Georgia and Alabama.
By all means.
You're allowed to be upset about what's happening in Georgia and Alabama.
I am no fan of those pro-life bills.
I'm pro-choice.
I think this is an attempt to get in front of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I'll just call it like I see it.
If you want to have an argument with me about these issues, I'm glad to sit down with anybody and talk about it and try and come to a solution.
The point is, though, why should these California celebrities be complaining about a different state without focusing on their own home and the failed policies that resulted in homelessness, disease, and this crisis?
Again, by all means, highlight what's happening in Alabama and Georgia, Missouri, and I believe Ohio.
100%.
But I would love to see you speak up more about your own home and the problems you face and why you aren't going to fix them.
Of course, some of these people may actually be doing this.
I'm not trying to act.
Simply because I don't know if they are doesn't mean they aren't.
But I'm not seeing it, okay?
And so my only response is when I look at their Twitter feed and I see them complaining about like Me Too and stuff, I'm like, dude, you've got a serious homelessness problem in Los Angeles.
Farhad goes on to say, that's why aside from Elizabeth Warren, who has a plan for housing, bravo Elizabeth Warren, as she has a plan for everything, Democrats on the 2020 presidential trail rarely mention their ideas for housing affordability, an issue eating American cities alive.
I watched Joe Biden's campaign kick off the other day.
The only house he mentioned was the White House.
And there's another really important point too.
Millennials are being burdened with massive college debt.
A lot of conservatives like to say, oh, well, you chose that.
When I see my young friends, people my age, who are saddled with absurd college debt, my response, my first emotional reaction is, yeah, well, you reap what you sow.
You signed on the dotted line.
You got to go to that school.
You got your degree.
If you can't figure it out beyond what you signed, that's not my problem.
It's causing a housing crisis.
Millennials aren't buying homes, they're not having families.
So I can recognize, while emotionally it's disturbing, there does need to be some kind of solution to that problem if we want to fix the housing market.
And this contributes to all of these problems.
He goes on to say, there is the refusal on the part of wealthy progressives to live by the values they profess to support at the national level.
Creating dense economically and socially diverse urban environments ought to be a paramount goal of progressivism.
Cities are the standard geographical unit of the global economy.
Dense urban areas are quite literally the real America.
I disagree.
The cities are where two-thirds of Americans live and they account for almost all national economic output.
Urban areas are the most environmentally friendly way we know of housing lots of people.
I disagree.
We can't solve the climate crisis without vastly improving public transportation and increasing urban density.
Cities are extremely congested with a ton of pollution.
So, I disagree.
More than that, metropolises are good for the psyche and the soul.
Density fosters tolerance, diversity, creativity, and progress.
And those things are good things, okay?
People learning to live side by side are good things.
He says, yet where progressives argue for openness and inclusion as a cudgel against Trump, they abandon it on Knob Hill and in Beverly Hills, where the progressive celebrity activists live, who preach against Trump.
They don't allow this, not in their backyard.
They don't put their money where their mouth is.
And this is an extension.
Of the video I made yesterday, the celebrity activists are hypocrites.
The wealthy progressives are hypocrites.
Not all of them.
I actually know some wealthy Hollywood actors who brought refugees into their home, and I applaud them every day for it.
If you believe in this, and you stand on principle, then we're gonna get along.
But, clearly, that's not the case for Nob Hill and Beverly Hill.
They say, Farhad says, this explains the opposition to SB 50, which aimed to address the housing
shortage in a very straightforward way, by building more housing.
The bill would have erased single family zoning in populous areas near transit locations.
Areas zoned for homes housing a handful of people could have been redeveloped to include
duplexes and apartment buildings that housed hundreds.
The bill has garnered support from a diverse coalition of businesses and advocacy groups,
and its sponsor, State Senator Scott Weiner, had negotiated a series of compromises with
some of its fiercest opponents.
Polls showed the measure to be widely popular.
For the first time, something extraordinary looked possible.
California's wealthy homeowners would abandon their restrictionist attitudes and let us build some new housing.
Nope!
Instead, Anthony Portantino, a Democratic state senator, whose district includes the posh city of La Cunada Flintridge, and who heads the Appropriations Committee, announced that he'd be shelving the bill until next year.
Yeah.
Well, I think you get it, right?
He wraps up by saying, Reading opposition to SB 50 and other efforts at increasing
density, I'm struck by an unsettling thought.
What Republicans want to do with ice and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and nimbyism.
Preserving local character, maintaining local control, keeping housing scarce and inaccessible.
The goal of both sides are really the same, to keep people out.
I'm going to give a bravo to Farhad for this op-ed, for calling out the Democrats, the progressives,
who don't stand up for what they believe in, who are very clearly lying,
but also pointing the finger at Republicans and not making a partisan issue,
saying, you know what, it's all of them.
That's the... I'm... I'm...
I'm kind of with you, man.
Okay, I think there are good things about progressives, I think there are good things about liberals, and I think there are good things about Republicans, good things about conservatives.
And I can recognize both sides have serious faults.
One of the biggest concerns I have with what's going on on the left is the regressive identitarianism.
But clearly, the issue of politics is not unique to one side.
You have politicking on all sides.
And for as much as a lot of Democrats want to point to Republicans, by all means, criticize them.
But please, respect someone like Farhad when he's going to point out the Democrats quite literally doing the same thing.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to say, no, it's actually the Republicans.
No, it's actually the Democrats.
Go for it.
Argue with me.
Comment below.
I just think it's refreshing to see someone say, They all bad.
Democrats are not putting their money where their mouth is, and I'll take it.
I will take it.
Call out the Democrats for what's happening in San Francisco.
Lookit, they gotta pay someone $184,000 a year to clean up poop throughout San Francisco because they have a poop problem.
Now here's what's crazy.
San Francisco's homeless population is not that big.
It's like, what, 12 to 13% of LA counties?
But SF has the poop problem?
And they gotta pay six figures, nearly $200,000 to solve this.
You've got serious problems in your cities.
Nancy Pelosi's city.
And they can't solve this problem.
It is rules for thee, but not for me.
And that's how they operate.
So now we have the final little bit I want to add to this story.
Trump is sending migrants to San Diego.
There you go, California.
You don't want to accommodate these people.
You know, California isn't going to do what they need to do.
Well, Trump is, the madman has done it.
He said he was going to send these people to Democrat areas.
He's doing it.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but there's a reason why the Democrats oppose this.
The activists support it.
They do.
PBS wrote a story saying this is a good idea.
Good on Trump.
Send them to these safe places.
But the politicians oppose it for exactly the reason Farhad highlights.
They're hypocrites.
Plain and simple.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
If you want to support my work again, you can go to timcast.com slash donate.