Google Is Manipulating Our Elections, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, PragerU CENSORED Youtube Insider Says
Youtube Insider Says Tim Pool And Dave Rubin CENSORED By Youtube. In a new expose Project Veritas shows documents as well as an interview with a whistleblower confirming that Google is suppressing certain political views. In the interview he says that Tim Pool (me) and Dave Rubin are being suppressed on youtube.Other Google employees express far left social justice opinions and state they don't want another "Trump situation" and want to impose their view of 'fairness' on Google.But my channel is doing better than ever. My views are up, my subscriptions are up, my recommendations are slightly up in some areas but all in all I don't have any data showing that Youtube is suppressing me. In fact based on my discussions with Google it seems the opposite is true, Youtube is helping me.Regardless of whether Youtube suppresses my content or not Google should not be meddling in elections and its about time congress got together and started trying to solve this problem.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Project Veritas has released their latest expose, a combination of undercover filming and a whistleblower from inside Google.
They filmed several Google employees saying certain things, and then they also received documents from a whistleblower that corroborated those details.
So it seems to be that this information is completely legitimate.
Now there's something interesting in this story in that I have been named personally.
The whistleblower says that people like Dave Rubin, Tim Poole, as well as Prager University have been targeted and have seen their recommendations go down.
It's really, really interesting.
So I started digging into various analytics for different channels.
I do not believe that... So first I need to say, In this regard, I think we need to define what a recommended view is versus any other type of view.
There's a bunch of different definitions, and I will tell you this.
Recommended views are not a word that has a definition within Google Analytics.
Google Analytics has browse features, channel page, suggested videos.
Suggested videos refers to some type of recommendation, but it's not the only type of recommendation.
So there's actually a really interesting problem that I have with my name being brought into this, uh, this...
Um, whistleblower statement.
I'm not saying I think he's wrong.
Maybe it's true.
They actually said they want to suppress my content, but my views are way, way up.
And yes, my views are being recommended to new people.
So it's not necessarily the same recommendation.
I don't know what they're trying to say, but let's do this.
Before we get into all of that and start breaking down what was said and looking at analytics, let's read some of this story because there's also some other really damning information in here.
Project Veritas' headline reads, Insider blows whistle and exec reveals Google plan to
prevent Trump situation in 2020 on hidden cam.
Insider, Google is bent on never letting anybody like Donald Trump come to power again.
Google Head of Responsible Innovation says Elizabeth Warren misguided on breaking up Google.
Let's stop here.
I've never been a big fan of Donald Trump.
In fact, quite the opposite.
As I say all of the time, look, there are some things you can give him credit for, and I'm not crazy, so I will.
The economy is doing great, fine.
The Democrats are now on board with the border funding, for the most part, except for the far-left Democrats.
And for the most part, Trump's foreign policy, to me, has been bad because it's always been bad with Bush and Obama.
There was commando raids in Yemen.
There was a Saudi weapons deal.
There's drone strikes, etc.
The list goes on.
Syrian missile strikes.
Here's the thing, though.
Trump pulled back on Iran, so I gotta give him credit for that because these are the things I care about the most.
However, Saying that even Elizabeth Warren is misguided on breaking up Google is alarm bells to me.
No, Google is too powerful, 100%.
And Elizabeth Warren is not wrong.
Misguided in some sense in that maybe she doesn't know how to go about it properly, but I'll say this.
She's not wrong.
Something needs to be done.
And I will stand next to Elizabeth Warren as she calls for action against the big tech giant, some anti-trust or anti-monopoly measures, and Maxine Waters who said, we gotta stop Facebook's currency.
Absolutely.
I don't care what your politics are.
Those are the Democrats I was looking for.
Now, I think Elizabeth Warren's got a whole other list of problems, and I think Tulsi and Yang are better, but that's besides the point.
The point here is we don't have to be partisan when we're talking about stopping massive tech giants with international allegiance from subverting our elections and democratic process.
Quite literally, in this video, the woman talks about not letting something happen.
Who are you to decide what should or shouldn't happen?
That's not democracy.
No, that's techno-fascism.
These people are... Like, I'm gonna say it, and I don't use it slightly.
But this woman, you're gonna have to go and watch the video, it's a half an hour long, so go watch it, if you haven't already.
But this woman in the video talks about how they're going to decide what's fair, Trump supporters don't agree with them, but they don't care, they're gonna do something about it anyway.
How is that not fascistic?
Sure, you can argue it's not fascism because fascism is X, Y, or Z, but let's look at the base word of fascism, where it comes from.
It comes from, my understanding is, a bundle of sticks.
Together are very strong.
That's what it was meant, you know, the people who use the word didn't think they were evil, but yes, they were authoritarian and believe that together they can impose their will on other people.
So we can avoid the academic argument and just say it's technocratic authoritarianism.
It's a technocratic autocracy, oligopoly.
It's a dystopian nightmare.
No, just because you got this job and hold some fringe identitarian religion in your mind doesn't mean you should have a right to subvert our elections.
I don't like Donald Trump.
But I will stand against any authoritarian wingnut who thinks they have a right to tell people what they can or can't think.
That's a terrifying future.
But I digress.
Let's move on.
Google exec says don't break us up.
Smaller companies don't have the resources to prevent next Trump situation.
Insider says PragerU and Dave Rubin content suppressed, targeted as right-wing.
He does mention my name in this as well.
And I have found something really interesting.
And I think I know what's going on, actually.
So it's not that it's not true, but I've done... In terms of my channel, I'm doing really well.
But I've done some digging, and I think I have some analytics, and I can tell you exactly what YouTube is doing, when they started doing it, and why they're doing it.
Leaked documents highlight machine learning fairness and Google's practices to make search results fair and equitable.
Documents appear to show editorial policies that determine how Google publishes news.
Insider.
Google violates letter of law and spirit of the law on section 230.
So I can't speak to all that.
But we have this woman, Jen Janai, head of responsible innovation at Google.
And we have several quotes from her.
Now, you may remember that I did a video on Veritas' other video about Pinterest.
And Google took it down for a privacy violation on a publicly available website that was going viral on Twitter.
I wonder now if they'll do the same thing for me mentioning one of their employees.
So...
You've heard it from me.
I've addressed the issue.
I wonder what will happen if YouTube takes this video down for me commenting on a newsworthy story about how Google may have just been implicated in trying to subvert U.S.
elections.
What a nightmare that is.
They complain all day and night about Russia.
I want to see the Democrats on board right now calling out Google for trying to interfere in our electoral process.
Plain and simple.
Facebook, too.
But we've got evidence now on Google, it would seem.
So, they basically show we're talking about Elizabeth Warren, which we've gone over, and how she... I'll read this.
She says, Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe, this is the third tech insider who has bravely stepped forward to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley.
These new documents, supported by undercover video, raise questions of Google's neutrality and the role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections.
Jen Janai is the head of Responsible Innovation for Google, a sector that monitors and evaluates the responsible implementation of artificial intelligence technologies.
In the video, Janai says Google has been working diligently to prevent the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020.
She said, we all got screwed over in 2016.
Again, it wasn't just us.
It was the people got screwed over.
The news media got screwed over.
Like, everybody got screwed over.
So we're rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?
We're also training our algorithms.
Like, if 2016 happened again, we would have, would the outcome be different?
She talks about, I kid you not, the craziest thing.
She talks about how Congress calls them in to testify, and they won't, because they don't want to sit there getting attacked, and they won't change their minds anyway.
That's terrifying.
I made a video about Mark Zuckerberg refusing to appear for a subpoena in Canada, and now we have Google employee, presumably, okay, because I actually don't know who Jen Janai is, admittedly, but I actually believe Veritas did their due diligence on this, so, who I presume to be a Google employee, saying straight up, we're not going to listen to Congress.
They're above you.
They don't care about you, and they don't care about our politicians.
And I said it before.
Do you think Google cares what Congress thinks?
And do you think anyone in Congress will do anything to stop them?
Welcome to your future.
If someone tries running for office under the policy position of breaking up Google and stripping their power away, guess who will disappear from search?
They apparently don't like me, and I challenge them every day.
I actually think this is technically not true, but I'll get into this.
So they talk about fair and equitable state.
They really are pushing their identitarian ideology.
Now this is the document I believe... So here's the thing.
I don't know whether these are true or not.
You can trust Veritas if you trust Veritas.
That's fine.
People choose who they trust.
But this document to me was really interesting because I believe I can somewhat verify its authenticity.
Not perfectly, but there's a reason I believe this is completely legitimate because I do have sources within Google and it corroborates some other information I've known about in the past.
That leads me to believe that this is likely Corroborated.
More importantly, Veritas has got people on camera talking about this, so it's possible Veritas didn't do their due diligence.
I think that would be unlikely, but I believe this to be legitimate.
In this right here, it says, it's very hard to see, but it says Editorial Guidelines.
There's a flowchart.
where they talk about their quality checks for publisher registration requests.
And it says Google has editorial guidelines. Is Google the New York Times? Technically,
yes, they are. Think about what the New York Times was back in the day and all the newspapers.
They were places where people could buy space to espouse their message, advertising. And there
were places where the New York Times chose what was newsworthy.
Now we have Google dominating about half of the advertising market and allowing people to,
you know, spread stories.
But while Google might claim not to be a publisher, it appears they have editorial guidelines as to who can be accepted as a trustworthy source.
There are some interesting things that have happened to me in the past with Google that I can't necessarily talk about that make me really curious as to what's happening behind the scenes.
I've had some interesting interactions with Google that give me pause, but for the most part they seem to be helping me out.
That's all I can really say.
The leaked documents appear to show that Google makes news decisions about what news they promote and distribute on their site.
Comments made by Janai raise similar questions.
In a conversation with Veritas journalist, Janai explains that conservative sources and credible sources don't always coincide according to Google's editorial practices.
Now we're going to move on.
We're going to move on because there's a lot to go through with Veritas and I recommend you actually watch their video, but check this out.
The Insider shed additional light on how YouTube demotes content from influencers like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool.
Interesting.
What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine.
And so what the recommendation engine is, it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you're probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they're doing is that they're going to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN or MSNBC, or these left-leaning political outlets.
I immediately got inundated with emails from people who were sending me this story, telling me I'd been suppressed.
And I want to stress something.
Listen, when someone comes out and directly says my channel is being suppressed, trust me that I know about it.
And seriously, I got hundreds of emails all saying the exact same thing.
So I really appreciate the concern, but trust me when I say I am up I am apprised of things targeting my channel.
I know a lot more than I can actually talk about, because I have sources and I protect them, and there's some information that can't be made public.
I have seen internal Google documents, which give me insight into what they're doing and why they're doing it.
I can't publish the information because it would compromise sources.
So it's a very difficult business to be in.
But I have Google employees who I've known for years.
I also have new employees who have reached out to me.
They've provided me with documents.
It's not too dissimilar to what Veritas has published here, but have asked me, like, this could help you with insight, but if you publish it, they will know it came from me.
I cannot publish information that would compromise a source, so I can't.
But I can tell you, I know certain things.
I've seen internal polls on the politics at Google, and there's some things I can't necessarily talk about, but I know a decent amount.
And I have spent time inside Google's offices, so I know a lot of people there.
So, I'll put it this way.
Yes, I know about a lot of this.
I do not believe the intention, as it's being stated, from the source, is to try and, like, censor me or Reuben or anybody and take us down.
While there may be some censorship or otherwise, I do not believe that the ultimate goal is to, like, eliminate my channel or cause us overt harm.
For the most part.
But I'll say this.
It does seem there's been a shift in the recommendation engine.
But I don't think that is as nefarious as people believe it to be.
The Google Insider talked about going to a meeting where, in May, they specifically said they were going to make changes that would derank, you know, me, Dave Rubin, or otherwise.
I'm not going to publish all of my analytics because, seriously, there's like probably 50 charts I'd have to go through and to break down the data to explain everything to you.
But it does appear that on my second channel, there was a change in recommendations following the beginning of May.
Unfortunately, the beginning of May is also when I started changing a bit of my format and took two days off, so it's hard to track specifically what happened or why.
But I can see that my recommendations to people who are not subscribed to my channel went down by about 15 or 20%, and the recommendations to people who are subscribed to my channel went up by like 15 or 20%.
I don't know what that means or why, but in the long run, it does not appear that my recommendations are down in any substantive way.
In fact, on my main channel, recommendations appear to be way up.
I will say, one of the difficult things with tracking my personal data is that I recently appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast twice, and Steven Crowder's show twice.
And that makes it hard to know what is influencing my channel.
Well, let's move on.
Because Breitbart certainly covered the story.
There the story says, Google insider project Veritas, YouTube deliberately suppresses PragerU,
Dave Rubin and Tim Pool. I'm just highlighting this to show it has become a big enough issue
where I'm going to directly address what they said and I'm going to show you my social blade,
which is publicly available information. In the past 30 days on my second channel,
not this one, Timcast News, my subscribers are up 131.8 percent. My views are up 33.7 percent.
These are not recommendations.
I know a lot of people got mad when I conflated this with recommendations in the past, but recommendation isn't a used term by YouTube internally.
Maybe it's used as like a slang term.
When you go to YouTube Analytics, you have Browse Features.
You have suggested videos, you have channel page, and others, external sources.
Suggested videos may be the closest thing to what a recommendation is.
After someone watches a video, does YouTube then say, hey, you might like this?
Or, on the right side, do they say, hey, you might like this?
One thing I can't say is true.
In my analytics, when I clicked suggested videos, the first thing I saw was a huge drop-off.
I'm talking a 90 plus percent drop-off for select videos in the beginning of May.
When I first saw this, I said, whoa, whoa, maybe something did happen.
But then I realized it was actually just tracking five specific videos.
There are certain videos of mine on my main channel which were absolutely deranked.
They're not suggested anymore.
They don't pop up for whatever reason.
They still get views, they do, but they're not suggested.
I don't know what recommended means.
We'll come back to this.
However, I changed to track by date, meaning on what day, how many recommendations do I get, And there's no change at all.
None.
My recommendations are slowly going up.
Now, naturally, there's a big spike when I went on the Joe Rogan podcast, which makes sense because there were a ton of videos about me.
So let me go over this.
Let me show you the data.
First...
This is my second channel.
You can see that I've been averaging over the past month 2,000 subscribers per day.
I can't say I feel like I'm being suppressed.
An average of 841,000 views per day.
Now, we can see certain days where the views are up.
And we can see that at one point in, I believe this is March, I peaked with 27 million views in the month and it's gone down.
People have tried to point to this to claim, aha, that's when they're throttling you.
No.
This is me coming off of the Joe Rogan podcast and two appearances.
So yes, my views will naturally go down following a major promotional event where my name was plastered all over the place because of newsworthiness.
So I expect my views to go down a little bit, but in fact, from when I went on the Joe Rogan Podcast to today, here's the beginning of February.
18.75 million views.
I went on the Joe Rogan Podcast in that month, and now I'm still way above that right now with 25.24 million views.
In fact, I, uh, yes, yes, I'm at 25.241, uh, 25 million views.
In fact, I, uh, yes, yes, I'm at 25.2241, uh, 25 million views.
Let's call it that.
So my views are still doing really well.
As for the change in recommendations, let me just stress, in terms of a general term, what is a recommended view?
There's browser features, which means, when you go to YouTube.com, what do you see?
Okay?
You see 15 videos that YouTube decides you might like.
I would consider that to be a recommendation, because most of my viewers are not subscribed to either of my channels.
I'm getting 35 million views per month.
I have a combined 1.2 million subscribers between three channels.
So I can guarantee that people watch my videos and are not subscribed.
In fact, I can look at the data and see a substantial portion of my viewers are not subscribed to my channel.
But every day, I'm getting a lot.
This is my second channel, by the way.
We can see that in May of last year, I deleted some videos.
About 1 million views worth.
I think this was one video I turned private because it was a short clip and it didn't really make sense and I was going to change the channel.
From then, my views have just kept going up and up and up.
Granted, I've increased my workload.
I've becoming more popular.
The more work you do, you know, success follows to a certain extent.
So, this spike right here in subscribers, Joe Rogan.
So I gained almost a hundred thousand subs in one month.
This spike shows you why views spiked.
But views were stable.
Subscribers went down to normal levels, but views were stable.
This means more people who subscribe to my channel stayed and watched.
Let's go to my main channel.
I am currently up 84.9% and up 159% in subscribers.
I'm sorry, the 84.9% that was viewership.
I'm at 9.166 million views in the past 30 days, and I did take down a few really old videos that I thought might get me in trouble because I have no idea what YouTube wants at this point.
I figured they were nearly 2 years old, they had almost no views, and it was like 10 videos that were like vlog kind of things where I talked about
certain issues and I said you know what these should come down just in case it's better get rid of
two-year-old videos nobody watches and so I probably would be at like 9.5 million if I didn't
delete it was like 300,000 views-ish let me show you something people have tried to claim this
is proof of suppression They say, look, you got a bunch of views and it went down for a year and that's going up.
Then it goes down again.
Oh no, it went down again.
Listen, this spike right here is Sweden.
I went to Sweden.
It was newsworthy.
I was talked about all over the news.
People were searching my name.
Then I slowly started figuring out and refining what my channel was and went from more on the ground vloggy stuff to political commentary.
Around here, we can see the growth of my political commentary versus on the ground vlogging.
The vlogging wasn't always journalism.
It was sometimes commentary with me walking around outside.
I decided to stick to commentary and make a new channel if I'm going to do anything on the ground, which we're doing.
This spike, once again, Joe Rogan.
And then some.
And we can see that my views peaked in February.
Once again, Joe Rogan.
I can't say it enough.
Thanks, Joe, for having me on the show.
I really appreciate it.
Help my channel out.
And as of right now, in the beginning of May, something happened.
I don't know what, but this insider said in May they had a meeting and they decided to suppress videos like from Tim Pool.
Except my views are way up!
Look at this.
Let me go down and show you.
This says May 1st, I had 6.33 million views in the month of May.
And I had 27,000 new subs in the month of May.
We are now nearing the end of June, and I'm at 9.1 million views.
I'm up.
My subscribers are more than double.
Or about double.
May.
So if they were suppressing me in May, sure.
Now here's what some people have said to me.
Tim, you're succeeding in spite of the censorship.
I don't believe that's what's happening.
So I'm gonna tell you exactly what I think is going on and why it's happening.
Whether or not it's nefarious or whether or not is besides the point.
The intent doesn't matter.
I'll tell you why I think it's happening.
And the mainstream media is at fault.
There seriously is a YouTube war happening.
Here's Prager University, who has seen a massive growth of subscribers and views.
So sure, maybe YouTube isn't recommending them anymore.
But PragerU has seen their subscribers dip this month as of... In May, they had 30,000.
Well, they have 35,000 for June.
We can see their views are actually up a little bit to 24.5 million in May, and their views are a little bit less this month, but still a boost over the last 30 days.
So however that worked out.
I guess because in April they were at 21?
However that makes sense.
Here's the thing.
Well, I will check out Dave too.
Dave's views are up.
His subs are way down.
I can't speak necessarily to Dave, but his channel started going down in April and then went down for May.
You've got to take a look at people's content as well.
Like, Dave's views are up because he's been, I think he's been segmenting his videos up into clips.
I'm going to tell you what's happening.
I took a look at my channel, and I look at suggested videos I mentioned earlier, and I saw that some videos were no longer being recommended.
It's very simple.
YouTube's recommendation algorithm didn't discriminate at all, and they felt... I'll put it this way.
The algorithm wasn't refined enough, and I think what YouTube is trying to do is say, if you're not into politics, we're not going to send you to politics.
Plain and simple.
The complaint was that people would watch one video, and the algorithm didn't differentiate between what was news and commentary and what was, like, gaming or otherwise, perhaps because there's been an overlap in the culture war.
Certain videos of mine no longer get recommended.
Around May this happened.
However, my overall recommendations are pretty much the same and slightly up.
That would suggest, based on viewership, they're a little bit down.
I'm not complaining, because my browser features are skyrocketing, which means YouTube is sending my videos to people not- Let me try, this is difficult to explain.
If you watch a video, you may get recommended my videos less.
However, if you go to YouTube.com, you are more likely to see my video, which means YouTube is sending my videos to people unprompted.
I also want to stress, I have been given VIP access at VidCon for a bunch of parties.
I have a partner manager with YouTube who helps with mistakes and problems.
When my videos are wrongly demonetized, they help me out and I've coordinated.
Right now, there are some issues.
One of my videos was taken down, presumably, because Pinterest lawyers were upset.
And I'm in a dispute over this.
I can understand a dispute like this happening, considering it's a lawyer making a request to YouTube.
I think YouTube is wrong, and we're going to argue it.
This is a problem that shouldn't exist.
YouTube should not be making editorial decisions.
If we want to talk about what Google is doing as a whole, I believe the Veritas report to be true.
I believe the whistleblower, and I believe, based on some of the documents I've seen, they coincide with other information I've received, and I believe this to be factually accurate.
That's a problem.
Google should not be meddling in our elections.
They are.
They are not the moral arbiters.
They should not be imposing their ideology and their dogma on the rest of the world.
And this is why monopolies are problems.
And this is why I've always been pretty socially liberal and believe the government needs to come in and regulate to some capacity.
But I want to make sure I stress, I understand that this guy is saying my videos are being targeted.
I don't necessarily think what's happening is intended to be like, your wrong thinkers were getting rid of you.
I think it's more so, let's make sure news talk is in its own category.
That's why my recommendations on the browse page are going up.
But my recommendations following videos are going down.
If you're already subscribed to me, you're more likely to see more videos.
If you're not subscribed to me, you'll still see my videos, but they'll appear on the front homepage.
Again, let me stress, I do not believe I'm being suppressed.
Some people have said to me, you're just, you know, YouTube's placating you, Tim.
They're offering you these great things and these great tools and these VIP programs because they want you to feel happy as the ship burns down.
Maybe.
Sure.
I don't think that's the case.
So something happened in May, may have been the result of me or otherwise, that massively increased my viewership.
If someone were to tell me that something happened in May and YouTube made a decision targeting me, I'd be like, I can only assume they flicked the switch to increase my viewership because my videos went from averaging like 120k in April to averaging 250 or more After May.
So did YouTube suppress my content or boost it?
Again, recommendations may be different.
Let's not focus on one aspect.
I think, as a whole, YouTube isn't hurting me at all.
And I will also stress, the position I am in thanks to YouTube is giving rise to other outlets which will not fall into the same categories.
Whether or not YouTube, whatever they're doing, if they think they're surprising me or otherwise doesn't matter, because I have set up contingency plans, and I want to stress right now, if you made it half an hour through this video, you must really like me for some reason, but let me stress, my podcast, across all podcast platforms, is now consistently breaking 10,000 downloads per day.
While that may not be great compared to some of the biggest podcasts, and compared to the average of, you know, I'm getting almost a million views per day on YouTube as a whole, Between my two channels, like 1.2 million or like 1.1 to 1.2 million.
My podcast breaking 10,000 per day means where was I a year ago?
A year ago I was getting about 20,000 to 30,000 per day.
So 10,000 isn't as good as I was a year ago and I'm way better now.
I'm in a way bigger position.
But if my podcast is doing well, I'm not so concerned if YouTube wants to try and shut me down because I am setting up my business to survive in other ways.
Listen.
YouTube recommendations are not a right.
They are a privilege.
YouTube has no obligation to decide you should be shown to anyone.
It does present a problem, then, if we have a tech monopoly that is giving favorable political coverage to certain groups.
Google has destroyed the news market, they're dominating the ad market, and it does become nightmarish if Google's internal politics then start, you know, they dictate we're going to push these things.
A monopoly should not control thought in that way.
But in the end, As long as YouTube is hosting my videos, I can't really complain.
And I gotta admit, whatever you wanna call a recommended view, YouTube does recommend my videos more today than they did a month ago, two months ago.
Now admittedly, metric-wise, around the Joe Rogan and Steven Crowder appearances, there's a huge bump in recommendations.
I try to eliminate those as outliers and remove the spikes, which means my growth has been pretty stable.
I don't believe I am being throttled.
I believe some of my videos have been.
I believe that YouTube is trying to stop what's viewed as the pipeline towards radicalization, meaning if you watch a gaming channel, you won't be recommended a news channel.
But if you watch news channels, you'll still be recommended news channels.
I don't know for sure.
The whistleblower probably knows better than I do.
And perhaps I'm just succeeding in spite of all this.
But let me just stress one more point.
Steven Crowder, uh, it's hard to track, but his subscribers are still up over the last 30 days.
He deleted a bunch of videos, it appears, so I'm not trying to drag him for this, but it appears that his channel is fairly static in terms of views.
It's up and down and up and down.
It's been worse a few months ago.
It was worse before that.
It was worse a year ago.
So Crowder is succeeding, in spite of what they might be trying to do.
Prager University is still succeeding, in spite of what they're trying to do, and Dave Rubin as well.
YouTube should not put their thumb on the scales.
I agree.
But we're all still succeeding.
If YouTube deletes us tomorrow, I'm going to say this.
It's your own fault.
We know they're a monopoly.
We know they have a political agenda.
We know they're censorious.
Take precautions now.
We can keep fighting the good fight, but you better put your eggs in a different basket.
And I want to make one more very, very important point before I sign off on probably one of the longest videos I've done in a long time.
You, as a YouTuber, are not free from market forces.
I also want to make sure I stress, your recommendations might be down because other channels have emerged that are better than yours.
Let me put it that way.
I've been producing more and more content.
It's entirely possible.
There are a finite amount of people who watch political commentary on YouTube.
And if you are producing less than other people, the algorithm will favor those who work harder.
If your content is not as good, the algorithm will favor other channels.
Perhaps my commentary is better than yours.
I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying.
And I'm not targeting any channels in particular, because I wouldn't know how to quantify this data anyway, I'm just saying.
Your views may be down, because my views are up.
People can only watch so much content in the day, and if people prefer to watch someone else, guess what?
Your channel won't do as well.
While we know YouTube does these things, okay?
So does Twitter and Facebook.
If you get it in your mind that the only reason your channel is doing bad is because a big, tough tech giant is suppressing you, you will never change and try and improve your product.
No matter what YouTube does, no matter what Facebook does or Twitter does, it will always be your fault.
That doesn't mean we don't fight back.
That doesn't mean we don't challenge censorship.
It means prepare and take personal responsibility if you get banned.
YouTube, right now, has been great to me.
My videos are doing better than ever, my views are way up, my subscribers are way up, everything's going great.
Revenue is great.
I have a safety net thanks to all of you who support my channel, and it's being used for two things.
Subverse, and also I'm going to be launching a news rating agency.
It's happening.
I'm getting to the point where we're reviewing people, we're setting up the office.
It will happen.
So whether or not this all goes away is fine.
I'm planning outside of YouTube, as you should as well.
Plain and simple.
I've addressed it.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm being suppressed, but because I went on Rogan and Crowder, I've got a massive boost in subscribers, but I'm actually being suppressed.
And if at the end of the day, at the end of the month, end of the year, YouTube deleted all of my channels and I no longer existed, I wouldn't cry about it.
It sucks that YouTube does this.
I don't like tech giants manipulating public discourse and meddling in our elections and pushing a political agenda, which we now have evidence they're doing, which we kind of knew they were doing for a while.
But I will always end by saying I came from a world where I had nothing.
I'm not going to cry over going back to the way things used to be.
Sure, it sucks when you spill your milk, but...
Go find new milk!
I'm not somebody who's going to shed a tear.
I am a moderate individual.
I believe these companies need to be regulated because they're growing out of control.
But I also believe in personal responsibility.
If at the end of the day, the system they control excises me, I will have no problem getting in my van, driving to some lake in the middle of nowhere, and going fishing, and building a little mud hut, and just chilling out.
I really would not care.
It is what it is.
There's things that are right and there's things that are wrong.
And I don't like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
deciding they're going to tell us what morals are.
That's authoritarianism.
And it's going to lead to a very, very dark, nightmarish future.
We have to do something about it.
But in the end, I want to stress this.
Don't cry if you don't win the fight.
Just keep fighting, keep your head about you, and make sure you can protect your resources so the fight can continue.
If tomorrow my YouTube channels were gone, I still have the podcast generating 10,000 downloads per day.
It's the Tim Pool Daily Show for those that are curious.
Go watch it.
I still have that.
And I will promote and do my thing there.
More importantly, I'm on MINDS.
M-I-N-D-S dot com slash timcast.
I'll put my videos up there if I have to.
I'm also getting around ten to twenty thousand views per day on that platform.
I'm not blind to the problems of a tech monopoly.
I talk about it all day, every day.
So I'll say this last thing to Prager, to Dave, to Crowder, to Roaming Millennial, to The Quartering.
Those are basically the channels I watch.
But Prager and them, they're the ones mentioned specifically.
But if you're a political YouTuber, I'm not worried about it.
I would have no problem sitting back with a piece of straw in my mouth, a straw hat and overalls, going fishing, starting my own fires, and just living.
I have like 20,000 subs on both channels, so I'm preparing for YouTube saying we're the big dog and you're out of the
program I'm not worried about it
I'm not I would have no problem sitting back with a piece of straw in my mouth a straw hat and overalls
Going fishing start my own fires and just living in fact It would be so nice to get away from the insanity the
fighting the nonsense and make a YouTube channel Where I just go fishing every day and say hey today
We're fishing over here in this lake by this mountain Wouldn't that be nice just to get away from it all?
Give me an excuse.
Seriously, give me an excuse.
But until then, everything is going pretty well for most people.
People are successful.
If you're not successful enough on YouTube, find other ways to be successful.
Think about a world without YouTube and where we used to be.
I understand YouTube's powerful, I understand they're dominating the commons, but there's still opportunity elsewhere, and it will only come if you make it happen.
So here's what you should do.
Final thought.
Go to mines.com slash timcast, m-i-n-d-s dot com slash timcast, follow me there and sign up.
The only way we make the world a better place is if we decide to do it and we stop taking drugs.
YouTube is the drug.
It is the easiest, most successful platform, you know, easiest path of success for any platform.
But we can see that they're not happy with what we're doing.
Fine.
Then we need to make sure we take it other places.
Plain and simple.
So that's why I'm on multiple platforms.
I don't know what else to say, but thanks for hanging out.
I've got more videos coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you there.
No one said solving these problems were going to be easy.
And no one said there won't be suffering along the way.
There will be suffering.
It will be hard.
It will be a big challenge.
Right now, we have Democrats who are agreeing to a $4.5 billion package that will help with the border crisis.
A record number of families and migrants are heading towards the border.
They're crossing the border.
They're in extremely dangerous situations.
It doesn't make sense to just leave them because people have died.
And that's the story we're looking at now.
Apparently, it doesn't make sense to put them in detention centers either because the conditions are really bad.
So I don't know what the solution is.
What I can say, though, is that one thing we can do is provide the funding requested by law enforcement, Border Patrol, ICE, whatever, to do something to alleviate the tensions and the stress.
The answer is not do nothing.
I saw this story and I got really mad.
I did.
Border Patrol finds four bodies, including three children in South Texas.
The body of a 20-year-old woman was found together with the children, the sheriff said.
Whose fault is this?
There have been people who have died in the custody of CBP.
It is not the fault of CBP that these children showed up sick and dying.
However, there is at least a little bit of responsibility.
Maybe we could have done more.
They were in the custody of our law enforcement.
Maybe something could have been done.
But for the most part, people are being incentivized to go on dangerous journeys where they're dying.
And so if we did nothing, the same outcome would likely have happened.
I don't like the idea that there are a bunch of people in cramped situation, you know, these cramped, you know, detention centers with no running water, nowhere to sleep.
It sounds terrifying.
At the same time, what do we do?
The Democrats don't have an answer.
Trump does.
He wants to build a wall.
Maybe it doesn't make sense.
I don't know.
Like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said it was immoral.
Great.
Well, you still have record families coming, so at least propose something.
Finally, we're on the same page.
Most Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to do this package because we need funding for these facilities.
Accept.
The progressive Democrat wing are refusing, and they say not $1.
So I'm going to say, yeah, this is partly their fault.
Because they're refusing to step up, because they're pandering, because they're signaling to their base instead of doing what needs to be done and making the hard choices.
The answer is not do nothing.
Because when you do nothing, you get this.
Families that are being encouraged to take these journeys in increasing numbers, because for whatever reason, They think they can make it in if they just come now.
Because more and more are coming, and because other Democrats are basically saying no ICE, no detention centers, and no border barrier, and no border security.
So what do you get?
Literally open borders, if that's the case.
Well, most Democrats aren't okay with that, and that's why they're on board with this funding.
They've dragged their feet for the most part, but I can respect that they're here now.
But what about Cortez, who tweeted not $1, who said they want empathy and compassion over detention centers?
What does that even mean?
I don't know.
All they do is obstruct and offer nothing in exchange.
But you know what?
They rally their base when they do it, and this is the story we get.
It's actually a rather short story, and it's actually rather infuriating, maddening, and sad, and heartbreaking.
Border Patrol agents found four bodies, including three children near the Rio Grande River in South Texas on Saturday, Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra said.
Two of the children were infants and one was a toddler, Guerra said.
A 20-year-old woman was also found.
The deaths come amid a huge influx of undocumented immigrants at the southwest border and demonstrate how treacherous it is to journey, often on foot, to the U.S.
from Mexico and Central America.
The bodies were found southeast of Anzalduas Park in the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area, just north of Reynosa, Mexico, and south of McAllen, Texas, Guerra said.
He said deputies were awaiting FBI agents to lead the investigation.
More than 132,000 people were stopped while crossing the border illegally or presenting themselves at legal ports of entry in the month of May, the most in 13 years, U.S.
CBP officials said.
At least seven children are known to have died at the border since last year, though they were in CBP custody at the time.
The most recent death of a seven-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vazquez occurred last month after the boy was diagnosed with the flu.
What would have happened to these children if CBP wasn't there?
In fact, I believe they would have been worse off for it.
It's not like custom- You know, people like a lot of these Democrats are trying to present this image of concentration camps.
They want you to believe that these people, these children, are being round up and put on train carts and shipped off to, you know, a worse situation than they were in before.
But I would argue At least in these facilities, there is SOME kind of accountability.
I think these facilities sound horrifying.
If you've done any reading about them, they call them the Freezer.
One of them is called the Freezer.
But what's the alternative?
Children wandering through the wilderness.
And what happens?
Probably died of exposure.
These people were probably out in the wilderness, and they didn't have resources, they were cold, and people don't realize you can die from exposure very, very quickly.
One of the first things you need when you're out in the middle of nowhere is shelter.
And, look, I don't want to act like I know what happened, and I also want to make sure I stress The story from NBC News does make it seem like these are undocumented migrants.
It's possible they aren't.
It is.
I really doubt it, considering where they were found, but let's just entertain the fact that...
We don't have all the details here.
I bring this story up not to make accusations about this particular instance, but to highlight an example.
Seven children have died, and that is seven children too many.
These three children more makes ten, I believe, and that is ten children too many.
The answer isn't to do nothing, because they will still... Listen.
If we followed through with Ocasio-Cortez's plan, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, etc., their not-one-more-dollar plan, we get this.
We get a mother and three children wandering through the wilderness and dying.
That is not a solution.
We need to disincentivize this behavior.
We need to make it an impossibility.
We need to say, you cannot do this because if people are given the opportunity to take the risk, they will and then they die.
I don't know what the answer is to the border crisis.
I don't.
And, first of all, I shouldn't have to know, and most people shouldn't have to know.
It's just an issue of, we've identified the problem, we have seen people lose their lives, it is too many, and something needs to be done.
Trump has come up with a border barrier.
Perhaps that will work.
He's operating now on the advice of CBP and ICE officials, and here's what they've requested.
Homeland Security have requested certain funding and things like that.
So, okay.
Maybe that's what we should do.
Democrats, what do you propose?
Well, they dragged their feet, but at least they're here now saying, okay, fine, let's do something.
At least there are Democrats who are saying these children should not have died.
But what about these activist organizations like Common Dreams?
They say, not one more dollar, even as Trump postpones raids.
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Presley, and Tlaib vow to oppose all funding for hateful border agenda.
Yes, because providing funding to make sure that children aren't losing their lives on the border is hateful.
That's what they're doing.
That's the game they're playing.
I assure you, there are probably CBP and ICE officials who are bad people.
Because bad people exist.
But I do not believe.
For a moment.
CBP officials, on average, are laughing maniacally when they hear these stories.
I'm willing to bet, when these children died in the custody of CBP, you probably had a lot of officers sweating bullets, crying, and probably loaded with anxiety.
People don't seem to realize this, that, you know, you hear these stories about bad cops, and I refer to this as, like, the scaling problem.
I've used the example of iPhones before, but let's use the example of cops.
If you have a hundred police officers in your town, and one officer shoots somebody, and it's a questionable shooting, people say, well, it was one guy.
Scale up that same percentage to, you know, 10,000 cops, and now you've got substantially more, you know, instances.
People hear about these and they act like it's everything all the time.
But I assure you, in most circumstances, I would, well, I don't want to assure you, but I'd be willing to bet, considering I know people who worked in law enforcement, I don't want to act like I know better than anybody else, but I'm sure after these things happen, these people need therapy, okay?
People who go to war need therapy.
It's not like you're just like, haha, somebody's dead.
Let's move on from these stories, because I've got some other things I want to point out about the virtue signaling of the left and how it's driving me nuts.
This is from a few days ago.
Isn't it really funny?
Just two days ago, Common Dreams was talking about... I'm not going to accuse Common... I would assume Common Dreams supports Cortez, but they call it a hateful border agenda.
Okay, okay.
Explain to me what it means then when this woman and her kids are dead.
Is that what you wanted?
You didn't want funding for CBP.
You didn't want funding for the facilities.
You didn't want law enforcement to be able to find these people and bring them in and give them at least mylar blankets.
At least.
Is this preferable?
I ask this seriously to the Democrats on the far left and other far-left activists.
Was this the preferable outcome?
And I mean that with full sincerity.
You tell me.
You tell me what we should be doing.
So, Beto O'Rourke.
virtue signals. He tweets, I'm going to Homestead on Thursday. This administration's inhumane
policies of separating families and putting kids in camps must end. A Washington Post immigration
reporter said most kids in Homestead arrived in the US without parents. They're there until they
can be placed with a parent or sponsor. Washington Post reporter, but once again, a Democrat
signaling to their base saying orange man bad.
Is this the outcome you wanted?
Is this what you expected to happen?
You're upset that they would actually put people in holding facilities.
I don't like the idea of children being separated from their parents.
I also don't like the idea of people trafficking children.
I don't know what you do.
These people don't have the same documentation we would.
Even in the US, a guy with his kid, how do you prove it's really your kid?
It's a challenge.
It is.
So what do you do?
Honestly, I don't know, but I'm all ears.
This, I'll tell you what, is not the solution.
Because I would propose this.
I would much rather these three kids be in a chain-link fence, you know, chained area, under a Mylar blanket, than dead in the woods.
I don't know what the alternative is, but I'll tell you what one alternative could be.
Funding.
And if the Democrats and Republicans have agreed to it, why is the far left obstructing?
Because at least then they could maybe have better beds.
Some of the facilities are actually not that bad.
You know, the Democrats like to show the worst of the worst in terms of facilities, some of them operating under Obama.
And yes, they're not all that bad.
Some of them are.
Well, let's put funding towards it.
I am willing to have my tax dollars go to at least protecting the lives of the people who are here now.
Mr. Eric Swalwell.
The final thought for this morning segment.
He said, if you're Hispanic, there's nothing Donald Trump won't do to break up your family, cage your children, or erase your existence with a weaponized census.
And there's nothing we won't do in the streets, courts, and at the ballot box to stop him.
This man disgusts me.
This is the most vapid, sociopathic post I've seen in a really long time.
I do not believe for a moment Eric Swalwell cares at all about anyone.
He is politicking.
What did he just say?
Redheaded Libertarian on Twitter says, Eric Swalwell, the only thing lower than your polling numbers are the expectations you have for minorities.
The implication that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants who are trafficking children or something to that effect, or even to be a little bit lighter on it, the idea that Trump is targeting all Hispanics is one completely dishonest or implies that he really thinks all Hispanics are illegal immigrants who are skirting the law and hiding here in the U.S.
I assure you that's absolutely not true.
There are a lot of great American citizens who were born here You know, it's a virtue signal.
It solves nothing.
And you know what?
People don't play that game.
Some people do.
This person, Douglas Church, tweeted, We seem pretty uncaged if you ask me.
There's a smiling happy family.
There's one guy who says, I'm Hispanic and 100% Trump supporter, silly.
So, someone said I'm embarrassed for you, yikes.
My legally immigrated and naturally born Hispanic friends will disagree.
Eric, I'm Hispanic and behind our president.
The idea that the Democrats think they can lump everyone into a single category, to me, is grossly offensive.
And I'll tell you why it's grossly offensive, because I've experienced bigotry from these people from both sides of the political aisle.
Moderate liberals and moderate Republicans tend to be fine.
But you know what freaks me out?
Moderate conservatives, centrist types, and even staunch conservatives, to me, have not been bigoted towards me about my family, and they have not made assumptions about what my family does.
They've treated me with respect.
There's an ever-increasing movement on the mainstream left, the mainstream Democrats, which really does worry me.
This is Eric Swalwell.
He's not necessarily one of the far-left Democrats.
He tweets about it as a capitalist.
But they're embracing identitarianism, and that freaks me out.
Because I know where that leads for people like me, for my family, for how they will treat us.
And I'm not happy with that.
I'm not happy with the idea that he thinks simply if you're Hispanic, you're a target, and he can put you in a group of people who That's the assumptions they make.
I'll stop there.
They make the assumption that your race defines you.
I do not like that.
And that's why even though, policy-wise, I am center-left, culturally, I am not aligning with these fringe, identitarian weirdos.
So I'll end by saying one important thing.
To the Democrats who have stood up and said, we're going to do a bipartisan bill, you have my respect, and I wish you luck.
Please, get this bill done.
That is amazing that we have bipartisan support for it.
To the far-left Democrats, I think this is on you.
You're obstructing for the sake of looking good to a fringe urban base.
A group of people who live in cities with silver spoons in their mouths.
And I mean that literally.
Oh, I'm not literally a silver spoon, but I'm not exaggerating when I say, according to numerous reports, these woke identitarian leftists tend to make more than $100,000 per year on average.
That's who's pandering.
That's who they're pandering to.
That's who's pushing for these policies that result in dead kids.
Let's see if anyone wants to advertise on this video.
This problem, I think, will not get better, but I think it's important to break, you know, the mainstream, more like centrist Democrat types have finally broken the ranks and said, okay, Republicans, we've got to get this aid package.
The far left is resistant because the far left has been at odds in a civil war with the more moderate and incumbent Democrats.
They're going to resist the Democrats because they are actually opposed to each other.
I think we have three parties.
The Republican, the Democrats, and the far-left Democrats.
Because the far-left Democrats and the more mainstream, centrist, moderate corporate types, they're fighting each other.
So, the Democrats oppose Republicans because they refuse to give Trump a win.
And Ocasio-Cortez and her progressive wing are opposing the bipartisan bill because they don't want the incumbent Democrats to have a win either.
Politicking is causing people to lose their lives.
So I can give my praise to the Democrats who are signed onto this package to try and help people.
You have my respect.
As for Ocasio-Cortez, Presley, Omar, and Tlaib, absolutely not.
Some of this blame falls on you.
I'm not going to be so hyperbolic to play a stupid political game and say this is all your fault.
No, no, no, no.
I obviously don't think it was your intention.
I think you have good intentions, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
And it's about time you woke up to the fact that as long as these families keep trying to make these trips, these stories will keep happening.
And you can complain all day and night about the conditions, but if you block funding for these camps...
I shouldn't even call them camps.
Detention centers.
If you block the funding that goes to them, what do you think is going to happen?
The people there will continue to suffer, and the people trying to cross the border will lose their lives.
But you know what?
Maybe that's the political game.
They want it to happen.
They want the conditions to get worse and worse and then point to it and say, see?
We told you.
If you're the one blocking the funding, that is on you.
The horrible conditions are now on you, Ocasio-Cortez.
If these detention centers are getting bad, if these children don't have beds or toothbrushes or running water, well, there was bipartisan support for funding, but you refused, so that's your fault.
I'm not going to put the people who lose their lives on you.
They've chosen to take that journey, and it's dangerous, and we need to do something to disincentivize that behavior.
It's complicated, but I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think, comment below.
Stick around, the next segment will be at 1pm, and I will see you all then.
It isn't just Pinterest.
Now, a popular knitting website, Ravelry, which I've never heard of, has banned support for Donald Trump.
I have the story from The Guardian.
I also have their tweet and their official statement.
And they directly state that support for Trump is basically white supremacy.
And because of that, anybody who expresses support will be permanently banned.
And there's even a tweet from someone apparently showing a message they got.
When they were banned for simply saying that there were some things about Trump they admired.
That was it.
Now, a lot of people will say something like this.
Pinterest.
What's that?
Who cares that it's banning pro-lifers?
Ravelry.
Well, who cares about that?
It's a knitting website.
Who cares if they're banning Trump supporters?
It's going to start small.
It's going to start with these companies.
Admittedly, the big companies do engage in this activity.
The next segment I'm going to be covering is the Project Veritas story.
If you're not familiar, Project Veritas just published information from a Google insider revealing that, yes, Google is censoring and throttling people, potentially.
It's complicated.
But he's got a lot of documents showing that Google is trying to push their politics on everything.
So that's obviously happening, but the overt public actions are coming from websites that people probably won't care about.
You know why?
Because then in a year from now, when more companies come out banning Trump support, then when Facebook or Twitter does it, people are gonna be like, yeah, but supporting Trump is already banned across the board.
I feel like these actions are going to rapidly escalate cultural tensions and result in massive regulation of all tech companies.
So if I was gonna be like Google or Facebook, I'd hit up these little companies and be like, dude, seriously?
Stop.
Because this is what gets conservatives to start passing laws.
We already saw Josh Hawley proposed a bill that would strip Section 230 protections from tech giants, from social media companies.
This could impact everybody.
And when you see this, supporting Trump is a bannable offense, I assure you.
There's going to be Trump supporters calling their congressmen and saying, you've got to do something about this.
I predicted this months ago when I was talking to other people.
Regulation is coming.
I'm going to sneeze, but let's read the story.
White supremacy.
Popular knitting website Ravelry bans support for Trump.
Administrators take action to ensure site is inclusive of all.
Except Trump supporters, apparently.
And any minority who might support the president.
One of the biggest knitting websites in the world, which claims to have more than 8 million members, has announced that it will ban users from expressing support from Donald Trump, saying that to do so constitutes white supremacy.
8 million users.
Not too big.
Wouldn't be subject to Josh Hawley's regulation.
Still, 8 million people is substantial.
My understanding is that they're the biggest knitting website in the world, I guess?
Look, again, I'll stress, it may seem like it's not a big deal who cares about a knitting website, but it starts small, and you gotta nip it in the bud.
That's where the saying comes from.
Get it when it's small before it grows out of control.
On Sunday, administrators for Ravelry, a site for knitters, crotcheters, designers, and anyone dabbling in the fiber arts, said that they were making any expression of support for Trump and his administration in forum posts, patterns, or on personal profile pages or elsewhere permanently off-limits.
We cannot provide a space that is inclusive for all and also allow support for open white supremacy.
Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.
So this is part of the semantic campaign to change what white supremacy means on purpose because no one would ever dare claim they would support it.
White supremacy has a simple definition academically and in modern society.
It means that you believe the white, you know, white people are genetically superior.
That's not true at all, and it's a silly belief.
However, what they're doing now is claiming that anybody who supports the president is also a white supremacist.
We've seen the far left pushing this on purpose, because then you'll get to a point where when enough people say, no, it's not about supporting You know, the white race or believe in the superior.
It's about institutional power.
It's about the government.
They're gonna- they're gonna- seriously, they already say the US government is a white supremacist organization.
They want to get to the point where enough people say it and no one will ever agree to be a part of it.
The words to freak people out.
Because here's the thing.
Right now you got the fringe weirdos who manipulate the definition like this.
No, supporting Trump is not white supremacy.
But now if someone comes out and says they banned white supremacy, no one... What are you gonna do?
The average normie, you know, a person who's not initiated in politics or anything like that, is going to hear they banned white supremacy and they're gonna say, so what?
So did Facebook.
Not realizing it's literally a conflation of supporting the president.
You see how the game is being played?
It's being played a very specific way.
Facebook claims they're getting rid of, you know, white supremacy and all that stuff, and then once this website pushes, you know, the change in definition, Facebook can eventually get rid of support for the president, and you will not see his posts.
This is how They are gaming politics.
And it's so funny to me when I say giant corporations need to be regulated because they're manipulating public discourse and gaming our elections.
Users could also be permanently banned under the policy.
The Trump ban comes only months after political upheaval gripped the knitting and crochet community around issues of racial and cultural insensitivity.
The debate was sparked by popular knitwear designer and blogger Karen Templer, who wrote in January about a planned trip to India, likening it in her excitement to visiting Mars.
Many in the craft community objected to that characterization, calling it othering and reductive.
Can I get them a mirror?
Would you like a mirror to look into about othering?
Seriously?
That means they view people as an other, as an outsider, as not human.
What do you think they're doing now?
God, these people are insane.
Templar apologized soon afterwards, but the incident had a ripple effect, sparking off conversations about diversity and inclusivity in the craft community on Instagram, Ravelry, and other places that crafters congregate online.
A similar debate about cultural sensitivity and appropriation recently occurring in the sewing community.
So Ravelry tweeted, You see how they conflate the two, as I stated.
Ravelry said its new policy was not banning participation from people who supported Trump, only expression of that support.
and also allows support for open white supremacy. You see how they conflate the two, as I stated.
Ravelry said its new policy was not banning participation from people who supported Trump,
only expression of that support. And this is where it begins.
We are not endorsing the Democrats nor banning Republicans, the Post said.
We are definitely not banning conservative politics.
Hate groups and intolerance are different from other types of political positions.
They already consider half of the conservative views to be hate groups.
They're saying another president is white supremacy.
They're playing a game where they're trying to have it both ways.
No, you can be a conservative, just don't support the president.
Oh, then who do you support?
Plain and simple.
The policy drew on a similar statement made last year by role-playing game site RPG.net, which banned advocacy of Trump from its forums on the grounds that the Trump administration was an elected hate group.
His public comments, policies, and the makeup of his administration are so wholly incompatible with our values that formal political neutrality is not tenable.
We can be welcoming to persons of every ethnicity who want to talk about games, or we can allow support for open white supremacy, not both.
The knitting and crochet community has played a prominent role in the anti-Trump movement in the past, with women wearing homemade pink hats to demonstrations around his election and inauguration becoming a distinctive symbol of protest against his presidency.
So here's the official statement they made.
Let me zoom in a little bit.
This is from yesterday.
We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry.
This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content.
Note that your project data will never be deleted.
We will never delete your Ravelry project data for any reason, and if a project needs to be removed from the site, we will make sure that you have access to your data.
If you are permanently banned from Ravelry, you will still be able to access any patterns that you purchase.
Also, we'll make sure that you received a copy of your data.
We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and allows support for open white supremacy.
Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.
And welcome to your future.
Donald Trump's policy positions.
Some of them are a bit more aggressive than we've seen in the past.
Many of them fall in line with where the Democrats were 10 years ago.
These people have lost the plot.
Bernie Sanders currently agrees that we should not have open borders because there's too many poor people.
But he seems to contradict himself in many ways.
Trump calling for a border barrier That's 30 feet high and a big beautiful concrete wall is an extreme version of the border policies that were being enacted by Democrats 10 years ago.
But where Trump has settled today is around the same place as Democrats 10 years ago.
What happened in the past 10 years?
The rise of insane rage bait nonsense that drove people out of their minds.
The average person doesn't care about this, but the tech industry is continually being infected by identitarianism.
They are trying to use Trump and conflate with white supremacy to push an identitarian political agenda, and it's nightmarish.
So let me say this as a person who was a victim of white supremacy, whose families faced the brunt of it for two generations, and who actually had his home vandalized.
You people at Ravelry are Racists and bigots, and I think you're evil people.
What you're doing here is either a complete and overt act of sheer ignorance, which I can imagine is possible, or you're purposefully trying to manipulate language to belittle what happened to my family over the past several generations.
The Trump supporters of today, who openly support people of all races, are not the same people who threaten my family.
And to act like they are does a disservice to the actual victims of white supremacy, and I am personally disgusted by it.
This is actually rather rage-inducing.
What bothers me the most is the overt manipulation to trick you into supporting an agenda instead of actually having a comprehensive conversation around issues that would make more sense.
This is absurdity, ignorance, and insanity, as far as you ask me.
But you know what?
I've said it.
It's only gonna get worse.
If you've been watching my videos over the past couple years, I have said it time and time again.
The escalation is coming.
Wait till- You think Ravelry is bad?
Go watch the Veritas video, and then stick around at 4pm, because I'm gonna address a lot of what happened, because I'm directly implicated in their story, as their insider named me personally.
So, Ravelry.
8 million users.
But what about when Google is doing it?
And they are.
Stick around.
The next segment will be at 4 p.m.
For those of the podcast, you've already heard it because I changed the layout, but 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel from this one, and I will see you there.
This story from the Daily Caller.
Apparently, House Democrats spread lies about climate change and hurricanes, according to a scientist.
This scientist is Ryan Mao.
I believe I'm pronouncing his name correctly.
I hope I am.
Sorry, Ryan, if I'm not.
And I believe he's tweeted several times, kind of explaining and debunking some of the myths put out by Ocasio-Cortez and other people.
I may be confusing him with someone else, but I believe he's the same person.
So I don't want to conflate him with anyone else, because I could be wrong.
But there was one particularly strange moment where Ocasio-Cortez said that tornado sirens going off in DC was because of global warming or something.
And she said something like, I guess we're just here at casual tornadoes.
No, sometimes there are tornadoes, so places have tornado sirens, because there's a possibility of tornadoes, not because it's anything unique or special to the current era we're in.
She also made a comment about 12 years, and it's very controversial, so look.
Where I find myself as kind of a modern individual is that I believe climate change is a serious problem that we need to deal with, and there's absolutely economic incentives that would incentivize Republicans to be on board, things that could develop new technologies that could help us become more economically competitive around the world, and as a win-win for everybody.
I don't think the Democrats putting out weird farting cow nonsense is helping anything, or Cortez fear-mongering about a tornado in DC being, you know, rare.
I don't think any of that is helping.
And so I get kind of frustrated when they do these things.
A calm, rational person can have a conversation about what is or isn't and what we should or shouldn't do.
Just because some people don't agree it's a problem and they'll cite whatever they want to cite, that's fine.
Okay then.
If we disagree, what can we do that would be beneficial for both sides?
I say this all the time.
Apparently Ocasio-Cortez says nothing.
Because when they tried doing the Green New Deal, they didn't vote on it.
They voted present.
So apparently they can't even come up with a compromise.
They'd rather do nothing than something.
But let's see what exactly would happen, because apparently they posted lies.
But let's break this down.
Let's see if it's true or not.
Daily Caller writes, House Democrats' climate change hearing is based on inaccurate information that's not in accord with current science or consensus, according to a scientist.
A committee on oversight and government reform subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday on national disaster policy in the wake of climate change.
However, Democrats are under fire for making claims on the hearing's webpage that don't line up with the facts.
Atmospheric scientist Ryan Mao, a hurricane expert, Tweeted that the Democrats' hearings spread lies about the scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes.
The House subcommittee is chaired by California rep Harley Roda and includes Green New Deal champion New York rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a member.
Mao pointed out that major scientific assessments cast doubt on claims global warming is increasing hurricane frequency or intensity.
So they have a different story.
This is not in accord with current science or consensus anywhere.
Equals fraud.
Mao said of House Democrats' climate claims.
Which relies on information posted online by environmental activists.
You got a typo here.
Daily causes uninformation twice.
Not a good look for next house hearing on climate change and disasters that furthers inaccurate information, spreads lies, from union of concerned scientists on hurricanes.
So let's open this up and see what Ryan had to say specifically in his tweet, I believe.
Is that?
That is not his tweet.
That is something else.
So here we go.
So yes, I believe this is the meteorologist who called out Ocasio-Cortez in the past, but he points to this HouseOversight.gov, and he says it's a fraud.
He goes on to say, Global category 4s and 5s have not doubled,
and several papers discuss why, e.g. detection, incorrect analysis.
This is spelled out in detail at NOAA GFDL website, IPCC reports, my research cited,
and if you ask any other reputable topical scientist, I got a fly buzzing around me, excuse me.
So this guy, Ryan Mao, verified on Twitter meteorologist PhD.
I'll take his word for it.
I'm not a scientist, right?
I am not a climate expert.
I defer to you, Ryan, and any other scientist who's verified PhD, whatever.
He says, it is problematic that House Democrats would base a hearing on disasters and climate
change on inaccurate info. This suggests a deficiency in committee staff or more likely
farming out research to activist groups. Cue the circus music and bring out the clowns.
And he puts a little clown emoji. Reactions so far defending the false claim.
It's okay to lie because we need action.
But Trump pence, it's just a typo.
Why can't we just concede the simple fact and then move on with sound policy based upon accurate science?
Because to these people, the ends justify the means.
They believe, like he says, it's okay to lie because we need action.
Where do you go from there?
And more importantly, if you spread this lie to further your goals, people will believe it's true, and then when you're long gone, there will be fake news circulating, and people will base their lives and the future on false information.
You know what?
This is why I hate fake news, and I think we have a problem with a lot of these far-left Democrats.
They're willing to push nonsense.
Listen.
I think most of the Democrats are okay.
Most of the Democrats you don't hear about in the news all the time because they're not saying insane nonsense.
However, there are certain high-profile individuals who are saying nonsense, and they're not just the far-off Democrats.
There are certain people who say nonsensical things to pander to their base, and there are many of them.
I think there are some people on the Republican side who I, you know, I'll just say it.
I am no fan of Mitch McConnell.
I think he is tactless.
Lindsey Graham as well.
I'm not, you know, I've criticized Ocasio-Cortez.
I've also praised her for some of the things she's doing.
I want to make a point that it's not necessarily tribal.
I like, you know, Mitch McConnell Made a comment about Jon Stewart I thought was crass.
But so what?
He made a crass comment.
It's not policy.
They passed the victim's fund bill.
So really, what am I going to do?
Make a video saying, you know, he made a stupid statement?
I'm not.
Ocasio-Cortez actually is pushing through policy like this based on junk science.
Let's go over some of these images and see what exactly he's talking about.
Hurricane and climate change.
Increasingly destructive hurricanes are putting a growing number of people and structures at risk.
Maria, Irma, Harvey, Sandy, Katrina, Andrew.
For coastal communities, the social, economic, and physical scars left behind by major hurricanes are devastating.
Background due to climate change the number of hurricanes that reach category four and five in strength has roughly
doubled Since the 1970s and there are no longer distinct wildfire
seasons. There are just wildfires all the time I don't know about that second point, but Ryan is contesting
the claim about category categories four and five They then post this recovery resiliency and readiness contending
with natural disasters in the wake of climate change climate change part three
So this is the hearing I'm presuming they're putting forward.
Let's go back to the Daily Wire and see what they say.
They say that Mao took issue with Democrats' claim about the category fours and fives.
I don't want to rehash that.
I just want to move on.
They say NOAA, for example, says the rising trend in category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic is based on data that's not reliable for trend calculations until they have been further assessed for data homogeneity problems such as those due to changing observing practices.
Democrats linked to the Union of Concerned Scientists website, which points to a 2005 study on hurricanes and global warming.
Based on that paper, the website claimed that since the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach four and five have doubled.
Among the many studies included on the page is a link to a 2005 peer-reviewed science study looking specifically at the increase in intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.
Brenda Ekwerzel, Director of Climate Science at UCS told the Daily Caller
News Foundation, The language our webpage uses to characterize that study
could be clearer in describing the results and the time period in
question.
On the same page, we also discuss and link to a broad range of more recent studies.
UCS changed the language on its website after being contacted by the DCNF.
The updated website reads, One 2005 peer-reviewed study showed a large increase in the
number of North American hurricanes that reached 4 in 5 when comparing the most recent 15-year
period to the prior period.
Interestingly enough, the 2005 study USC relied on was co-authored by climate scientist Judith
Curry, a prominent critic of climate alarmism.
Curry will appear at Tuesday's hearing at the invitation of Oversight Committee Republicans.
Whoa, that's really interesting.
Curry's 2005 paper found that the strongest hurricanes had doubled in number, though she and her co-authors did not attribute the increase to global warming.
Should be an interesting hearing, Curry told the DCNF.
We did not attribute this to anthropogenic global warming, although a subsequent paper showed that this increase shares information with the increase in sea surface temperature.
So, the Republicans are going to bring in the woman who actually wrote the study cited by Democrats to disprove the Democrats' claim.
That's gonna be some... They're gonna have egg on their face.
And so listen, man.
You know...
I think we're at an impasse.
There's a lot of Republicans who don't believe that humans are causing climate change.
Most Democrats do.
I think this can be a big unifying issue for the left for any Democrat to focus on.
You don't have to agree with them if you're a Republican.
What I think we need is a Democrat who's going to speak to the left and say, listen, I want to focus on climate change and figure out what we can do that will be beneficial to all of us and those who would not believe it.
If there are people who deny climate change, we can certainly come to an agreement with them where they won't be negatively impacted by any of the policies.
In fact, they can be positively impacted, and these can be net benefits to the environment.
More hydroelectric power, more tidal power, more wind power.
What can we do that will please the environmentalists and the capitalists who want to see growth and economic development and jobs?
It can be done.
It can.
But it can't be done when you put out easily debunked science, and then moderates and independents think, you're lying to me.
Or you're just dumb, you have no idea what you're talking about.
And if that's the case, why would I listen to you on any agreement?
So look.
There's a lot of stuff that Ryan has brought up in the past that I think is really, really interesting when he points out that... I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he highlights how there's a lot of uncertainty in anthropogenic global warming in terms of what the ramifications will be.
And there are a lot of alarmists who want to use the most extreme circumstance and claim the world is ending.
Yes, we've heard.
The world is ending.
But that's probably not the case.
There will be some changes.
We don't know exactly what will happen or why, because humans develop new technology, and we might get rid of cars.
For all we know, in, you know, 10 years, 20 years, we have electric automatic cars, and that dramatically reduces carbon emissions.
Perhaps.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I just know that the only way we solve the problems is with calm, rational, and correct, you know, discussions.
So, I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
I think Ryan's been a great source on this kind of stuff.
I don't know what his politics are.
Maybe he's a bad source.
I don't know.
But he has come up, and he's often put up sources.
And I have to say, if the Daily Caller News Foundation actually got the author to criticize their statements too, then I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this one.
Stick around.
I got two more videos coming up shortly, and I will see you in a minute.
I love talking about survival.
I am not a survivalist or anything like that.
But I am really fascinated by the idea of, like, ancient technology and wilderness survival and preparedness.
There's a- it's called, like, Ancient Technology YouTube channel where this dude makes, like, mud huts and stoves and stuff.
It's really, really cool stuff.
And watching that's, like, really inspirational.
It's probably what got me interested in the idea of surviving in the wilderness anyway.
Like, there's this YouTube channel where, if you're not familiar guy, He actually, like, takes mud and he, like, digs a hole and he puts wood in it.
He makes a hut.
He makes, like, canopies and he makes, like, condensation water catchers.
It's really cool stuff.
And it made me think about, like, what would you do when the end comes?
The apocalypse.
And so I saw this story from Fox News.
It's an opinion piece.
Will you survive the coming blackout?
So this is from Doug McKinnon.
He writes, There are many seemingly never-ending debates.
Republicans vs. Democrats.
Impeach vs. don't impeach.
Capital punishment vs. life in prison.
Wall vs. no wall.
Legalizing marijuana vs. not.
Self-driving cars.
Human drivers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
You got a lot of things to debate about.
All of these issues are stunningly important right up to the second where cataclysm falls and creates a nightmare scenario that so many fear.
Yeah, good point.
Then marijuana will be legal for everybody.
That cataclysm is a complete loss of electricity and every mode of convenience and survival we take for granted.
Let's stop right here.
I love this.
Will you survive an EMP?
This is like a really popular thing people talk about.
Will there be a solar flare that emits a massive electromagnetic pulse that fries all of our electronics and then we're back in the Stone Age?
Or will it be a man-made EMP device or an EMP from a nuclear device that wipes out our technology?
If it did, what would you do?
In the couple weeks following Hurricane Sandy in New York, there was no power in much of Manhattan.
The Lower East Side was without power, and so the bodegas, their food was spoiling.
If you wanted to go in, they had guards at the front of the doors holding, like, bats and, like, boards and weapons.
One person at a time could come in, and they were very strict, like, open and close the fridge because it's gonna get warm quick.
So milk's out of the question.
Meat's out of the question.
Canned goods, you're good.
But it was actually pretty crazy, because there was, like, phone booths were knocked over, cars were spun from the flood.
It was really nuts to see lower Manhattan this way, just to walk around and see the devastation.
And my understanding is it was a couple weeks before power came back on.
Fortunately, there was still power in other parts of the area, in the tri-state, so food could still come in, and people typically could survive.
But there was a gas shortage for weeks!
I could not imagine being stuck in New York with no gas.
What do you think's gonna happen when not only this stuff shuts down, but there is a loss of confidence in the system?
Money means nothing at this point.
It becomes worthless, and I assure you, gold will be worthless.
I always thought it was funny when you'd hear Jones say like, Buy your gold!
Ah, they're coming for ya!
And I'm like, let me ask you a question, man.
If everything just fell apart today, you saw a guy on the road.
Let's say you've got a ham sandwich, an extra ham sandwich, and you want to trade that.
And someone's got a gold coin.
He's like, I'll give you a gold coin for this ham sandwich.
And someone else says, I've got a bottle of fresh filter sterile water.
Which one are you going to take?
The point I'm trying to make is, in that circumstance, okay, maybe you take the gold, but water will be infinitely more valuable than gold, especially in a major city.
I'll tell you what, man, if you're in a major city when the apocalypse happens, you are doomed.
It's gonna be like 99% of everyone is wiped out, because people are gonna go nuts, they're gonna be fighting, and starving people will do crazy things, I assure you.
Let's read more, though.
Let's get his thoughts on the matter.
The largest red flag on the issue in years just waved in South America.
Last weekend, tens of millions of people in Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay found themselves in a complete blackout.
In one moment, they had electricity.
The next moment, they had none.
And they were catapulted back to the 1800s.
Only much worse.
People in the 1800s were not dependent upon electricity for their jobs, money, communication, internet, transport, education, security, medical, prescriptions, water, and their very lives.
The national power grid of the United States is truly a mess held together with, as the joke goes, not much than bailing wire and chewing gum.
The average age of large power transformers in the United States is 40 years.
70% of all large power transformers are at least 25 years old.
It's little wonder that according to data from the Department of Energy and the United States suffers more blackouts than any other nation in the developed world.
The overall system is so weak, so taxed, and so vulnerable that in 2003 over 50 million people in the US and Canada were hit with cascading blackouts Simply because a tree branch fell on a power line in Ohio.
And I assure you, as time goes on, the numbers will only go up for two reasons.
More people.
So yes, more people will be affected.
Simple math.
But the aging infrastructure.
Man, we need an infrastructure overall.
Can't we do some kind of program?
Like, I don't know.
I guess we're in massive debt as it is.
I have no idea how the US pulls out of this one.
But let's, uh, let's read on.
Because the infrastructure is so antiquated, weather triggers multiple blackouts per year in the U.S., blackouts which collectively cost the nation upwards of $30 billion in spoiled inventory, lost wages, and repair of the grid.
Now I'm going to tell you something even scarier.
Diabetics, people who are diabetic need insulin, and that's to be refrigerated, which means When the power goes out, these people are in serious, serious trouble.
So, something interesting happened a couple weeks ago.
I was at home.
My van is now complete.
We're going to be doing a video on it soon.
I didn't have the van yet.
It was almost done.
The power went out at my house because the city was doing work on the power lines and I guess someone made a mistake.
The power was out for like an hour and a half.
And I was sitting there like, well, I can't record my videos.
I can't work.
There's nothing I can do.
Literally nothing.
My laptops didn't have enough power to film and render, and I should have had them charged up, but I didn't.
Didn't expect the power to go out.
But I thought to myself, hey man, in the future when this happens, I got a van that's independent.
It's off the grid.
It's got solar power and it's got batteries.
I could work from the van if the power goes out.
That's one of the most important reasons I got it.
Not because the end is nigh or anything like that, but I think it's really important to have your own energy source that can sustain you for a short period of time in the event of a serious blackout.
It's not even about the apocalypse.
It's fun to talk about post-apocalyptic scenarios, but I'm not even talking about that.
That's just for fun.
That's just, you know, people love pretending and video games and stuff like that, and it's important to be prepared.
But what about a storm?
What about this tree branch falling on a power line and shutting out power for how long?
For 50 million people or so?
They were cascading blackouts, I don't know how long it was going on for.
This is why Lowe's sells generators.
A storm hits, generator kicks on, and you go out your business like nothing's going on.
This is extremely important for people who need to do work, but look, you are safer when you have a cell phone.
This is a fact.
If someone gets hurt, you are able to call for help immediately.
So power is really important, but also in like the event of like a total blackout or some kind of, you know, war or whatever, People underestimate the power of a cell phone.
You know, I was having a conversation the other day where someone said, yeah, but a cell phone will be worthless after the apocalypse happens because there will be no cell networks.
And I said, no, it won't.
You can film videos.
You can take pictures.
You can do calculations.
You have a supercomputer.
It might not have everything you need on it, but it's still a computational device that can help you.
And I assure you, Some of those maps in Google Maps are saved.
So you might still have maps.
But I'll tell you this right now.
My advice, because I did this, download a survival guide and a map and anything else you might think to your phone.
You'll never touch it.
But it's like having a first aid kit.
How often do you use it?
Probably never.
How often do you put a Band-Aid on?
I got scratched by my cat.
Didn't put a Band-Aid on it.
I just washed it.
Could've put a Band-Aid on it.
I was bleeding.
Eh, don't worry about it.
It's fine.
But there are some circumstances where you really do get, like, a bad cut.
I accidentally stepped on the side of my computer, uh, uh, housing.
Really annoying.
And it was a pretty deep cut.
Not so bad.
Just needed a Band-Aid.
But that's when I went into the first aid kit.
For the first time in, like, I don't know, years.
So, you know, phones can be really important.
Now, the thing is, When power goes out, what do you do? This is why I also
think it's great to have like solar stuff, and I'm not talking about prepping, I'm not talking about
the end of the world, I'm talking about just having general preparedness stuff. And I think
there's a stigma around this too.
I think, you know, preppers are so ridiculed for being like over the top that people don't want to
buy emergency food, water, or electronics. And I always think that's crazy. How often do you put
Like, seriously, people rarely ever do.
But you still have them!
What's the difference between that and some canned food or, like, a solar phone charger?
There's literally no difference.
That can save your life, having, you know, emergency provisions.
So I think it's silly that people get self-conscious about doing this stuff.
You know, they joked that I was buying the van because I was saying, like, the end is now.
I'm like, dude, I bought the van so I can go chill out in the wilderness and, like, watch the deer frolic by the lake.
That's it.
And I can work while I do it.
But admittedly, it's great to have my own independent power source where I can plug things in and do work if the power goes out.
Or if I want to just drive to the park and work at the park.
It's fun.
So, uh, let's read a little bit more about this.
He says...
It's a question of not if it will happen, but when.
The U.S.
government is so rightly fearful of this that last November it ordered DARPA to war game a complete cyber takedown of the U.S.
power grid, an exercise they are now wisely running on a regular basis.
According to DHS, just last year, hackers, strongly suspected to be Russian, gained access to a number of utility control rooms in the U.S.
and got to the point where they could have thrown switches.
And this is what may prevent war, mutually assured destruction, because we're all locked into each other's grids with like, you know.
So he says.
The clock is ticking.
Unfortunately, much like any large attack, when an extended regional or national blackout hits, you and your family will be on your own.
No one is going to ride to the rescue.
How will you survive?
In the blink of an eye, you will lose access to money, food, gas, communications, medicine, etc.
We get it.
Gone.
Even though most don't do it, residents of California and Florida are reminded every year to assemble their two-week survival kit.
In California, it's because of earthquakes.
In Florida, hurricanes.
Survival kits which include water, non-perishable food, medicine, first aid, batteries, radio, flashlight... He goes on.
He likes doing these lists.
I'm not gonna read the lists.
The federal and state governments should be issuing that same reminder to every citizen in the nation about the coming blackout.
It truly is not a question of if, but when.
A night on the town for a movie, dinner, a sporting event, or a political debate is great fun until none of it matters and your survival is literally at stake.
Make a plan, because you will be on your own.
I'll end by saying this.
A story on Mount Everest I talked about before.
People were dying.
They had no oxygen.
They were collapsing.
And one woman said, she thought about sharing her air and said, you know what?
No.
I'm not gonna die for them.
And that's what it will be like when resources are finite.
Stick around, I got one more video coming up in a few minutes and I will see you there.
I don't know if you caught the latest episode of the Joe Rogan podcast, maybe not the latest at this point, but Ian Bob Lazar, the guy who's famous for bringing Area 51 to the forefront to mainstream culture, which has now been the series of jokes and sci-fi films and other stuff like that, It was absolutely fascinating.
So here's what I want to do first, because the point of this video is to talk about two stories, one from CNN.
Two mysterious objects were seen floating above Kansas City.
They probably weren't aliens.
I love how Doug says, probably.
Good job, Doug.
No, I mean that seriously.
It's funny.
Because there's been a lot of talk about UFOs lately.
And I started to wonder, why is that?
Could it just be the zeitgeist?
Could it just be that, you know, a story broke about the Navy actually tracking these reports from pilots, and thus people decided, you know, this was interesting, and mainstream, and then everyone kind of gets, you know, in their mind, and starts seeing it everywhere, and talks about it more and more and more, and then I make videos about it, and other people see those videos, and then because of that video, they make more stories about it, you see where I'm going with this.
It could just be a cultural flow.
But I'd much prefer the conspiracy theory.
That the Illuminati is preparing us for the announcement that aliens exist.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I don't think that's true.
I think it's just like culture is now getting really fascinated by aliens.
And then you see stories like this from CNN.
And then around... This was a day after.
Well, these stories were posted the same day.
Look at this.
CNN publishes this story saying, for a few hours on Thursday evening, people in Kansas City thought they had a bona fide X-Files case in their hands.
High in the sky above the city, two small white spheres seemed to just be floating above the clouds.
What were they?
What were they indeed?
We'll come back to this, but on the same day, this story from Barstool Sports... It was actually a day earlier, I think, that Rogan had Bob Lazar on.
Bob Lazar is talking about how he worked at Area 51, or S4, I think.
Maybe they're different.
And they had gravity wave generators.
Bob Lazar's story is really interesting.
Gotta say, I don't particularly believe it, because I just... Listen, man, I'm not one to believe fantastic stories.
I think he said a lot of really interesting things, but there's a lot of ways you can explain it outside of aliens.
If you're not familiar with Bob Lazar, in 1989 he did an interview where he said that he worked for a government agency to try and reverse engineer alien ships of some sort.
I think they were aliens.
Joe Rogan's podcast with him is amazing, just for its entertainment value.
Like seriously, you should definitely check it out.
Bob Lazar, Joe Rogan do the Google search.
It's really, really fascinating stuff.
It's like almost three hours long.
I don't really believe the story.
Um, you know, um, he, he claims that he worked at this facility.
He saw the tech and then he came out, did an interview and blew the whistle.
But I also kind of feel like it's probably infinitely more likely if it did happen, the government was just tricking him with smoke and mirrors so that he would run to the press and claim this technology existed.
Because it was during the Cold War.
Psy-ops were abound.
In fact, some people have argued that it was actually the Russians doing a Psy-op on us, so that we spend resources on nonsense, thinking we found alien ships or something.
And then we spend our wheels doing nothing.
Or it could be that the U.S.
stages these things so that Russians get scared we have advanced technology, and they won't know what it is, causing them to panic.
We really don't know.
But I'll tell you this, during the Cold War, a Psy-Op is infinitely more likely than we actually discovered nine alien ships and then hired people to try and, you know, reverse-engineer them.
But anyway, it's really, really fascinating.
I also want to point out this is a hilarious photo that we see all the time.
So let's take a look, you know, again.
The reason I'm bringing this up is Bob Lazar's story is fascinating.
I don't necessarily believe it.
I'm not saying he's a liar or anything like that.
I'm just saying, you know, we'll see evidence.
But we keep seeing stories about UFOs.
And then we get a story about people actually seeing unidentified flying objects.
Coincidence?
Yeah, probably.
If people are hearing in the news non-stop that aliens are being seen, they're now looking for it.
It's like that old joke goes that, you know, you buy a car and then all of a sudden you see it everywhere.
Because, as the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind?
Well, in sight, in mind, I guess.
Let's read the story and see exactly what was going on with these UFOs.
He says... Folks in the Midwestern city didn't call it the Special FBI Agents from... Okay, that's enough of the joke.
They went to the media.
CNN affiliate KMBC reported numerous calls from viewers seeking an explanation.
Joe Lauria, a meteorologist at WDAF, another CNN affiliate, said the strange objects could be part of Project Loon.
That's the Google project that seeks to bring attention to rural and remote areas by launching huge balloons into the air and beaming down a signal.
But the station later reported that a meteorologist who works for Project Loon nixed that theory.
The National Weather Service in Kansas also weighed in.
We honestly have no explanation for the floating objects over Kansas City.
The Weather Service said in a tweet, Well, that's not particularly helpful, but at least the Weather Service included a photo of the sky and the two mysterious orbs in one tweet.
So I think you can see one speck here and one speck here for those that are watching.
It's just dots.
I wonder what they are.
I have no idea.
They say, KMBC later reported the mystery orbs may be part of a fighter test for Defense Advanced Research for DARPA, which launched three balloons from Cumberland, Maryland on Monday night.
People just weren't talking about UFOs in the Midwest.
They discussed them in the nation's capital, too, and not just anybody.
We're talking military officials and lawmakers.
Officials from the Navy met with some U.S.
Senators, including the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, during a classified briefing Wednesday about a series of reported encounters by the U.S.
Navy with unidentified aircraft.
Several pilots told the New York Times about multiple encounters with UFOs with no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes.
And back in April, the Navy introduced guidelines for its pilots to report unexplainable events so the military can keep track of what may or may not be happening.
A Navy official told CNN at the time that the Navy does not believe aliens have been flying around U.S.
airspace.
Well, who knows?
I think Aliens is probably... probably not the case.
You know, look, man, I really doubt that all of the global leaders got together and decided they could keep this under wraps.
I really doubt there's a men-in-black organization doing this stuff because we just want it to be true because it would make life more exciting, I guess.
But admittedly, exciting isn't always what you think it's going to be.
Video games are exciting.
I always find it funny how people talk about how, um, there was a joke my friend said, he said that, he said he wants and encourages a zombie apocalypse.
I think it's funny.
You know, people talk about this stuff, how great it would be if there were aliens, and I don't think they realize what life would actually be like.
Do you think that if aliens came here, they're gonna come out and be like, welcome humans to the Galactic Federation, behold, great, wondrous new technology where you can explore the cosmos?
Or do you think they're going to be resource-hungry colonists who come here and say, get to work?
Some people have argued either or.
I'm not saying I know.
I'm just saying, it's not all gonna be Skittles and rainbows.
Things can get really bad.
I mean, Rick and Morty did a really funny episode, if you're familiar with the show, where the Galactic Federation takes over, and then life becomes really, really strange.
Do you think any external alien culture would be anything like ours?
Not only that, We are the products of specific environments.
Our hearing, our sight, our speech are all contingent upon the atmosphere in which we evolved.
So when we talk, our voice can travel through the air and produce a complex array of sounds that can be deciphered into information in your brain.
It's really incredible.
But underwater, we can't really do that as well, because sound travels very differently.
So, you hear what it sounds like when people try and talk underwater, you can, but it's muffled and garbly because it's all just, you know, so we have dolphins and whales making different noises.
Different kinds of noises.
So think about it this way.
Underwater, which is still, you know, we're still evolved to be semi, you know, in the water to some degree.
There are certain cultures that have, you know, developed like they can breathe underwater longer.
So we are still rather close to the mammals that are in the water, but we still can't communicate with them.
Think about what an alien would be like.
Okay, humans and dolphins, both mammals, both smart.
And we both make noises to communicate.
We can't talk to each other.
For the most part.
We kind of can, actually.
You know, like, we can talk to dogs.
We can say a word.
Dog can't really talk back.
You can do some things so a dog can communicate, but they're not there.
You know, they don't have the same capacity to convey complex information.
What about an alien species that comes from a planet where they're in some kind of liquid medium that's not water?
I don't know, it's possible, maybe.
Maybe their ships are full of some weird chemical substance that's not water, it's some kind of fluid medium, and they can't even make sounds.
Maybe they communicate through electrical impulses or electromagnetic waves.
Maybe they can't see light because on their planet there wasn't much of it, and they evolved and had different sources of energy.
Maybe they directly got their energy from heat sources as opposed to the sun.
And plants and chemical energy, who knows?
Plants are, you know, partially use this solar energy to produce food, photosynthesis, etc.
Maybe aliens would be similar.
They're not going to be the same way you think that people, you know, like...
It's funny to me that they always say, like, the grey aliens, they're humanoid, they have hands.
It's entirely possible that all the life that could evolve would still require a balanced- a similar balance to their atmosphere as we do, so they can produce fire.
This is one of the things I've explained to a lot of people to consider.
We- we can make rockets, we can make computers, because we can manipulate energy.
We can smelt metals, and we can essentially strip different elements from other components.
Now, we can do that with like chemical reactions, but also with heat.
But think about this.
Let me ask you, because I don't necessarily know.
How would you make a metal casing if you lived in a water environment?
Let's say you have hands.
Let's say the aliens have hands, and they are underwater.
How do you heat up metal to separate, you know, the different metals?
How do you, you know, how do you do it?
Is it possible?
How do you make a rocket and get fuel to launch from water?
If the planet has no air, then maybe... Actually, I don't think that would be... I don't know how that would work, actually, because at a certain point the water would boil, right?
So, if there's no oxygen atmosphere, you'd still have water, and then once you got high enough up, the water would be boiling into, you know, water vapor.
So I wonder, is it a necessity that life has to have access to controlled fire to create the technology we have?
Cameras, lights, spaceships?
And maybe if that's true, you will find that aliens breathe a similar atmosphere to us.
We need oxygen for fire and for our bodies.
Maybe aliens would too.
We need to manipulate objects.
So maybe hands make sense.
Symmetry makes sense in life.
So it's possible aliens would still be humanoid.
Because the non-humanoid aliens wouldn't be able to develop technology.
Dolphins aren't going to make rocket ships.
Humans have.
Dolphins aren't gonna make gravity wells and interstellar travel.
Humans might.
So maybe on another planet, there's weird animals that don't have hands and, you know, are underwater or something, and the only aliens that actually get off the planets are the ones that are kind of like us.
I don't know.
I love talking about this stuff, though, so you'll notice I do a lot of fun, you know, alien videos.
It's just fun to think about.
Check out the Joe Rogan podcast.
It's really amazing.
And I guess we're not going to know what these dots are.
Maybe they're just balloons.
In reality, they're probably just balloons.
But don't you just wish it was some kind of alien ship?
