Far Left Media Is Making Liberals Insane, This Data Proves It
The Media Has Driven The Left Insane, This Data Proves It. Since the beginning of the 2010s there has been a dramatic increase in far left social justice terminology appearing in news articles. This coincides with the launch of many leftist media companies who saw a quick path to profit by enraging people on social media.The plan worked and according to Lexis Nexis data social justice and intersectional feminism began to skyrocket at media outlets.The left then was inundated with constant content highlighting very specific ideological positions resulting in an every increasingly unhinged left.Today we see the results censorship, demonetization, and physical conflict in the streets. As media was particularly hostile to conservatives from the get go it seems that this pushed moderates and conservative individuals into a space unto their own resisting the increasing unhinged rhetoric coming from these ragebait websites. What happened with Steven Crowder is inevitable as outrage culture is a proven tactic for gaining power.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I want to start this video by showing a few instances of the complete psychosis that is affecting the left.
Many people will say, Tim, you talk about the left a whole lot.
I am going to show you the data as to why this is.
I'm a moderate individual, I lean somewhat to the left on many issues, but I'm very opposed to tribalism, I stand more on principles, I consider myself a bit roguish, and I'm not necessarily trusting of anyone, really.
I want free speech for everybody.
So I've actually got someone on the left I'm going to defend in this video in terms of free speech because it's deserving of everybody.
At the same time, I will condemn the vandalism against the Trump baby blimp.
But there is a serious issue, and I've got several things I want to highlight.
This first thing you're seeing is a bunch of guys getting out of a car and physically attacking Trump supporters.
Why?
Now we've seen people in Trump rallies and Antifa shows up to protests, but in this instance, these guys just showed up and started attacking them.
We have a story about a woman in Florida who stabbed herself several times because she was tired of living in Trump's country.
What's happening to people to precipitate this kind of complete psychosis that is affecting the left?
I gotta say, As many people have pointed out, the conservatives are not attacking people in the street.
The conservatives, for the most part, I mean, I don't want to be absolute, the conservatives are not trying to get people banned for the most part.
It tends to be the left, and not everyone on the left.
As I've mentioned time and time again, Gallup and Pew show that most Democrats want moderate policy, but there is a growing section of the left that is being driven absolutely insane.
And you want to see the data?
Because I've got a ton of data to show you today, which is terrifying.
Zach Goldberg on Twitter said, Spent some time on LexisNexis over the weekend.
Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you.
But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say, holy effing S.
The first thing I want you to see is this.
This is a graph.
It's kind of hard to see on the screen, but it shows number of news articles mentioning diversity and inclusion.
Around 2010, it started to increase, but around 2013 or 14, it spikes dramatically from around 3,000 articles in the year to over 15,000 mentions of diversity inclusion.
And there's a lot more data that we're going to go through to show you this is driving people insane.
And I have some hypotheses.
I have a hypothesis as to why this happened, and I've got more data to back this up.
But first, what is LexisNexis?
For those that aren't familiar, it is a corporation providing computer-assisted legal research, as well as business research and risk management services.
They have pioneered the electronic accessibility of legal and journalistic documents.
So it's basically a big database.
And what we have here from Zach Goldberg is a thread showing news articles mentioning certain terms.
I believe I have an explanation for this, as I've mentioned many times in the past.
This was the explosion, the era of Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, the digital media organizations.
If you've watched my content in the past, I did a story about Mike.com.
Mike.com was called out in an expose for being run by tech bros.
My sources within Mike say they're libertarian types, more right-wing.
But why was Mike.com producing woke leftist content?
Because rage-inducing content gets the most shares.
Thus, we've seen a massive market opportunity to make people angry.
So let's go through this thread.
The next one is number of news articles mentioning whiteness.
And you can see Actually, let me see if I can, I'll zoom in on this.
You can see that around 2011 or 12, whiteness skyrocketed from 500 mentions to over 2,000 mentions in the news.
I do want to stop here and say before we get started, before we go any further, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
The shout-out is more important than ever because they've started purging channels on YouTube.
No one knows who's safe or who isn't.
You may just get stripped of monetization, so your support is greatly appreciated, but of course liking and commenting
is the best thing you can do.
That engagement tells YouTube the video is worth watching and impactful.
And share the video and subscribe if you haven't already.
We can see as Zach Goldberg moves on, number of news articles mentioning critical race theory.
Same bit of data, though this one spikes around 2006 or 7, and we can see it's got a gradual increase, though not all of these graphs are perfect.
This one's showing from 100 to 300, so it's not the same.
Unconscious bias, seemingly without mention until 2012 to 13, skyrockets from only a few hundred to 6,000 mentions in news articles.
White privilege, same thing.
Almost no indication less than 500, around 200 or 300.
But around 2012, shoots up to over 2,500 mentions.
What we're seeing here is a dramatic shift towards this new religious dogma of intersectionality.
Systemic racism skyrocketing at the same time.
Diversity training has been gradually increasing, but did see some spikes around the same time.
The word privilege is interesting, because privilege means many things.
But in the late 90s, we saw the word usage skyrocket.
This is not necessarily indicative of the concept of social justice privilege.
However, in 2015, we see another massive hockey stick, as they call it.
Discrimination, social justice, police brutality may be one of the most important.
And I'll stress this.
The police brutality videos that started circulating on Facebook made money.
Absolutely made money.
These articles got shared far and wide because people were outraged at the idea.
But consider this.
While police brutality is a serious problem, it's been around for a long time, This, you know, the reason it's getting shared so much was because individual actors knew it would generate ad revenue, not because they cared about social justice.
But as they say, out of sight, out of mind, I imagine the inverse is true.
If you inundate people with news articles about these topics, they begin to believe this is reality.
But there's something I like to call the scaling problem.
I've discussed this before, but we'll go into it now.
If Apple releases 100 unique gold-plated iPhones and gives them out to 100 celebrities and 1% of them break, no one will care.
That's one phone.
One celebrity will say, hey, my phone broke.
And people will be like, oh, that's weird.
One phone broke.
Who cares?
All the other phones are fine.
But what happens if they issue 100 million phones and 1% break?
You now have 1 million posts appearing on social media.
It's the same margin of error, but now it's a bigger problem because you're hearing about it more.
This is essentially what I think we're seeing.
These are all serious issues that we can talk about, but because the media started shoving it all down our throats, people started to see mountains when there's actually molehills.
Marginalized, skyrocketed.
People of color, which is particularly interesting, started to skyrocket around 2015.
The words racism in the New York Times.
The number of newspapers using the word white supremacy spiked.
Intersectionality spiking around the same time.
All of this.
It goes on and on and on.
So now we get to the results of this psychosis.
And this is absolutely fascinating by Zach Goldberg.
Mean in-group bias by race ethnicity.
Score denote.
Scores denote mean differences in warmth between in-group and out-group feeling thermometers.
So I can try to explain this to the best of my understanding.
That A positive score means that a racial group views their own racial group favorably.
We can see in this story, this graph being shown, the only group, at least the only group listed, that has a negative view of their own race is white liberals.
Check this out.
Black in-group bias is positive.
15.58, the highest.
Which means, among the black community, they view themselves typically favorably.
Hispanic is 12.83 positive, Asian is 13.94 positive, and non-liberal whites is 11.62 positive.
But white liberals is negative 13.17.
The only racial group listed in this graph, I'm not saying it's an exhaustive list of the data, shows that white liberals view white people negatively.
Which is very, very strange.
The story reads, remarkably, White liberals were the only subgroup exhibiting a pro-outgroup bias, meaning white liberals were more favorable towards non-whites, and are the only group to show this preference for a group other than their own.
Indeed, on average, white liberals rated ethnic and racial minority groups 13 points, or half a standard deviation warmer than whites.
As is depicted in the graph below, this disparity is feelings of warmth toward in-group versus out-group, is even more pronounced among whites who consider themselves very liberal, where it widens to just under 20 points.
Notably, while white liberals have consistently evinced weaker pro-ingroup biases than conservatives across time, the emergence and growth of a pro-outgroup bias is actually a very recent and unprecedented phenomenon.
I'll state this.
Among conservatives, Their in-group favorability is still slightly more by a few points than the black community, and that is very conservatives.
Interestingly, however, your moderate conservative has a lower In-group favorability than all other groups outside of white liberals who hate white people.
The point is, if they want to claim that conservatives are white supremacists, the data actually proves every other racial group is more in favor of their own group than conservatives.
Moderates, on the other hand, are even lower.
Moderates are a 9.42 in favor of their in-group of white people.
So this is absolutely fascinating because it shows us not only are conservatives not far-right or extremists or racial identitarians, but that they're actually less so than non-whites as a whole.
I'm sorry, non-liberals as a whole and all other non-white groups.
To put it simply, if we're going to claim any group is more racial-identitarian, according to this data, blacks are more pro-ingroup than any other group outside of the very conservative.
So, while you certainly can say there is a far-right white identitarian, or more favorability among ultra-conservatives, moderate, just general conservative, not the fringe, not the far-right, regular old conservatives, score less.
This is very, very important data.
Now, there's other data to suggest why this is all happening.
As I showed you, we can see this dramatic spike in all of these far... These are not necessarily far left.
These are regressive ideology.
This is left-wing identitarianism skyrocketing.
So this may be why we're seeing this data, where very conservatives are pro-ingroup and very liberals are almost minus 20 opposed to white people.
It could be because this news is sort of radicalizing these two fringe factions.
We can see that moderates, however, you know, the data shows it.
No, I'm sorry, regular conservatives and moderates are not fringe, right-wing, you know, white supremacists or anything like that.
But there's some more data we can talk about.
One of the interesting things pointed out to me when I tweeted about this is from Justin Owings who says, here's your smoking gun.
The huge uptick in rage bingo paralleled the shift of news consumption to social media and counter to the demise of print.
In one chart he shows from Pew, we can see that around this time in 2010, print circulation is on the decline.
The next image he shows is also from Pew.
More people are getting their news on social networks.
Another piece of data from Pew, no change in share of getting news on social media in 2018.
So from 2016, 17, and 18, there was no change.
And of course, we also see something interesting, a massive spike in users of Facebook.
This data lends some evidence to my hypothesis.
BuzzFeed and Huffington Post were exploiting the emotions of individuals using Facebook's algorithm to get more shares.
Websites like Upworthy and Mike were doing the same thing.
Rage-inducing content.
Spreading these ideas was lucrative, and that's what the market allowed, and it worked.
We have some more data to go over as well.
This person, Justice Slowpoke, responded to me saying, Well, it's not so much about more news articles, it's about the mentions.
to there being so many more news articles.
Well, it's not so much about more news articles, it's about the mentions.
But as we can see, just before 2010, the prominence of Twitter.
Twitter encourages you to post mean things about other people, which I believe is leading
us down this path where news organizations then are posting extremely hate-inducing and
rage-inducing content.
People are becoming angry, and they really, really hate each other, and they want to burn it all down regardless of who they hurt.
However, This is predominantly affecting the left.
As I showed you with the other data, the in-group, out-group bias is predominantly, only exists on the left.
So let me show you this data one more time.
When they say that white liberals are negative, and that's unprecedented, it is liberals and very liberals, regular white people don't feel this in-group, out-group bias the same way.
This news is affecting the white left predominantly.
Now I do believe it's affecting everyone on the left, which is why these, uh, I believe it was a group of black men who came and attacked Trump supporters.
It, of course, affects everybody on the left.
There are certainly black conservatives who are not attacking people, so it's not actually, in my opinion, an issue of race at all.
There is, however, some more data I want to go over.
Some people have said the only reason you're seeing this spike is because Huffington Post and BuzzFeed emerged, and with the explosion of the internet, all other words started getting attention.
The reality is, that's just not true.
In fact, we can see that there's certain words like, let's find one, slights.
Slights has been used, you know, up and down, back and forth.
The word violence is up and down, though it has spiked recently.
Oppressive has been spiking up and down.
Demeaning.
There are many words that are not related to social justice and the regressive left that are not getting the same kind of spike in usage.
Victimization is not.
Oppression is.
Victimized isn't.
Abused is.
Offended isn't.
While offended has seen a spike, it's not as large.
Humiliated.
Stigmatized.
Safe Space has.
The point I'm trying to say is if there are other words not related to social justice, like nullifying, what this means is the expansion of digital media did not precipitate an expansion of the use of every word.
The issue is this data coming from LexisNexis goes back to 1970.
They were tracking newspapers.
The explosion in usage of words related to intersectional feminism and left-wing identitarianism is unique.
Other words did not experience the same growth.
If it was neutral, we would see every word Seeing massive growth.
So the point is, this is unique.
At least in my interpretation, I could be wrong.
It is entirely unique to the regressive left and identitarianism.
War has not seen any big uptick.
AIDS has actually gone down.
General Motors has gone down.
Church has gone down.
Radio has gone down.
Duties has gone down.
These are neutral words that did not see an uptick when digital media expanded and more media outlets started to emerge.
It is specifically the fringe left-wing identitarianism, and it is driving the left insane, if you were to ask me.
And let me just stress, a Florida woman stabbed herself three times because of Donald Trump.
She didn't want to live in Trump's country.
That is Trump derangement syndrome to such an extreme degree that a woman has stabbed herself over the thought of Trump existing.
The media is radicalizing people and making them go insane.
And now we can see stories like this that I highlighted earlier in the day.
Google fired a Republican engineer for speaking out against the outrage mobs.
This is where we're headed.
Things are going to get worse.
Companies... This is why I'm not in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.
I'll be completely honest.
When you see this explosion in words, it's because the market allows it.
I don't know what the solution is, because I don't believe in regulating speech.
People should be allowed to talk about these issues, but it is a challenge when you realize it was market incentives that led these libertarian types to start companies, get massive investment, and produce the most insane content.
I would posit, this is worse than the fake news problem.
Around the same time, people started producing websites that did nothing but fake news.
They'd quite literally make things up.
Much of this is the same thing, but they skirt the line of reality and truth so that you can't accuse them of making it up.
It's just their opinion.
But the overtly fake stuff was done for the same reason.
It put cash in people's pockets.
I know people who produced almost nothing but police brutality content, and they made a ton of money.
Thousands of dollars per day writing about police brutality.
It worked.
This, when backed with venture capital, resulted in the BuzzFeeds, the Voxes, Verge, Vice, etc.
that were able to exploit rage and human emotion to make the most money.
And now the Democrats are being driven out of their goddamn minds, people are being attacked in the street, and it's only going to get worse, and I gotta admit, I do not know the solution.
But I want to make sure I stress, not everybody on the left supports this stuff, and not everybody on the left is happy that it's happening.
I want to stress that there are victims on the left as well, and I'm absolutely proud to defend the free speech of people like Rania Kalik, who produces anti-war content.
I've made reference to Mafic Media, Many, many times, they're a left-wing anti-war media organization that were targeted by CNN and suspended on Twitter.
Ronnie Akalik, in response to the Vox Adpocalypse, tweeted, It's interesting to me how mainstream media people are often insisting that we must do this purge of the far right, but it always ends up hurting independent journalists and leftists, almost like those mainstream media folks want social media companies to erase their alternative media competition.
She tweeted this in response to Glenn Greenwald, who was outraged or concerned with the banning, the demonetization of journalist Ford Fisher, who is an independent journalist, not really left or right.
He covers things on the ground in a rather fair and neutral way.
And even Carlos Maza came to his defense.
But Rania is right.
Where are the mainstream media people speaking out against them getting banned?
She said, Also, these same people screaming at social media companies to purge the far right to protect women and minorities from harassment didn't breathe a word of concern when CNN got Facebook to censor my work, videos by a minority woman, because they don't like my outlet in anti-war politics.
Spot on.
She says, I just can't take your concern about harassment of minorities and women seriously when you don't care and even cheer on the censorship of someone like me, a minority, and a woman.
And I completely agree.
Free speech is for everyone.
When that woman in the UK stabbed the Trump baby balloon, I made a video rejecting it.
I tweeted out immediately when I saw it, wrong.
Do not do this.
Those people have every right in our existence, in reality, it is a God-given right for them to stand up and mock Donald Trump till the ends of time.
That's what makes America great.
Respecting this idea that you can point the finger at the president and flick him off and say, you're a big dumb baby.
I respect that by all means.
I recognize there's a problem when the media chases after it for money, but I still believe in free speech.
When Ronnie Akalik produces anti-war content from the left, critical of Donald Trump, I also respect and support that as well.
I may not agree with the opinions of many people on the left, but I have tremendous respect for many of these people who would defend free speech.
And Ronnie brings up an important point about how At the end of the day, what we see with Carlos Maza and the Vox Adpocalypse is not about social justice.
It's about power.
It is about people who have found a path to power, exploiting the emotions of regular people, the goodwill of people, to make money and to hurt their opponents.
What's really interesting about this data is that, in my opinion, my hypothesis being that this was a lucrative endeavor by companies like Upworthy, Huffington Post, Vox, BuzzFeed, etc., There's also the fact that Facebook changed their algorithm.
And now YouTube is rising, and people like me are starting to do well, and it challenges them.
Steven Crowder has become very prominent without the mainstream media's assistance.
He doesn't need to go on TV.
He can say what he wants.
But now they target ALL of YouTube.
Including people like Rania getting banned, people like Ford getting banned.
They don't care about actual minorities and journalists.
They care about making sure they can stifle the competition and protect their lucrative endeavor when they don't really care.
And as Rania pointed out, they said nothing when her content was suspended.
They said nothing when a minority female challenging Donald Trump was suspended.
They don't care.
They literally do not care.
It is a ploy, in my opinion.
And it is all part of a system that makes them money.
The data's there!
And it is what it is.
Do you agree with me?
Let me know.
I know that people are going to give me flak once again for making a video about how the left is being driven insane, but the data shows it.
They're being exploited by, essentially, it's kind of hilarious, a libertarian free market capitalist group of people who raise millions and millions of dollars.
And I mean this not to disrespect libertarians.
It's just the people that I've met Working for these companies, point out those at the top who make the money are very much so open, you know, the libertarian open borders types.
They want this content because it's money for them.
Money in their pockets.
And don't take my word for it.
Read the story about Mike.com.
They called the guys who found that tech bros.
My sources in Mike said they were very libertarian.
Why would they then support this authoritarian regressive left?
It was money-making content.
And that's why they won't speak up for actual minority women who are getting banned.
I'll have more content coming up shortly, if it was on the podcast, beginning soon.
For everyone else, 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you all there.
Thanks for watching.
I've seen a lot of videos of far-left and right-wing people fighting in the streets recently.
There's one video where, I guess I saw it on Twitter, a guy walks into a crowd of Trump supporters and then a fight breaks out.
This is an escalation in a sense.
We've seen a lot of the bigger street battles with Antifa and the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer and things like that.
But now we're just seeing these pocket skirmishes popping up at non-events.
It's one thing when Trump supporters say, hey, we're going to do an event and Antifa shows up.
It's another thing when some random Trump supporters are walking around and then some dude gets in their face and a fight breaks out.
The reason I bring this up is that it seems like I don't know if things are getting worse.
I don't know how many times I have to say that, but man, is it exhausting.
We have this post on Medium.
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts by Mike Wacker.
May 21st.
in this post, which we'll read through a little bit. There's some interesting stories and points
to be made. Mike Wacker is a Google employee who is talking about the outrage culture and how you
can get punished for anything because what these activists do is they'll interpret anything you
say to be a violation of their policies. So let's say you make a comment about,
I don't know, you said you listened to something from Jordan Peterson,
and that's one of the references they use.
Someone could then later claim to HR he was supporting Jordan Peterson, who's an alt-right, and that's really scary, we shouldn't have that here.
And then HR doesn't know or care what you said, just that you were supporting an ideology when you maybe just said I watched his video.
They can interpret it however they want and make whatever claim they want.
I think one of the really important aspects of our culture that is often ignored is the right to confront your accuser.
This would prevent a lot of this nonsense.
But this man, Mike Wacker, was fired!
Is that surprising to anybody?
I mean, especially if you read the title of this video, you knew where I was going.
From the Daily Caller, Google fires Republican engineer who spoke out against outrage mobs.
The Republican Google engineer who penned an open letter about the company's outrage mobs and witch hunts was fired on Friday, the Daily Caller has learned.
So we'll read this.
We'll read a little bit of what he posted before we move on.
Go to TimCast.com if you would like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address where you can send me stuff if you'd like, of course.
The best thing you can do is just like and comment below because the engagement really helps.
Subscribe if you haven't already and share the video if you really like it because that is quite literally the best thing you can do.
YouTube really loves shares.
They say, last Wednesday, Mike Wacker was put on paid administrative leave and fired two days later.
The day before his suspension, Wacker went on Fox Business to discuss the company's anti-conservative bias before his suspension, telling Trish Reagan, you don't know what's going on.
You don't know what's going to offend somebody next.
A lot of the time, they're going to HR over these trivial things.
Wacker was the moderator of the Republicans' listserv at Google and detailed in a Medium post his disputes with left-wing employees, several of which escalated into official complaints.
The firing came just before news broke over the weekend that the Department of Justice was preparing an antitrust probe into the search giant.
The company filed an appeal yesterday against a $1.7 billion antitrust penalty imposed by the European Commission over AdSense, Google's ad sales platform.
A spokesperson for Google declined to comment for this article.
So in his post, which is really long, so I don't think we'll be able to read everything, he brings up a bunch of really important points and kind of terrifying points.
Let's just read a little bit of this.
He writes, Google has become a company where outrage mobs and witch hunts dominate its culture.
These outrage mobs and witch hunts have become an existential threat, not only to Google's culture internally, but to Google's trust and credibility externally.
Warning for anybody who holds stock in Google.
I certainly don't.
Google has long claimed to be a nonpartisan company.
Yet, like many other tech companies, they also maintain many policies against hate speech.
How do we reconcile these two apparently conflicting goals?
While this statement came from a spokesperson on Facebook, it could just as easily apply to Google, Twitter, and many other tech companies.
We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
That's not true.
Carlos Maza encouraged people to commit a crime against other people.
He's certainly not getting in trouble for that.
An astute reader will notice that this response does not actually answer the question.
It merely shifts it from one point to another.
Instead of asking, is Google a nonpartisan company, we instead ask, does Google apply a nonpartisan definition of hate speech?
As for Facebook, we know they have a list of hate agents that includes Candace Owens.
So what exactly is the definition of hate speech?
Well, let's just ask the outrage mobs at Google that succeeded.
One outrage mob formed when Google sponsored CPAC, and they created an internal petition titled, Google Don't Sponsor Hate.
Another outrage mob formed when K. Cole James, president of the Heritage Foundation, was appointed to an AI ethics panel, and they created an external petition from a Medium account called, Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate.
But don't worry.
These outrage mobs are not opposed to all conservatives.
They are only opposed to the hateful conservatives.
I think we realize that means all conservatives and any liberal who dare support free expression and freedom in general.
These outrage mobs against hate have become honeypots for toxic, hostile, and uncivil discourse.
While some of their rhetoric is so outlandish that you have no choice but to laugh at it, the psychological effects that these outrage mobs have on their targets is nothing to laugh about.
Just read this excerpt from Kay Coles-James about her own experience with Google's outrage mob.
She says, In 1961, at age 12, I was one of two dozen black children who integrated an all-white junior high school in Richmond.
White parents jeered me outside the school and inside.
Their kids stuck me with pins, shoved me inside the halls, and pushed me down the stairs.
So when the group of Google employees resorted to calling names and making false accusations because they didn't want a conservative voice advising the company, the hostility was reminiscent of what I felt back then.
The same intolerance for someone who was different from them.
I'd like to stress, while I don't know the ethnic background, racial identity of those people who attacked this prestigious black conservative, what we do know is that progressives are overwhelmingly white and making more than $100,000 a year.
There are several data points.
The Atlantic published a story about this.
Is it at all surprising then that Google, that is majority white and Asian, would take this position against a black conservative?
I don't care what the politics of the person is.
When a group of people attack, throw milkshakes at, target people, especially minorities, Yeah.
Let's talk about what real social justice is.
Equality and fairness for all is just justice.
But these people certainly don't believe in it.
They're lying.
They're insane.
They're out of their minds.
We're talking about dangerous people who have no real ideology other than attack, attack, attack.
It is a chaotic, destructive force with no goal.
And that's why Barack Obama said it is a circular firing squad.
The left is being eaten alive by their own ideology, and it's going to pave the way for right-wing nationalists, populists, etc.
If you're a populist, nationalist, or etc.
Well, then you are going to reap the benefits of this complete psychosis.
Granted, it is frustrating and crazy to see, you know, the results of the culture war, especially like this guy getting fired.
But in the end, I really do believe we're going to come to a point where regular Americans are going to wake up to this.
They're going to see this and think, this is insane.
And I think it's already happening.
You know, Gallup and Pew, as I mentioned many, many times, show most Democrats want moderate policy and this stuff is out of its, it's just nuts.
He goes on to say, I won't lie.
That was a tough part to read, but if you ask the outrage mob, that wasn't the real problem.
The real question was this.
So the real question to this is whether or not we think there's value in having the grand wizard of the clan on this board.
That's what the activists claimed that a black woman who fought for civil rights and was a victim of white identitarianism back in the sixties.
It's fascinating when they call Ben Shapiro alt-right.
It's mind-numbing.
He's the biggest target of these people.
They're all the same as far as I'm concerned.
They're racial identitarians.
What sort of alternative universe do you have to live in to think this sort of rhetoric is okay?
And what sort of alternative universe do you have to live in where you turn a blind eye to that rhetoric?
He goes on to say, as I explained in a previous post, these outrage mobs and witch hunts don't just target outsiders like CPAC and KCallsJames.
They also target insiders and Google's own employees.
Whether the target is external or internal, the goal of these outrage mobs and witch hunts is the same.
To control who belongs at Google.
Break it up!
Just break it up.
Man, I am ready to hop- so you guys know.
I'm building this van.
I've been posting photos on Instagram, and it's about done.
And I am going to go off to the mountains, and I'm going to go fishing.
I'll still make videos.
That's the point of the van.
I can still work.
But man, it's going to be so great just to be out of the city, and just be with nature.
You'll see some deer, and then you'll see some other wild animals, some beavers maybe doing their beaver thing.
And I'll be sitting there, and I'll be fishing, and I'll be like, man, it sure is good to get away from these lunatics.
But I'll tell you what.
The biggest problem isn't necessarily, in my opinion, Uh, the activists, necessarily, because you can always find a different source.
The biggest problem is the fragility of our society and our culture.
These people are extremely fragile, and so they shriek and freak out at any little thing.
I mean, one of the things he tells in the story is that one guy made a comment about Jordan Peterson, and so someone said they felt unsafe, and he got called into HR.
The problem is that HR called him in in the first place.
Seriously, what the hell's wrong with you people?
They're scared of lawsuits.
We've become too fragile.
You know what, man?
I don't care.
Like, you want to come in, And you want to threaten me?
I just don't care.
You're not- you have no leverage on me because I don't care enough.
One of the most freeing things in the world is just not caring.
And I think my attitude stems from, you know, being homeless growing up on the south side of Chicago.
There is nothing you can hold over my head.
There is no sort of Damocles dangling above me to which I have anxiety.
If all of my channels got deleted overnight, I'd be like, how about that?
And I'd go skateboarding.
It'd be kind of a weight off my shoulders.
You have no leverage on me.
You want to come into me and complain that someone commented about Jordan Peterson?
I will fire you in two seconds.
Don't waste my time with this insane nonsense.
You're an adult.
You come to me and said, somebody was talking about watching a Jordan Peterson video and I feel unsafe.
I'm like, wow, you better leave.
I'm sorry.
It was nice working with you.
You feel unsafe about that.
Wow.
Why aren't businesses doing this?
You can fire these people.
Just do it.
Why punish the dude who watched a stupid YouTube video instead of just getting rid of the people who are terrified of their own shadows?
I'm sorry.
If you come to me and say that someone made an explicit threat, broke the law, I'd be like, we'll take care of it.
They violate specific policies around actual harassment?
Oh, we'll take care of it.
If you come to me and said somebody watched a goddamn YouTube video where Jordan Peterson talked about his opinion, I'd be like, are you seriously coming to me right now to tell me some silly little anecdote about someone watching a video on the internet?
You are wasting my time and you don't have the mental capacity or wherewithal to be in this business.
These companies, however, will bend over backwards for the most ridiculous and absurd complaints.
Why?
Seriously, why?
Oh no!
Somebody watched a video about Jordan Peterson!
Stop the presses!
Shut the company down!
Everybody gets a paid sick day!
We can't have that!
Who watched a Jordan Peterson video?
I'm sorry!
You are being sent home.
You are fired.
Well, I'm not going to read through this.
It's really long.
I'll put the link to his post in the description below.
But, um, there's a lot of really, really important things.
He says, uh, I myself didn't want to get drawn into an extensive debate on that topic, but I did want to state my views and express support for Kay Coles James.
Thus, I decided to write this simple post.
To be clear, had the council still existed with Kay Coles James on it, James would have felt welcome during council meetings to express the views he expressed in her tweets, including her views about the Equality Act.
And so he then has a bunch of links.
But we'll just get to his final point, I guess.
He's got some citations or some addendums.
He says, if left unchecked, these outrage mobs will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow to their agenda.
Anyone who stands up to them will be hounded until they either shut the F up or get the F out.
Furthermore, Google HR has clearly shown that they function as an accessory to these witch hunts.
As I said before, once you control who belongs at Google, you can control what content belongs at Google.
The most important point.
We've heard this over and over again.
This man certainly isn't the first and he won't be the last.
We've heard Jack Dorsey.
He actually said conservative employees at Twitter are scared to speak up.
We've heard conservative employees at Facebook have been forming groups.
It's not even about being conservative.
I don't know if you're familiar with Keemstar, but I cited him the past few days.
He's a very, very high-profile YouTuber.
He talks about YouTube culture and drama stuff, and he does branch out outside of YouTube.
I don't want to pigeonhole him.
I'm not super familiar with all his videos.
I don't really watch his content.
I mean no disrespect to Keemstar for saying that.
But the reason I bring him up, and the reason it's important you understand I don't watch his content, is he's in a different world.
Keemstar has like 2.5 million followers.
He's got millions and millions of subscribers.
He gets millions and millions of views.
And he tweeted, The left is always trying to de-platform the right.
The right doesn't try to de-platform the left.
And that forces independents to side with conservatives.
People like Keemstar.
I feel it's really crazy to see someone like Keemstar, who is more of an entertainment personality, As opposed to news and culture.
Well, I shouldn't say news and culture, but like news and politics.
He's now tweeting about this.
I'm seeing other big YouTubers because of the Vox Adpocalypse tweeting about these issues.
Some people were tweeting things like GamerGate was right.
They called this out.
So one thing I always want to stress when it comes to these issues, and this is branching off the idea, this guy was fired from Google, okay?
He was fired from Google after saying, hey, we got to stop this.
I don't want to say GamerGate was right.
I don't know too much about GamerGate or just some, like, ethics in journalism.
I know the journalists pushed back.
I think the journalists are liars for the most part, and we see that today.
But what we can see is...
Whatever this regressive identitarianism is, this outrage fragility, you know, this left-wing fragility that we're seeing where everyone gets a shriek at the simplest sentence, it's not that people are being red-pilled, as they say.
It's that it's spreading.
It's getting worse.
It's infecting more and more places.
It's impacting more and more industries and cultures, and it's creating more and more of a crisis.
So I will stress this.
When I talk about the, quote, civil war, end quote, I always stress, you know, I'd make that, I'd make that bet.
I'd be willing to make that bet.
And it's not from me.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
There was a Wall Street Journal, I believe it was Wall Street Journal or Atlantic.
They actually did an interview with several security experts who made that prediction.
So I am no one to ever think there's a conspiracy or, you know, some ridiculous event about to happen.
But I will say, as I mentioned in the beginning, there are a bunch of videos of people fighting in the streets.
And the important point is it's not Trump rallies.
It's now literally just people walking around getting attacked.
Tons and tons of videos.
It's crazy to see this.
It's like some dudes will go walking around and some guy will come up and start fighting them.
We've seen people, uh, there was one story where a guy had a Trump sticker and they, they, they pulled him out of his car and beat the crap out of him or something like that.
Something's coming.
It's not, I don't, I don't know when it's going to happen.
What I can say is that we are seeing an escalation of, uh, the regressive far left to a rather psychotic degree.
And I'm going to go into depth in this on my main channel, uh, later today at 4 PM.
So stick around.
There's some really interesting data points showing that the death of journalism coincided with the rise of left-wing identitarianism.
What the point I'm trying to make is, when it was just video games in the culture war, nobody really cared.
But now it's impacting more national level politics, it's spreading to other cultures, music, comics, etc.
What do you think is going to happen when it hits Major League Sports?
It will.
Absolutely.
Absolutely it will.
The rules in the NBA are arbitrary.
We could simply change the rules to demand that we do 50% minimum on those teams.
What do you think is going to happen when you start seeing wave after wave of articles saying the NBA needs to become more inclusive?
Why is it that only men are competing in these sports?
What do you think is going to happen now that we're seeing this rise of Biological males competing in women's sports, whether you agree with it or not is not the point.
I'm not here to argue for or against.
I'm here to state it's causing a dramatic rift where now suburban families are being pulled into this because their daughters are being displaced.
The issue isn't, and I'll lightly clarify in this, when it comes to the trans women competing with females, it's not an issue of them winning first place as they try to obfuscate the argument.
It's an issue of low-tier men who can't compete becoming high-tier women in their competitions and displacing women So if you have 10 top positions that will get scholarships, yes, it is very likely a trans woman will displace some of these biological females.
That is not to say the trans woman will win, they often don't.
But it will mean that that 10th place female, who is the top 10 in the nation or in the state, who fought very, very hard to train day in and day out, will be removed because of the physical disadvantages.
These things are spreading.
It's going to get worse.
It's going to impact television.
We've already seen demands that TV shows change, late-night hosts change.
Movies, for instance, getting woke and going broke.
Booksmart just came out.
Olivia Wilde says Booksmart was like... One of the reviews said it was like Superbad, but it was made by women for women, and it flopped.
It was a big flop.
It missed its projections by nearly 50%.
I'm not saying they shouldn't make movies like that.
I heard the movie was actually funny.
But we're seeing this negatively impact businesses.
We're seeing it spread to other major cultures, uh, subcultures.
And what do you think's gonna happen when they take out something that is extremely mainstream?
The Simpsons are already doing it.
The Simpsons apparently had an episode where Bart was mad itchy and scratchy, got replaced by females, it was an all-female itchy and scratchy reboot.
They did one episode where Abe Simpson, um, uh, experimented with homosexuality.
A lot of these things I'm not saying are, uh, Not necessarily right or wrong.
That's not the argument to make.
Like, if Abe Simpson wants to experiment, I really don't care.
The issue is more so, it's happening super fast, it's a dramatic shock to the system, and when the system is shocked, crazy things happen.
So, when we start seeing shows, like, look at Family Guy.
Let's talk about culture war stuff.
Family Guy has stereotypes.
Homosexuals, Jews, black people.
They mock and ridicule and they do it all day and night.
Steven Crowder has lost access to demonetization on YouTube because he made similar jokes to what Family Guy would make.
What do you think's gonna happen when Family Guy and American Dad get shut down?
What do you think's gonna happen when they start cancelling shows and replacing them with woke, unfunny things?
You will see the mainstream freak out.
And the rift is going to get really, really bad.
It's not being mended, it's being made worse.
With YouTube's latest decision, it's only going to get worse, especially when you start silencing people who are trying to push back on the psychosis.
This is a really good example, I'll end with this, because this turned out to be a really long video, and man, I have a sore throat.
This guy said, hey man, witch hunts are bad.
Don't do it.
What happened?
He got the axe.
They're coming for you next.
It's not over.
And what terrifies me the most is that these street fights are getting worse.
I kid you not.
The news doesn't report on all of these, but they are happening.
The videos are going viral.
You can see it happening.
Is it worse than it's ever been?
I don't know.
But the polarization seems to be.
And I feel like it can only go in one direction.
In the end, hey man, it's going to be to the mass benefit of China.
So welcome to, you know, the future.
The future will be under a Chinese cultural system.
At least that's what it looks like right now.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
The next video will be on this channel at 1pm and I will see you all then.
Yeah, I'm going to keep talking about how there's going to be some massive conflict of some sort.
I mean, we're in it, right?
We're in some kind of cultural civil war.
I did not come up with that term.
It was used by many people associated with the left at VidCon and before then, several years ago.
So yeah, something's happening.
And we can see from this story, quote, I want to see Trump in prison.
Nancy Pelosi tells top Democrats that they should focus, be focused on criminal prosecution of the president rather than impeachment.
Let me explain to you why it's all gonna come crashing down at some point.
Remember when Trump was chanting, lock her up, over and over again, and many people in the crowd joined in?
The Democrats claimed that was dangerous rhetoric, that you can't talk about imprisoning your political opponents.
You can blame Trump for starting it, I suppose, but it was the New York Times and the Associated Press that broke the story about the email scandal and the server from Hillary Clinton.
Yes, public officials destroying records is a crime.
Did Hillary Clinton get in trouble for it?
No, because it's complicated.
We'll see what happens as these stories develop.
But now Nancy Pelosi wants Trump to go to jail.
Where do you think this ends?
Do you think locking Trump up is going to end with people being like, well, gee gosh darn, you know, the president's in jail?
No, it's going to end up with people shrieking, and it's going to end up with a dramatic escalation.
In fact, the rhetoric itself is a dramatic escalation.
When they complained that Trump was calling for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment, it was a bad thing, but now it's a good thing.
Sure.
Let's read this story.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, and it is more important than ever because YouTube is purging channels from the partner program.
Who knows how long I have?
Many people think that I'll get wiped out at some point.
Possibly.
Maybe not.
I try not to be a dick, but sometimes I can be angry.
We'll see what happens.
But the best thing you can do is just like and comment on the video, share and subscribe.
So the story from the Daily Mail says, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told top Democrats that she wants to see President Donald Trump in prison.
Lock him up, huh?
Pelosi's remarks came in a meeting on Tuesday with top House Democrats, including Judiciary Committee Chair Jared Nadler, who was aggressively pushing for impeachment.
Not to be outdone, Ms.
Pelosi now says, don't focus on impeachment, go straight for imprisonment.
I don't want to see him impeached.
I want to see him in prison, Pelosi said.
Pelosi, who fears political disaster if impeachment proceedings are launched without broad public support, argued that it would be better to see Trump defeated in the next election and then criminally prosecuted as a private citizen.
Yeah, because that won't lead to ridiculous outrage from people.
Pelosi is walking an increasingly thin line as the clamor for impeachment grows in her caucus, despite her insistence that before impeachment there needs to be broad public support and bipartisan backing, neither of which has materialized.
In addition to Nadler, who has been battling behind the scenes to control any impeachment investigation, the other Democratic House Committee chairs were present at the meeting.
Ashley Etienne, a Pelosi spokeswoman, told Politico that Pelosi and the chairman had a productive meeting about the state of play with the Mueller report.
What a fine time.
The Democrats are spinning in circles, unsure of how to deal with their fracturing base.
We're still chasing after this, going into three years of complete psychosis around Russiagate.
They've now transitioned off of Trump colluded with the Russians, and the Russians might shut down our electricity in the winter, Ms.
Rachel Maddow claims.
Now going into, well, Trump obstructed justice, or at least, Maybe.
No determination was made by Mueller.
And, um, Mueller... It's just... How insane.
I can't see this de-escalating.
When the politicians are calling for imprisonment of each other, when they're trying to impeach President Trump instead of actually dealing with his concepts, ideas, and defeating him in the election, They're going for impeachment, imprisonment.
And then at the ground level, we see people beating the crap out of each other, and the news is going insane.
How could anyone not conclude that we're in a downward spiral of destruction?
And then you also have to consider several important details, like, how about that every 80 years is a major conflict with the United States?
Or how about that empires tend to last around 250 years?
How long has it been?
Yeah, do the math.
We'll see what happens, though.
I don't want to be too, uh... Like, I'm not- I'm not- I don't want to wave my arms and scream, the end is nigh, but I certainly feel like something is- is happening.
Certainly.
A lot of people get lulled into the sense of, oh, it'll never happen.
Yes, things happen.
No one thought there'd be a great war between all of the superpowers of the world, and then it happened.
People didn't believe the first civil war was going to happen.
I could be wrong about this.
I'm not a historian, but I read a story about how in one of the first battles, people were standing around watching and having picnics, laughing, thinking, there's no way there'll be a civil war.
And then one of the bloodiest wars ever happened.
So who knows what's going to happen?
But I'll tell you what.
There's a video.
I'm going to talk about it in my next video from the next segment.
Some dudes jumped out of a car and started beating up on some Trump supporters.
Where do you think we're at?
You know, I think we are in the armament phase.
We are in the resource phase.
They're trying to strip resources and economic resources from many conservatives and independents because before you can get into the full-on conflict, however, whatever form it takes, you need to make sure that you have a disreport.
You win the war before you start it.
Take away the resources, build up the resources for yourself.
Then when something actually happens, be it a physical conflict or who knows, Then they can squash their enemies.
But let's get back to the Trump imprisonment idea.
On Wednesday, the rebuffed Nadler appeared peevish when he told CNN that there is not currently enough backing for impeachment among Democrats in the House of Representatives.
There does not appear to be support for it now, and we will see.
The support may develop, said Nadler, whose committee has jurisdiction over impeachment-related matters.
We are investigating all of the things we would investigate, frankly, in an impeachment inquiry.
He then paused for several seconds when asked if he and Pelosi were on the same page.
When that decision has to be made, it will be made not by any one individual.
It will be made probably by the caucus as a whole.
Certainly, Nancy will have the largest single voice in it.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Pelosi was asked about calls from
progressives for impeachment proceedings.
I'm not feeling any pressure, Pelosi responded.
Make no mistake, we know exactly what path we are on.
We know exactly what actions we need to take.
And while that may take some more time than people wanted to take, I respect their impatience.
Nadler vowed on Wednesday to go to court quickly in his quest to obtain the full unredacted Mueller report on Russian election interference, saying lawmakers would not be made fools of by an offer by the Trump administration to negotiate over the document.
Nadler said he expects to ask a federal court soon to enforce his April 19th subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller's report and underlying material.
An approach to the court We'll come as soon as possible after a vote in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Tuesday on holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.
I anticipate that'll be very quick.
There may be an appeal, and we'll ask for an expedited appeal.
So I want to pause here real quick.
Contempt of Congress for Barr.
Subpoenaing, filing a subpoena for the full unredacted report, calling for the imprisonment of Trump.
Bill Barr has said he believes Trump was spied on.
I haven't followed the story too closely, so I don't want to get too much into it, but it does sound like there's some kind of internal deep state civil war happening.
It's been going on for a while, I'd imagine.
Depending on how conspiratorial you want to get, I don't know.
But this is politicking to the extreme.
I mean, more so than I've seen in my life.
Maybe it's been worse at other times.
I'm not old enough, perhaps.
But you've got They want to imprison the president, Nancy Pelosi does.
They're trying to impeach him.
They're trying to remove him not for his policies or his bad ideas.
They're trying to remove him because they're opposed to him.
You then see Bill Barr coming in, siding with the president, and it really does feel like we are seeing a civil war in soft power within the government.
Where does this lead?
If the two sides keep getting further and further split, pushed further and further away, at some point, people will feel like the system is pointless.
And that's when things get truly dangerous.
I think it's extremely dangerous that they're calling for the imprisonment of the president.
The issue with Hillary Clinton with calling for her imprisonment is a bit different in that she was a private citizen for the most part, I believe.
But calling her out for the email scandal and all that stuff, sure.
That was before she was actually elected.
Now Trump won, they do this whole Russia collusion nonsense thing, and when that fizzles out, they shift.
So there is a difference here.
I think the rhetoric in both regards is still potentially dangerous, but I don't like the idea of any politician being above the law, Trump included.
However, what we're seeing is, in my opinion, complete desperation outside of the issues.
So in my next video, I want to talk about You know, the collapse, the coming, whatever you want to call it.
Because it's not just my opinion.
We've seen people on the left, we've seen security experts talking about this and this rhetoric is playing straight into it.
But there's some interesting data presented.
I would stress that calling for the impeachment of the president is unhinged.
Calling for the imprisonment of the president is unhinged.
It has no basis in reality.
this pending collapse. The way everything's working, people are just
losing their goddamn minds. I would stress that calling for the impeachment
of the president is unhinged. Calling for the imprisonment of the president is
unhinged. It has no basis in reality. To me it's absolutely insane
that Mueller comes out and says if we could have exonerated him we would have.
At the same time, you could take the exact same statement and say, if we could have presented evidence he committed a crime, we would have.
They didn't.
Our legal system does not work that way.
You are not guilty or innocent.
You're guilty or not guilty.
There could be evidence you committed a crime.
If there's not enough evidence, we still think you did the crime.
We're not going to punish you for it.
You can be upset and think that Trump tried to commit obstruction of justice.
Mueller didn't say that.
This is how it gets insane.
And I— Look, this is gonna be a dramatic escalation.
Stick around for the next segment.
It'll be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
I believe it's probably the first time in the podcast, so if you're already listening on the podcast, well then, a different segment will begin now, but thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, and I will see you in the next story.
Following up from my main video today where I briefly mentioned two stories, I want to dive in-depth and actually break them down and talk about them specifically.
The first story from Daily Wire, woman stabs herself, informs police I'm tired of living in Trump's country.
Trump derangement syndrome has gotten to the point, and I'm not, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but a woman literally stabbed herself and then called the cops.
Now, of course, people can be crazy and crazy things happen.
There was a dude in Florida once who took some crazy-ass drug called Flocka and then actually ate another guy.
But in this instance, it's specifically Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The other story comes from PJ Media.
It's a video, so take it for what it is.
TDS on steroids.
Leftist thug parks car in the middle of the street to attack Trump supporters in Los Angeles.
This guy actually parks his car in the middle of the street, gets out and starts yelling at people.
So I did highlight this in my main video but I want to break them down and go into the specifics.
We'll start with the woman who stabbed herself.
It's crazy.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
It really is your support now more than ever, considering YouTube is becoming quite censorious and demonetizing many channels.
And yeah, I don't know who's next.
The rules seem rather arbitrary.
They're taking out journalists.
So I greatly appreciate anything you could give through here, but of course, the best thing you can do is just like and comment on the video, share and subscribe, because engagement really helps.
But let's read.
On Sunday, a Palmetto, Florida woman stabbed herself three times, then told the police officer responding to the situation, I'm tired of living in Trump's country.
I'm tired of Trump being president.
I don't quite understand how stabbing yourself three times will rectify this, other than you just don't want to live here, but you could always just go somewhere else.
Mexico is not that far away.
You're in Florida.
You're pretty close to Cuba.
The police report obtained by the smoking gun in which the woman's name was redacted stated on 6-2-2019
I responded to XXX Palmetto, Florida in reference to XXX, I guess it's the woman's name redacted, having stabbed
herself with a kitchen knife.
Upon my arrival, I observed Redacted standing outside of her home.
I observed blood all over her legs and face.
I did not observe her holding up at the time.
When I asked what was wrong, she lifted up her shirt and exposed her belly to me.
I observed three stab wounds on her stomach that were still bleeding.
I'm tired of living in Trump's country.
I'm tired of Trump being president.
She told me she had stabbed herself because she does not want to live in Trump's country.
EMS arrived and transported her to Blake Medical Center under trauma alert.
She stated to me that she has been baker-acted before and has attempted to hurt herself in the past.
She said that I evaluated her for BA52.
I strongly believe there is substantial likelihood that without care or treatment, the person will cause bodily harm to herself and others.
I believe that she is unable to determine for herself whether examination is necessary.
As Yahoo News reported, The Baker Act is the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, which allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of a person.
The examination can be requested by a judge, physicians, mental health professionals, and law enforcement, so long as there is evidence a person has possible mental illness and is in danger of harming themselves or others.
The police report stated that the officer went to the hospital with the EMS team to make sure the woman became stable.
The woman then told him that her daughter had been apprised of the incident.
So I want to make sure I stress, this woman clearly is unwell to begin with.
But I do believe that, you know, basically this is what starts first, right?
We've definitely seen street battles, that's the next story we'll get into.
But you have someone who's already unwell, and then when you start cranking out all of this insane news and nonsense from these fake news organizations, it makes people, like, she's obviously the first person to be affected by this because she's already unwell.
But we're getting to the point where regular people are losing their minds and don't know what's real anymore.
Look, I've told this story before, but I had a friend Who was a lefty, DSA type, like, you know, anarchist, kind of street punk millennial type.
Tell me that she was now in favor of conversion therapy because of the trans rights argument.
And I was really confused.
I was like, I don't think you know what reality is anymore.
Seriously, what do you believe?
Do you really believe that someone who is male can become attracted to someone who is male through therapy?
Like, imagine if someone is gay.
Do you believe this person Can be converted into being straight.
And she said, no.
And then I said, but you just told me that you think a trans woman, a biological male, and another biological male could eventually learn to love each other and be attracted to each other.
And she said, yes.
And I said, how is that not conversion therapy?
And just didn't work.
She freaked out, got really angry.
We're not friends anymore.
It's the craziest thing.
It's very few people I've ever had this happen to.
But I think what happens is You know, it starts with the people who are already unwell, but when your reality can't make sense anymore, you snap.
People follow the media and they think they know what's real, but if you don't have the mental fortitude, you know, the strength of mind to understand what's actually going on around you, you will snap.
It's basically like, the simplest way I can explain it is, If you're surrounded by people who always say two plus two is five, you will start saying it must be true.
Everyone says this is reality.
But then all of a sudden you encounter, you know, two apples and two apples.
Wait a minute.
There's four apples.
Your brain just can't handle it.
Your reality is shattered.
So this woman, Um, stabs herself when this happens.
Again, she's already unwell.
But then we see this.
This story from PJ Media where a dude literally gets out of his car, spits in a woman's face, and then starts fighting with people.
One dude pulls out a skateboard, bashes another dude with it.
They say a man suffering from acute Trump derangement syndrome went on an anti-Trump rampage at the site of Trump supporters at a rally in LA on Sunday.
The unidentified man, who was later arrested, was so enraged at the sight of the MAGA hat-clad rally-goers that he parked his car in the middle of the street and charged them.
The man's shocked family watched from the car as he assaulted and spat on the Trump supporters.
Omar Navarro, a Republican candidate who was running for Congress against the virulently anti-Trump Democrat Maxine Waters in 2020, had just left the rally when the blow-up occurred.
Navarro described the attack in a post on Facebook.
First, he illegally parked his car in the middle of the street, got out, and began to yell at, put his hands on, and even spit in the face of Trump supporters.
And all the Trump supporters were doing was hanging out and celebrating the eventual re-election of Trump in 2020.
Yet this man had so much hate in his heart towards Trump that he decided to leave his family in his car in the middle of the street and come attack these Trump supporters.
Thankfully justice was served and this man was arrested because you can't put your hands on people and try to suppress their right to free speech.
But what do you think happens when the media doesn't stop screaming in your ears at full volume all of the worst things about Trump?
You lose your mind.
I imagine this guy literally, I mean, we say Trump derangement syndrome to be silly.
It's a joke.
It's like, it's mocking them losing their minds.
But I kid you not, people are actually losing their minds.
Think about this.
The first woman who stabbed herself, I get it.
She's been, you know, taken him before, but she's the first to lose it because she's already susceptible to this.
This guy, leaving his family in his car.
Could you imagine this?
Guy pulls up with his family, leaves them in the middle of the street.
There could have been an accident.
All because he's so triggered by the sight of Trump supporters.
That's how insane people are being driven.
A video of the attack, which Navarro posted on Twitter, shows a black man wearing a cross pendant, ironically, repeatedly getting into the faces of a multi-racial group of rally goers and bellowing F Donald Trump.
At one point, he can be seen pushing one of the Trump supporters and spitting on a feisty Latina who had just yelled, he's your president whether you like that S or not, and get the F out of our country then.
The man called the woman a punk ass bitch before spitting in her face.
I'll play some of this.
I don't want to play it too loud though.
So for those that are listening, the guy gets up in the face of these Trump supporters.
Omar Navarro talks about what happened.
It was a decently, looks like a decently large group of people, maybe a couple hundred.
And then we can see this guy stepping out.
Let me jump past Omar's commentary.
No disrespect to Omar, but he points out that this guy is just leaving the rest of his family in his car and they look all shocked.
And then all of a sudden, let's get to the video in question.
Well, so this isn't the video in full, but you do see the man getting arrested.
The video I saw showed people jumping up, whacking him with skateboards.
There were other people fighting, too.
Omar said, if someone's gonna put their hands and try and censor their free speech, they're gonna get arrested.
You gotta respect the First Amendment right of the people.
So Omar tweeted, this man had so much hate in his heart, he illegally parked his car.
I think we read that already.
Navarro made a good point about maxing waters and her call for fellow leftists to push back on Trump supporters when they see them in public.
Unhinged assaults on Trump supporters have plagued the nation since 2016, as PJ Media has documented over and over.
And the reason it keeps happening is because of people like Waters.
Democrat politicians and their allies in the media have so demonized the president and his supporters that leftists feel the attacks are justified, even virtuous.
They're then going to say, here's a list of the latest attacks, and they're quite a bit, but I'll say this.
PJ Media's pretty hyper-partisan.
Take it for what it is.
But I will respect that point they made about Maxine Waters.
She said, push back on these people.
I understand she's not saying get violent.
But what do you think's going to happen when you tell people to get in each other's faces?
Right?
What do you think happens when you tell someone to throw a milkshake at somebody else?
What do you think happens when the media produces 92% negative coverage on the president, and digital media is making the most insane hyperbolic nonsense about the fringe far right?
People are gonna lose their minds.
This guy probably thinks he's actually stepping up to a bunch of, you know, extremists, when it's just a bunch of regular Americans who like the president.
The rhetoric is getting absolutely insane.
I'm not gonna... I'll leave it there for now.
Let me know what you think in the comments below, or if you're listening on the podcast, leave a review.
I got some more segments coming up in just a few moments, and I will see you then.
Did the Russians meddle in the U.S.
election?
I would say it goes beyond the elections.
I believe they're meddling in our culture and society.
Now, to what degree?
That's a good question.
How effective?
It's another good question.
But I think it's fair to point out, in all likelihood, it's true.
Whatever your political, you know, left, right, whatever, it's likely that Russia is doing this.
Why?
Because we literally do the same thing in the U.S., and so do many other countries.
What's interesting, however, is that the culture war may have been exacerbated by Russians trying to make people fight each other.
In a story from NBC News, Russian documents reveal desire to sow racial discord and violence in the U.S.
The revelations come as U.S.
intel agencies have warned of probable Russian meddling in the 2020 election.
Of course!
But I'll say this.
Full stop, NBC.
When are you going to call out Al Jazeera?
They're mad at Russians for making counter-rallies and rallies of promoting Black Lives Matter as well as pro-Trump stuff and Blue Lives Matter.
But no one ever calls out Al Jazeera, which is funded very heavily by the Qatari government and produces the exact same content.
The story from NBC reads, Russians who were linked to interference in the 2016 US election
discussed ambitious plans to stoke unrest and even violence inside the US as recently as 2018,
according to documents reviewed by NBC News. The documents, the communications between associates
of Yevgeny Prigozin, a Kremlin-linked oligarch indicated, indicted by special counsel Robert
Mueller for previous influence operations against the US, laid out a new plot to manipulate and
radicalize African Americans. That's the story.
That's what we've known.
And so it's kind of scary to me when you see people who exploit this and make a living off it.
People like Sean King, for instance, who rally and get behind Black Lives Matter when they're being radicalized by Russia to create racial tensions in this country.
I think it's working.
And I think there's a profit motive behind it.
Now, before we move any further, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, crypto option, physical address, but of course, The best thing you can do, like the video, comment on the video, share, and subscribe, because engagement really, really helps.
The plans show that Prigozhin's circle has sought to exploit racial tensions well beyond Russia's social media and misinformation efforts tied to the 2016 election.
The documents were obtained through the Dossier Center, a London-based investigative project funded by Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
NBC News has not independently verified the materials, but forensic analysis by the dossier center appeared to substantiate the communications.
We also have many stories corroborating this information, that we've heard time and time again that the Russians were promoting Black Lives Matter, sharing police brutality content, because they want people in America to fight each other.
One document said that President Donald Trump's election had deepened conflicts in American society and suggested that if successful, the influence project would undermine the country's territorial integrity and military and economic potential.
The revelations come as U.S.
intelligence agencies have warned of probable Russian meddling in the 2020 election.
The documents contain proposals for several ways to further exacerbate racial discord in the future, including a suggestion to recruit African Americans and transport them to camps in Africa for combat prep and training in sabotage.
Those recruits would then be sent back to America to foment violence and work to establish a pan-African state in the South, particularly in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Okay, okay, okay, hold on!
I can get behind the idea that there's a bunch of Russians posting memes that are trying to enrage people to make them fight.
But NBC, you really want me to believe that they wanted to send African Americans to Africa for sabotage training and then create a pan-African state in the South?
I think that sounds absolutely insane, NBC, but hey, I'll take your word for it.
You're verified by NewsGuard, and you're considered establishment mainstream media who seems to know what they're talking about, though they didn't verify the documents.
There is no indication that the plan, which is light on details, was ever put into action, but it offers a fresh example of the mindset around Russian efforts to sow discord in the U.S.
The blueprint, entitled Development Strategy of a Pan-African State on U.S.
Territory, floated the idea of enlisting poor, formerly incarcerated African Americans who have experience in organized crime groups as well as members of radical black movements for participation in civil disobedience actions. The goal was to destabilize
the internal situation in the U.S.
Frank Figliucci, a former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI and an NBC
News contributor who reviewed the documents, said they offer a warning to the U.S.
I also want to point something out before we go on with this really insane conspiracy theory.
There seems to be a lot of former intel people who work for the mainstream media, be it CNN, ABC, NBC,
It's really weird.
You know, if you follow people like Michael Tracy and Glenn Greenwald, they highlight this kind of issue a lot because these people are cheerleaders for foreign military intervention.
They're cheerleaders for the deep state narrative.
And I mean deep state in a somewhat half-joking way.
Whether you believe there is a deep state, there are intel agencies that exist within government Whether or not the president or Congress changes, they're always there.
People refer to this as the permanent government.
It's very interesting, then, that we have this absolutely absurd document about trying to create a pan-African state being pushed by NBC, who admits they didn't verify it, but then they have a former FBI counterintelligence, former assistant director, Saying it's a warning to the U.S.
Regardless of whether or not these plans are an amateurish thought experiment, the fact that these people are talking about doing this should disturb Americans of all stripes.
The unfortunate reality is that we're seeing an adversary that will consider virtually anything to get what it wants.
And if it means violence or splitting America along racial lines or eroding our trust in institutions, they'll do it.
Some of the documents appear to have been sent by Zekun J. Jekun?
Aslanov, a lot of Russian names here, an employee of the Internet Research Agency, the St.
Petersburg-based troll farm that played a key role in the 2016 Russian meddling campaign.
Aslanov was one of 13 indebted by Mueller in February.
The plan was shared with Mikhail Potemkin, a Russian businessman who then circulated it more widely according to communications reviewed by NBC News.
They say that they're both linked to Prigozhin, a Russian catering magnate often described as Putin's chef.
Prigozhin was also indicted by Mueller for funding the IRA.
Widely perceived as a Kremlin operative, he has been connected to a shadowy mercenary outfit known as the Wagner Group, whose guns for hire are reported to have been involved in Russian military operations in Syria and eastern Ukraine, according to U.S.
military officials.
Okay, now hold on.
That sounds pretty badass.
I'm not a fan of this, but now we're getting into, like, deep action thriller territory, where guns for hire are committing these crazy-ass sting operations.
I mean, that sounds pretty fun and movie-esque.
Although, when you actually think about what's happening, it's kind of nightmarish, because it's actual war.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
What is this?
A map of the U.S.
overlaid with information about African-American population size in seven southern states that was part of a cache of documents found in communications from Russians linked to U.S.
election interference.
I can't read it.
It's Cyrillic and likely Russian.
But is this the pan-African state that they were trying to create?
It excludes Florida, apparently.
They say Rep.
Val Demings, Florida, who was briefed in the documents, said they highlight how ongoing racial issues in the U.S.
can be used in misinformation efforts.
Russia understands how critical the African-American vote is to determining the outcome of elections.
And because we have not effectively dealt with racism as a country ourselves, I believe we've made ourselves vulnerable to foreign powers like Russia to continue to try to undermine.
The documents also discuss how to expand Russia's clout on the African continent and win business there.
From arms sales to mining contracts, they outline propaganda efforts to target Africans and stir up negative opinions about Europe and the US.
This is... this is...
I mean, look, Russia may be trying to do this.
America has powerful interests in South America and Africa.
And one of the biggest fronts right now in what's going on between the U.S.
and the U.S.' 's enemies or adversaries is control of strategic resources in Africa and South America.
China is doing massive oil exploration, for instance.
They want to build a Nicaraguan canal to compete with the Panama Canal.
So yeah, it's entirely possible Russia needs clout among African nations.
But let's just read the finale here.
They say, the idea of African statehood has an intellectual precedent in Russia.
During the early 20th century, communists in America proposed forming a black belt nation in the South.
Some party members traveled to the Soviet Union for training.
Even though these kinds of initiatives from the Russians aren't new to us, what is new is the rapidity with which they can get this message out on social media and saturate the American consumer with these kinds of thoughts, said Figliucci, former FBI official.
That puts the Russian initiative on steroids and should scare all of us.
Richard Engel reported on this.
He's like a really respected top dude over at NBC News.
So, I don't know whether or not Russia wants to form a pan-African state.
I find this story absolutely insane.
But, hey man, you know, the truth can be stranger than fiction.
So, I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Do you believe this to be true?
Again, I'll stress that we have had some information in the past that Russia was trying to sow discord between Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.
But this takes it a step further.
So let me know what you think.
I've got one more story coming up for you in just a few moments, so stick around and I will see you shortly.
The year is 2035.
Everyone is the same height.
They have no hair.
Their skin is a pale olive-ish type color.
Everyone looks identical.
I'm not going to get too much more extreme in my stupid joke about the future, but the story here is about gene-edited babies.
And when you combine the technology of gene-editing along with the insane intersectionality that is rising, I imagine in the future everyone will be five feet tall, there will be no secondary sexual characteristics, everyone will look the exact same, they'll wear jumpsuits, everyone will be offended by everything, they'll be scared of their own shadows, but at least They won't have genetic diseases, or they might actually die from it.
So there's been a big push and some breakthroughs in gene editing, and one of the biggest stories was that a Chinese researcher shocked the world by announcing the birth of two gene-edited babies.
However, the mutations may have hurt, not helped.
Apparently, there are a lot of people who want to genetically engineer their children
before they're born to remove bad genes that result in genetic diseases.
Personally, I think it's a really, really bad idea, but I'm not going to denounce the technology as a whole.
I mean, the problem with it is, the first few iterations will negatively impact the lives of human beings who will be genetically engineered.
Thus, we're seeing this.
These young, these two babies might actually die early.
Before we get started on the story, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, liking and commenting on the video, sharing the video and subscribing are some of the most powerful things you can do because the engagement really, really helps.
At a time like today when people are getting censored, yeah, I could definitely use support, so.
But let's read on and figure out why this gene editing is a bad idea.
Chinese researcher Jianhui He shocked the global medical community in November 2018 when he announced the birth of two babies whose DNA he had edited.
The first ever humans born with heritable changes to their genomes made using a technique called CRISPR-Cas9.
He says he made the changes to lower the baby's risk of contracting HIV.
But the news instantly sparked ethical and medical controversy about his work and about the use of gene editing in humans.
Now a study finds that the edits may have actually hurt the baby's lifespans.
As they report today in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers analyzed... Well, it's actually from June 3rd, so it's from a few days ago.
As they report in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers analyzed a UK genetic database and found that when people naturally have a trait similar to the one that he engineered into the baby's DNA, they have about a 21% greater risk of dying before the age of 76 than people who don't have this trait.
So I will point this out.
What's the likelihood these babies actually contracted HIV?
It's probably slim to none.
It's not a very high percentage of people who have this disease.
Was it worth shortening their lifespan?
I'd argue it isn't.
Just, you know, we have cultural issues that can help stop the spread of diseases, for instance.
There's a really cool picture here showing how DNA hacking works and it looks like they have a virus injecting new DNA into bacteria of some sort.
There might be a perception that when you have one mutation, you have one effect.
But in fact, one mutation might have many different effects.
Yes, all these different genes are connected to each other in various ways.
There's a cascade problem that could occur.
When we think about genetic engineering in humans, one of the many things we should consider is that the consequences can be hard to predict.
That a mutation that's beneficial in one context is very detrimental in other contexts, he says.
Heightened risk.
In his public 2018 announcement, he said that his goal was to confer resistance to HIV, a human... We know what HIV is.
He did this by editing mutations into the CCR5 gene, which encodes a receptor on the outside of immune cells, making it an important player in how the immune system behaves.
One of the most widely studied variants of this gene is the Triangle32 variant.
Triangle, I guess?
I don't know what it's called.
I bet a bunch of people are not going to point out they know what that symbol is, but it's a triangle to me!
Which is shorter than normal and is essentially broken.
This breakage provides protection from HIV since the virus infects immune cells by latching onto the protein that the functional CCR5 gene encodes.
But treatments for HIV have come a long way.
Many experts argue at the time that this procedure was medically unnecessary.
What's more, other pathogens thrive when CCR5 is broken, creating other risk factors.
For instance, one 2015 study showed that having one or two copies of CCR5-TR32 nearly quadrupled a person's odds of dying from influenza.
While the mutations he created aren't perfectly identical, it seems that the baby CCR5 genes are broken in a similar way.
To find out more about what that might mean for them, Nielsen and Berkeley postdoctoral researcher Xinzhu Wei combed through nearly 410,000 genomes in the UK Biobank, a volunteer DNA archive looking for the fates of people who naturally have two copies of CCR5 triangle 32.
Seriously, I know there's a word for it, but forgive me for calling it triangle.
To account for sampling biases, Wei and Nielsen compared a thousand randomly generated subsets of the data against each other.
When they did, they found that overall, having two copies of CCR 532 increased a person's risk of dying before the age of 76 by 3 to 46% with an average risk of 21.
Wayne Nielsen cautioned that their work shouldn't be over-interpreted, in part because today's DNA databases are geographically biased.
The pair's research is based on the genomes of UK, not Chinese, volunteers.
Similar biases plague the research that he used to try and justify editing the baby's DNA in the first place.
Prior studies found signs of CCR32's protective effects against HIV in European, not East Asian, populations.
I would like to make the message clear that the effect of the mutation depends on the genetic background and the environments, and that we don't have information to speculate about its effects in East Asians.
Let me just take a break right now to ask you guys.
There's a lot of technical stuff here, and the potential risks may or may not outweigh whether or not it's worth gene editing, but the bigger question I wanted to bring up in this video is the morality of gene editing.
How would you feel if you were gene edited to be immune to certain diseases, or to be stronger, or faster, or taller?
There are probably a lot of dudes who are short who wish they were taller.
What if your parents could have gene-edited you to make sure you'd be six feet tall?
Would that be a good thing?
What if you're a woman and you want to be tall and curvy with big bosoms?
Would you prefer if your family edited your genes so that today your body is better than where it is?
What if you have crooked teeth?
I have crooked teeth.
What if you're bald?
What if you have bad vision?
What if they could make you Superman?
Figuratively, not like actual Superman, but like buff, tall, perfect vision.
Is it right to do?
Is it worth it?
One of the things I think that's wrong with it why I wanted to read about the story is that it will result,
you know, we have to get the science down perfectly and we don't know the long-term effects.
Imagine if today you were gene edited, but you actually ended up getting sick early. I guess the
question is, maybe it is a good thing, maybe it is better, because some people will just naturally
have bad genes and result in a genetic deficiency or disease could result in their early
death.
If we try to improve upon that, it's still better than someone dying early accidentally.
So I wonder, I wonder.
So I guess comment, let me know, we'll read some more about the ethics of the issue.
Like I wanna say, the new findings are bound to refocus attention on the ethical quandaries raised by his research.
Before and since the announcement, Researchers around the world have been calling for a moratorium on heritable edits to the human genome.
In an essay published in Nature in May, a group of prominent Chinese bioethicists denounced he and called for a total revamp of China's governance of research ethics.
In January, he was fired from the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China.
Oh, that kind of sucks.
I don't think he should be fired.
Researchers, well, I don't know why he was fired.
Researchers are careful to point out that debate over his work shouldn't discount CRISPR's transformative medical potential, since the gene editing technique doesn't make heritable changes in many therapeutic applications.
For example, to treat a genetic disease, scientists can harvest cells from a person's organ, repair those cells' genes with CRISPR, and reintroduce the modified cells to that organ to repopulate it.
Similarly, researchers could use CCR5-Triangle32 to help treat HIV by modifying the immune cells Of someone who already has the disease.
They say... They go on.
uh... when uh... they go on when he edited the baby girls genomes however he did so
when they were just fertilized eggs
which meant that his edits are present in nearly every cell in their bodies
including their eggs if these babies nicknamed lulu and nana
decide to have children later in life with their unaltered eggs
their offspring are guaranteed to have at least one broken copy of ccr-5
so that's that's really interesting uh...
they go on to say the difference is as big as modifying the entire operating
system of a computer as opposed to modifying one single piece of software
installed for a particular task.
CRISPR also isn't 100% accurate, so it's possible that other genes of the babies have been altered, with unclear and unintended consequences.
So that's my big issue, is what if these kids grow up and become really crazy, freakish mutants?
What if they end up having brittle skin or broken bones or something?
What if their arms end up becoming twice as long?
Who knows?
I don't know.
But I will say, back in the 50s, a lot of comic books were fascinated by radiation, so there was this idea that you can get superpowers from radiation.
I think now we'll see a wave of people who are genetically engineered.
And look at the later iterations of Spider-Man.
They're now saying it's not... The Sam Raimi one said it was a genetically modified spider that gave him his power and not radiation.
I'm going off on a tangent with the comic book stuff, but I'll leave it there.
