Big Tech Is Purging Project Veritas For Exposing Their Corruption
Big Tech Is Purging Project Veritas For Exposing Their Corruption. Project Veritas is being systematically purged from various tech platforms following their continued work exposing Big Tech censorship. First they removed the pinterest expose, then Google censored the expose on them citing privacy.Veritas has been banned from Reddit and Now Vimeo following their continued investigations into silicon valley censorship and corruption.Following this we still see media, such as CNN, insist there is no evidence that social media companies are biased against conservatives, but the evidence is now overwhelming. Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and PragerU have all been smeared in a leaked email advocating censorship.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past several days, Project Veritas has provided more evidence that Silicon Valley is politically motivated and censoring those they disagree with.
Yet for some reason, time after time, we hear from the mainstream press, it's a conspiracy theory.
There's no evidence.
Almost every story you'll see from left-wing media and even mainstream media will say alleged discrimination, alleged political bias.
But we had a video last year of Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, saying he was offended by the 2016 election.
We saw people weeping about this, okay?
We've seen emails now from Project Veritas, and they've released more information.
We're heading towards a weird kind of technocratic dystopia, with a new kind of nobility that are allowed to criticize and get away with whatever they want.
HumanEvents.com wrote an article talking about the new noble class and the peasants, people like Carlos Maza who are allowed to attack and criticize, insult others, and get away with it, but Steven Crowder isn't allowed to do this.
Now, certainly there's a disparity between Crowder's following versus Carlos Maza, but Carlos Maza works for Vox, funded by NBC.
Project Veritas is being systematically purged from various social media networks.
To me, it looks like Silicon Valley is circling the wagons and using their monopolistic power in each of their areas to protect each other's businesses.
Google does video, Facebook does social feeds, Pinterest does, you know, image content, and they're all protecting each other.
Even Vimeo recently banned Veritas.
So here's what we're gonna do.
Let's break down how Veritas is being unpersoned.
I mean, they're an organization, but they're being stripped from the internet systematically.
And I want to talk about the rise of this new dystopian moral future we have.
The tech companies are going to be the moral arbiters, and it's kind of nightmarish.
I have this tweet pulled up.
Donnie O'Sullivan, a reporter from CNN, says, Twitter says it will label tweets from Trump and other leaders that break its rules.
Basically, what we're seeing here is that if you're an elite, you will be allowed to break the rules.
Now, of course, they're starting with Trump.
Get all the Trump supporters on board with it.
Oh, but see, then Trump is allowed to break the rules.
I don't care who's allowed to break the rules.
When you give the elite class the ability to break the rules and regular Americans will be banned for the same thing, we are entering a nightmare dystopia.
But Daniel Sullivan says something much more interesting about how there's no evidence.
So let's go through the evidence.
But before we get started, I'm going to do this.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a bunch of different ways you can do it.
Cryptocurrency, physical address, PayPal.
The most important thing you can do.
Share this video if you think it's worth sharing.
We recently learned, thanks to Project Veritas, that my channel and others have been dramatically reduced in the suggested feeds.
So YouTube is still recommending my content, but in a very different way, which means they're not suggesting it following other videos.
So I'll rely on you to combat the censorship.
More importantly, this feed is available as a podcast, and I'm going to ask you guys for a favor just this one time.
Go to Apple or Google and subscribe to the podcast.
And just look, it's a good backup.
All of my content appears as an hour and a half long segment every day at 6 30 PM on all on most podcast platforms and sign up there.
I know some of you have been asking for it, so it is available now.
And aside from that, Mines.com slash TimCast, the reason I'm saying all this right now is I know it's kind of a long plug for my platforms, but it really is important that if we want to continue having these conversations and fighting back against these massive tech giants that are suppressing conversations, I need to let you know that you can find me elsewhere, because sooner or later, YouTube will strike me down same as everyone else.
I do not believe they're going to allow these conversations to persist into 2020.
So I want to look at Daniel Sullivan's tweet, but this is a perfect segue into the Donald, right?
I want to mention this real quick.
The Donald on Reddit, the largest pro-Trump forum, I believe, on the internet, was quarantined.
That means if you're not logged in, you can't see it.
It's very difficult to pull up on mobile apps now.
I had trouble going to the Donald on Reddit to see what they were talking about.
I don't want to be conspiratorial, but it's a hell of a coincidence that on the day of the Democratic debates, Reddit takes them down two days after Carlos Maza and Media Matters publish a hit piece targeting them.
And this is the point about a new nobility that we're looking at right here with Twitter's new rule.
Now, of course, many Trump supporters will be like, oh, well, at least Trump's allowed to get away with it.
Trump's tweets shouldn't break the rules at all.
What they're doing is they're inching the line forward by saying, you know what?
Trump's tweets break our rules, but we'll let it slide.
They shouldn't break the rules at all.
The President of the United States should be allowed to talk how he wants to talk, so long as he isn't breaking the law.
If the President wants to incite violence or say something that is against a law, fine, take it down.
But he's not.
Trump's opinions, they're telling you, they're priming everyone to say, if you talk like the president, you will be banned.
So what happens?
Trump's supporters are very likely to speak like the president.
Sorry, you will be banned.
The president will be okay though, for now.
What that means is in the future, anybody who talks like Trump won't be able to be elected.
They won't be able to tweet.
Someone like Trump will never get elected again, so long as these rules persist.
Now, Donny O'Sullivan jumps the shark.
He says, putting a disclaimer on one of Trump's tweets would almost certainly bring a firestorm of criticism down on Twitter's head.
Republicans in Washington, including Trump, often claim without real evidence that technology companies are biased against conservatives.
Real great work, CNN reporter Donnie O'Sullivan.
It's like you don't know Google exists.
I did a Google search of Google bias, and you know what I found almost immediately?
Because Google isn't, the censorship is not overt.
It's subversive.
It's quiet.
A story from The Verge, a left-wing outlet.
They talked about in a leaked video published by Breitbart, you can see the co-founder of Google taking offense to the election of Donald Trump.
Plain and simple.
Saying their values don't align with ours.
That is good evidence that there is bias within the company.
But how about this?
How about my response on Twitter?
Jack Dorsey personally saying to me on the Joe Rogan podcast that Twitter was too aggressive policing a conservative meme.
That's evidence, right?
How about Jack Dorsey saying in an interview that conservative employees are too scared to speak up at his company?
Isn't that evidence?
Isn't that evidence of a bias against conservatives?
The answer is a resounding yes.
But now let's move into the more scary part of Our current news cycle.
James O'Keefe is a controversial figure.
That's fine.
I'm not saying you have to trust him.
You have to agree with him.
I really don't care.
Okay?
Like, I personally can appreciate the work he does, and I can appreciate the work of left-wing investigative journalism as well, especially going into, like, factory farms and things like that.
Talking about migration.
Of course, investigative journalism is good.
There's a political tint to what James O'Keefe does.
Fine.
I'm not even going to talk about that.
I'm going to talk about the fact that Vimeo, a competitor or alternative to YouTube, has banned them.
So this was yesterday evening, 5.30pm.
He received this notice.
Dear Project Veritas, your account has been removed by the Vimeo staff for violating our guidelines.
You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory.
In no way did anything O'Keefe publish Defame?
Was it hateful or discriminatory?
That makes no sense.
Why would Vimeo take this down?
Now, in my video the other day, I incorrectly stated that Vimeo had taken down the link, and that was an error I regret.
Project Veritas had published a link to Vimeo, and when I clicked it, it didn't appear, and many people were saying, wow, the video's been removed, and it said, sorry, the video cannot be found, and so I incorrectly assumed it had been taken down from that link.
That was my fault, I regret the error.
Later I learned the video was still live and put the update in the video, but as it turns out now as of yesterday, James O'Keefe, Project Veritas expose on Silicon Valley censorship was censored.
Now, YouTube deleted the main video claiming privacy.
Okay, privacy claim.
Dubious, but sure.
Make the argument.
Vimeo's claiming it was hateful, defamatory, discriminatory.
Defamatory to who?
It was factual information from a whistleblower with documents.
Defamatory, I would imagine, in any, like, good faith context, would be false information meant to smear someone, to lie about them, to harm them.
You're allowed to have your opinion.
James O'Keefe published documents.
And a whistleblower statement on the, you know, coming out and saying, with documents, here's what Google is doing and why they're doing it.
Or a statement from a woman, Jen Janai, who made herself a public figure with a post on Medium saying, this is what, you know, on video, this is what we're doing.
She denied it later and she's incorrect because there's evidence.
Now we can move on to where it's gotten really crazy.
The timeline.
Project Veritas is posted.
YouTube bans the Pinterest investigation on a privacy complaint.
I did a video commenting on it.
Public information.
I did not expose anyone.
I just commented, hey, here's what BuzzFeed is talking about, because BuzzFeed covered it.
They took my video down.
The censorship is real.
It's happening.
Twitter then suspended Veritas for privacy reasons.
Reddit banned Project Veritas.
YouTube bans their Google investigation follow-up.
And finally, Vimeo has removed their account.
They ask, do you think big tech is working together?
Listen.
What can we say definitively?
We can say, one, CNN is doing an awful job by saying there's no real evidence.
You're not paying attention.
Do your job, journalists.
What's so hard about this?
We can say that's true.
Journalists are not doing their job.
We can say there is circumstantial and now direct evidence and employee testimony.
We had employees come out a couple years ago saying Facebook was removing conservative news.
We had an employee come out recently to Project Veritas and say Facebook was throttling and harming conservative content.
Another whistleblower.
More whistleblowers keep coming out.
Project Veritas published an email Where they accuse Jordan Peterson, Prager University, and Ben Shapiro of being a certain World War II faction, if you know what I'm trying to say.
I've got to be careful about my language because they're censoring us.
That's direct evidence.
So now we have circumstantial evidence, we have whistleblower testimony, and we have documents on the record.
And they're censoring the people who are coming out and saying this.
CNN has the gall to come out and say there's no evidence.
What is going on with journalism today?
You know, at the very least, I can say complete and total incompetence.
You see the hit pieces against YouTube.
The New York Times runs a front page hit piece against YouTube.
They accuse Google of stripping away billions of dollars from the news industry.
Yet, when it comes to political issues, they rush to the defense of the tech giants.
When is someone going to have the nerve to stand up and say, look, the evidence is overwhelming at this point?
When Project Veritas is being purged from multiple platforms?
Listen.
The original Project Veritas video that came out about Google was taken down for a privacy violation because of the woman Jen Janai.
The only problem?
Before it was taken down, I believe it was before, she published a post on Medium outing herself and making herself a public figure.
She made a public statement addressing what had happened.
Yet they took it down as a privacy violation.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
That says to me the privacy takedown was fictitious.
It was a fake reason, justification, for removing an expose that proves Google is biased.
Here's the thing.
For the longest time, these companies have claimed, oh, it's just how we, you know, we're moderating, we're moderating, we're moderating.
Now we have direct evidence that they're actually off their gourds, accusing Jewish people of being the perpetrators, you know, people who persecuted them.
It's absurd.
The evidence comes out now, and so they're doubling down and backpedaling.
But I'll say this.
The Streisand effect is a real thing, and you will not be able to censor everyone.
In my video the other day, I censored some names to make sure they couldn't take my video down, and they can't.
The message will get out, and the evidence will be presented.
So here we have another post from James O'Keefe I want to highlight.
he says, truly an extraordinary series of events.
The stories are taken down not because they are false, but because they are true.
The closer to home we hit, the more truth we reveal, the worse it gets.
Nothing stops.
So many insiders.
It's happening now.
The fight has gone too public to hide.
Veritas released more information.
In a new story, they exposed that Google was manually manipulating search results
on YouTube in an Irish referendum on pro-choice versus pro-life.
Breitbart had a leaked conversation which alluded to this being true.
Veritas got the documents and published them showing it's true.
How much evidence do we need to prove it?
I mean, we're there.
I've got a few more things I want to highlight, because I think you guys understand the issue.
A special shout-out to BitChute and to Minds.com.
You know, I have my content hosted on Minds.
I think they do a pretty good job of defending speech.
Instead of taking content down, if it crosses a line, they filter it for not safe for work, the same as many other social networks.
However, we're seeing an increase in takedowns from the big players.
BitChute continues to host Project Veritas' Google Exposé, now breaking 228,000 views on BitChute.
On YouTube, it was nearing a million views.
We can only imagine there would be millions more if the video was allowed to remain up.
That's why I think Google took it down.
There are companies, there are platforms that are popping up that are challenging the bad press and the censorship.
So there's a reason why I've been very active in promoting Minds.
So full disclosure, I am now in the same building as Minds because I saw them as people who really had shared similar values and want a free and open internet and were willing to defend free speech.
BitChute is doing something similar.
There is a concern that BitChute is based in the UK, so they have different laws.
They don't have the First Amendment protecting them.
And there's also another organization that I've mentioned frequently, AllSides.com.
That I think is picking up the slack in terms of the bad journalism.
They covered the Project Veritas story in a very neutral and simple way.
I don't feel they took any direct sides and said, here's what it is.
And they presented a left-wing perspective and a right-wing perspective.
And that's honorable and you can see the integrity in that work.
Here's what I hope.
I hope the actions taken by these big Silicon Valley giants I hope that it results in actual market competition.
I am really impressed to see that these videos by Veritas are breaking hundreds, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of views.
That means YouTube and Google are hurting themselves and hurting their core business, and it's going to result in the rise of competition, which we finally need to see.
Minds operates as a video hosting platform, as a news feed, and Facebook's actions and censorship, and even government censorship, has resulted in people flocking there.
YouTube is resulting in people flocking to BitChute, and we're seeing now multiple companies step up to counteract Twitter.
You've got Gab and now Parlay.
Of course, the big Silicon Valley giants are circling the wagons.
Apple, you know, the App Store is taking down Gab, is threatening Parley.
They're not going to allow their rivals, the rivals of their friends, to succeed.
And that's what truly is scary to me, that these companies in San Francisco protect one
another.
They use their power in various sectors to suppress any competition for their buddies.
That's why we need some kind of regulation or some kind of takedown.
I don't know what form it should take.
I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I'm glad to see we got this video here.
Dan Crenshaw grilling Google.
Ted Cruz the day before.
Louie Gohmert coming out with a statement.
Google should not be allowed to do this.
We need a full-on investigation.
The evidence is here, okay?
Veritas has put it out, and they are trying to un-person Veritas because of this.
I want to make a point about some other information that I think is alarming in this similar field.
We've got a news story.
Not five things I want to know about, summarize each morning, CNN, but thanks for the pop-up.
This is from yesterday night.
Bank of America will no longer do business with companies that run detention centers.
This news follows a few months ago, we heard that... Oh, this is the wrong story, I'm sorry.
A few months ago, we heard that J.P.
Morgan would stop financing private prisons and detention centers after protests.
I'll say this.
I absolutely, 100% object to private prison systems because they create an incentive to incarcerate.
And I look forward to them being shut down.
And I look forward to good government oversight to create real rehabilitative centers for criminals.
But what we're seeing with these banks appears to be morality business decisions.
Banks like Bank of America and JP Morgan are changing their behaviors because of protests.
To me that's alarming.
I think what they're concerned about is the bad PR resulting in customers leaving the bank.
But that means the bank is making decisions not based on the needs of the public, they're making decisions based on moral choices.
I feel, I fear, this is only going to result in a dramatic escalation in the culture war and push us closer towards actual civil conflict.
Chase Bank debanked, you know, whatever you want to call it, some conservative personalities.
That's scary.
Mastercard put pressure on Patreon to ban a certain, you know, a personality who challenges Islamic extremism.
And now we see Bank of America saying they're not going to do business with companies that run detention centers.
So what do we do?
Who finances them?
Well, I do think the government should be running these things, not private entities, for sure.
But I also think the solution isn't an abrupt moral change that shutters these businesses and creates complete social upheaval.
I guess I'm a reformist.
I think we need to sit down and make changes to fix the system, not knock it down and let everything go crazy.
But the reason I highlight this is that what we're seeing is massive corporations injecting their morality to determine policy.
The government seems to be helpless.
And that's the story I was highlighting that I clicked over on accident.
It's from the Resurgent, which I'm not familiar with, but they say, Corporate Despotism.
Governments don't have a monopoly on tyranny.
Just ask Bank of America.
I'm not going to read through it, but I highlight this to make a point.
This story highlights what Bank of America did.
What I'm seeing now, in a true, you know, American liberal fashion, where the Democrats used to be, are massive corporations that have privatized censorship and moral policing.
The government can't do it.
We have a constitution.
So what ends up happening?
Bank of America takes a moral stance to shut down detention centers.
I'm sure the activists are very happy.
But if the Democrats in the far left got behind Trump in the first place when he said there was a border crisis, you wouldn't have kids in these horrifying conditions.
I do not appreciate the conditions at the border.
I think we need to get the funding over there, get the beds over there, help these kids out, and do what we can to solve this problem.
But it seems like the Democrats ignoring the problem and obstructing created the horrifying conditions.
It wasn't Trump who created the horrifying conditions, and it certainly isn't Trump who's incentivizing the migrants to come here.
But Bank of America will certainly take a moral position to stop funding detention centers.
That's just going to lead us to children suffering even further if they don't have resources to provide for the kids, and apparently they already don't.
What's the solution?
I don't know.
But when massive corporations have the power to supersede government, to supersede our culture and what we are working towards politically, we're in serious trouble.
When a few companies in Silicon Valley can shut down your speech and prop up the positions they like, we're in serious trouble.
The most alarming thing to me.
It didn't stop with, you know, Jones.
It's not going to stop with Paul Joseph Watson.
The next person in line is Project Veritas.
Because you better believe, the only thing that's going to stop these people is journalism.
When the journalism is done right, and it shines a light on the corruption, we can then take action.
So I'll tell you what they'll do, like all despots.
They will shut down the free press.
And that's why the First Amendment is speech, the press, religion, a redress of grievances, and, um, uh, that's the important part that I want to highlight.
Because it is five freedoms.
But with speech, and the press, and a redress of grievances, you can see what the Founding Fathers knew to be most important.
You need to be able to investigate wrongdoing.
You need to be able to speak up about it.
And you need to be able to go to the government and say, enough.
And what's happening now?
The privatization of tyranny.
And left-wing activists saying, but my private platform.
Saying that you have no right to free speech in these platforms.
Congratulations.
They've outsourced censorship to private companies.
And we need to address it.
Otherwise, we'll end up in a world of corporate despotism, where massive companies have more power than the government, and thus, they can dictate beyond the Constitution.
They're going to shut down Veritas, I assure you, because journalism is the only thing that will stand up to these companies.
And I'm not surprised to see that Google uses the ideology, they use left-wing ideology to get these people in media to defend them.
But what happened the other day when their employees wanted to protest against them because Google wasn't defending Pride?
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
Google told their employees they weren't allowed to protest.
To me, these big companies embracing this left-wing ideology is a ruse.
To rally someone to their side, to embrace censorship, and to use the moral justification to remove anyone who dare oppose them.
I'll warn you today, as has, you know, Project Veritas and others, it won't end with Veritas.
But I assure you, they'll eventually be deleted.
They'll be purged.
They'll be smeared in the historical record, and you will see Wikipedia start smearing, and they already do it.
I'll tell you this right now.
I mentioned the other day.
Wikipedia claims I went to Sweden because of Paul Joseph Watson.
Complete lie.
The source they have says I went there because of statements made by Donald Trump.
That's the truth.
But will they publish the truth?
They won't.
They twist and justify how their personal opinion on the article supersedes the actual citation.
And when you try and change it, they will lock the page and kick you out.
The record will be changed on Wikipedia.
The tech giants will ban the journalists.
The banks will defund anyone who opposed their moral policing.
And this is our new future.
I wonder how long it'll take till they ban me.
So you know what?
Make sure you follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
Subscribe to the podcast.
I ask you now this as a favor directly, to go to Apple and go to Google.
I know they're big tech giants too, but we'll split things up because podcasts right now are a bit safer.
The first thing I said was Mines, for sure.
But sign up to the podcast.
You can listen to my full hour and a half there every day.
In the end, Minds.com, hopefully they can survive the censorship because, look, we know they've come for Gab and now Parley.
So unless something is said and done by politicians, it will only get worse and nothing can stop them.
Google has already begged not to be regulated.
I don't know what kind of regulation is the right action.
I don't know what you should or shouldn't do.
I do know that these are really, really bad things that are going to bring about a nightmarish future for all of us.
I'll leave it there.
Long rant today, but I appreciate you guys hanging out.
Stick around, I'll have more segments coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6pm and the podcast every day at 6.30pm.
I will see you all shortly.
Over the past several years, I've talked about the potential for escalation, and then the escalation.
We've seen people chased out of restaurants.
Well, now we're seeing an escalation.
Eric Trump being spit on.
It's one thing when protesters show up and tell, you know, I don't know, Ted Cruz or Sarah Sanders, you know, get out of the restaurant, we don't like you, and they protest.
I'm actually okay with that to a certain degree.
Like, I love the fact that in America, I can walk right up to anybody I want, You can't get too close, but there are some restrictions.
But you can give them the middle finger.
You can just shove your middle finger right in their face.
I'm being facetious, okay?
You can't shove it right in their face, but you can get close to them and say, hey, I don't like you, and yell at them.
I have to clarify that, because actually, if you put your middle finger in someone's face, that could be perceived as assault in a lot of jurisdictions, entering someone's private space.
The point I'm trying to make is, you in this country have a right to tell other people, F you.
And we've seen that happen with Republicans in restaurants.
And while I think civility is very important, you know what?
Sometimes people protest.
This is a whole other issue.
From the New York Times.
Waitress spit on Eric Trump at Chicago bar, Trump organization says.
Now this is where it gets worrying.
Okay, in Chicago, it is battery to spit on someone.
Okay, there's assault and there's battery.
Let's clarify this for a minute.
In New York, my understanding is that, like New York City, to be charged with assault, you have to actually cause harm.
Meaning like, if you hit somebody and there's like, if you, let's say you walk up to somebody and like,
you know, give them a light tap on the shoulder.
The cops are probably gonna say that's not assault.
If you actually whack them really hard and they're like, ah, it hurts,
then the cops are gonna say that's assault, right?
I learned this, it was really interesting, I think because like protests and protests are action
and you know what, the police were actually willing to charge.
However, in Chicago, if you get with,
if you give someone a reasonable fear of harm, that's assault.
And if you make physical contact with them in a variety of ways, that's battery.
Spitting on someone is battery.
You're making physical contact, and the intent is to humiliate.
So that's an offense.
It's a misdemeanor up to a year in jail.
Now, we'll read through the story, but what I find alarming is this trend towards this.
What we're seeing here is a GoFundMe that has 11,000 shares on Facebook that reads, my friend got fired for spitting on a Trump.
It's raised $4,405 of a $5,000 goal.
What we have here is someone committing an act of admittedly, possibly the lowest level of physical violence you can do, but yes.
It is legally considered violence.
We can argue semantics all day and night.
Legally in Chicago, it is considered violence and it was for political reasons.
If you do this in DC, that's actually a hate crime.
So I bring that up to point out how legalities can differ, right?
This is not a hate crime.
In DC, it would be because it was politically motivated.
So in Chicago, a woman committed one of the lowest tiers of political violence you can legally be charged with.
And now people are raising money for her, providing economic incentives and safety nets for those who commit acts of violence.
What's worrying to me is not that he got spit on.
Don't spit on somebody.
She's apparently been fired.
The New York Times says she's been put on leave, but she may have been fired.
I'm not sure.
This says she was fired.
Don't spit on people.
But, you know, look, there's nuance, and it's not black and white.
It's not like, this is the worst crime ever, lock them up.
And, you know, so her getting fired, probably getting a fine, I think, is warranted.
But the concern here is, if people know that if they commit an act of violence now against someone for political reasons, that people on the internet will start throwing money at them, you literally have economic incentives to do this.
Because think about this.
She loses her job.
Sure.
But, so far it looks like, assuming this is really going to the woman, she's gonna get about $5,000 for spitting on Trump.
Tell me that is not an economic incentive to commit violence.
Listen, how much is someone going to make as a waitress at this bar?
I can't imagine it's $5,000 in one month.
It's probably a lot less.
Maybe, you know, $2,000 to $3,000.
I don't know.
It depends on how tips can be, right?
So maybe it's a good bar.
There's certainly some restaurants where you can make a ton of money, and servers can make a ton of money.
So I don't know what the average, you know, server is gonna make.
But this is five grand.
I mean, that's a safety net so that she can go and find work and carry on, which means, today, if you decide to escalate tensions and commit an act of violence against somebody, What are we seeing?
There's enough people on the internet that will fund your behavior, that will provide for your defense.
And I'll throw this back to Trump too.
Because Trump said at a rally, something to the effect of like, hit that guy, I'll pay your legal defense.
He had to walk those statements back.
Because that, you know, this, it's not starting here.
You had the president campaigning on, you know, you know, I'll pay your legal defense or whatever.
So it's escalation period.
I'm not, I'm not making this video.
To point to, you know, the left or the right, specifically, and say, like, who's responsible for it.
It was Eric Trump getting spit on in this instance.
He's not getting punched, he got spit on.
It's annoying, you know, to wipe it off, and it's gross, and maybe someone's got a disease or something, so you know.
But in the end, he got spit on, you know, he's gonna walk away from it okay, but now you have people who know that they can step it up, and they're gonna be rewarded for this.
This is one of the most alarming things I think we'll see in ongoing escalation.
Not just from Trump.
No, but look, Trump did walk back those statements.
So there's a line between Trump saying stupid things like, you know, I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of, I'll pay your legal fees, and then he had to walk it back later.
Like, you know, don't, don't, you know, we got to be civil.
That's de-escalation.
That's being like, that was a mistake to say that we've got to walk that back.
It was bad for him.
It was trouble for him.
But this is different.
This is...
There's no face behind this.
This is literally... There's no one to walk anything back.
There's no statements to be made.
There's just literally... There's just literally the effect.
You do this, and people online will give you money.
The GoFundMe reads, My friend allegedly spat on Eric Trump and got fired.
That's what happens when we bring the crises from our neighborhoods to the people causing slash getting rich off those cities.
I want to make sure she's good to go until she finds a new job and that she won't have to worry about paying any legal fees, etc.
Throw down to support this young badass, excuse me, who wasn't going to let some Can I say Jagoff?
Bully, get away with his nonsense.
What did he do?
He was eating food?
Like, I can't imagine he did anything to warrant getting spat on.
It's just somebody who's gone nuts with Trump derangement syndrome.
We're trying to keep her anonymous for now to keep her and her family safe.
So you're not going to find her name here.
This stuff might all blow up or her name might get leaked or whatever.
So this page might disappear.
Stay tuned on other social media to keep tabs on what's happening.
So just as a point of reference, I pulled up ChicagoCriminalLawyer.com just to show you.
It says, knowledgeable Chicago defense attorney can help you know what you need to expect in a battery case.
Battery is a general term that is often misunderstood.
Most people assume that in order to be charged with battery, they have to come into direct physical contact with another person.
But under Illinois state law, battery also includes any case where someone caused bodily harm to another individual, even if they never came into direct contact.
Examples of battery with no direct contact include spitting on someone, throwing a bucket of mop water, throwing a drink in their face, Examples of simple battery where there is physical contact include punching, hitting, etc, etc.
You get the point.
Pushing somebody, grabbing someone's close hair.
I want to highlight the spitting thing.
So I can tell you that under Illinois state law, this is considered beyond assault, right?
Assault is when, my understanding, okay, I could be wrong, in Illinois, if you make someone reasonably afraid.
So if you run full speed at someone and get close and then stop, that's considered assault.
If you put your hand in someone's face, that is considered assault.
It really does depend, but that can be, you know, what happened.
So actually, let's read a little bit from the story to see what happened anyway.
The point of this video is not the nitty-gritty of what happened with Eric Trump, but specifically about how people are going to fund this behavior.
They say a Chicago waitress was placed on leave after Eric Trump accused her of spitting on him while he was having dinner on Tuesday night.
An official with the Trump Organization, where Mr. Trump is an executive vice president, said the woman who spit on him was immediately handcuffed and detained by the Secret Service and the Chicago police.
She was released after about two hours when Mr. Trump decided not to press charges.
Spot on.
Bravo, Mr. Trump.
I believe that was the right decision to make.
You know, there's no reason, in my opinion, to pursue this.
As much as it would be emotionally satisfying, I think we're at a time where we could do with some de-escalation.
And we can be adults.
Look, if someone spat on me, I'd be upset and I'd walk away from it.
I think it's the adult thing to do.
We don't want to become whiny, litigious.
But I'll tell you what, if Trump spat on her, she'd press charges in a heartbeat.
So there's something about taking the high road on this one.
Walk away.
Enough.
We're done.
She lost her job.
Congratulations.
You know, you protest.
Well, that's what you get.
We actually have a photo here.
Mary Ann Ahern from NBC says police presence outside Okay, so I'll say it's an upscale cocktail bar.
The woman probably makes a decent amount of money.
New York Times.
This is not harassment.
This is actually battery.
aviary an upscale cocktail bar. Okay, so I'll say it's an upscale cocktail bar. The woman probably
makes a decent amount of money. Just west of downtown was not the first time someone close
to President Trump has reported harassment while in public.
New York Times, this is not harassment, this is actually battery. This direct physical, you know,
it's beyond assault.
They talk about protesters shouting shame at Kirstjen Nielsen.
I'm okay with that.
I am.
You know what?
People are gonna yell at you.
Welcome to being an adult and welcome to being a public figure.
I think it's really funny that they complain that people are mean to them on the internet and then they show up in real life and you start yelling at people.
It's like, yeah, you know what?
We're adults here.
They say Eric Trump, in an interview with Breitbart, described being spun as purely a disgusting act by somebody who clearly has emotional problems and appeared to tie it to democratic opposition to his father's presidency.
For a party that preaches tolerance, this once again demonstrates they have very little civility.
Yep.
And remember when Hillary said, once we win, we can be civil?
What does that mean?
That, well, it falls into what they've been saying all along.
By any means necessary.
That's what they've been saying.
So we see the lies.
We see the assault and battery.
And then we see the incivility.
Or I should say, the incivility comes first.
When somebody is sick enough to resort to spitting on someone, it just emphasizes a sickness and desperation and the fact that we are winning.
Officials with the Aviary released an unsigned statement Wednesday describing an unfortunate incident that occurred between an employee at the Aviary and Eric Trump.
That employee has been placed on leave, the statement said, adding that restaurant officials did not witness the reported spitting.
Placed on leave does not mean fired.
What is certain is this.
No customer should ever be spit upon, the bar said.
It went on to criticize people who had made comments online calling for the demise of our business, as well as those who are praising this as an act of civil disobedience.
We hope this incident can at least serve to illuminate the current absurdity of the discourse in our politics, the aviary statement said.
I do think leave means they'll bring her back later.
She should be fired.
I mean, she committed a crime against a patron.
Get rid of her!
Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for Chicago Police, said city officers had been on scene and assisting the United States Secret Service with a law enforcement matter.
He declined to comment further, and the Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for more information.
They also say that Mr. Trump did not immediately respond either.
However, he did post photos of Trump Tower in Chicago.
And I think, look, I think that's all we really need to talk about.
They say the United States Attorney's Office in Chicago said federal charges were not expected in this case.
An official with the county prosecutor's office said the incident was an ongoing police investigation and declined to comment.
The Trump family has long had a strained relationship with Chicago.
Yada yada, you get the point.
So that's what happened with Eric.
He got spat on.
I really don't think it's that big of a deal.
What I wanted to point out specifically for this story, and let me know what you think.
Comment below, let me know what you think.
People will commit these crimes, and they'll make money doing it.
It took, look, they've raised $4,405 from 276 people.
That's not a lot of people.
There are millions of people who really don't like Trump.
The resistance is decently large.
Let's say every one of Rachel Maddow's diehard viewers who watch every night, which is about 2 million, would be willing to give someone money if they physically attacked a Republican or a Trump or something like that.
Not all of them would.
I'm sure a lot of them don't like Trump but would never resort to this or condone it.
But let's say even 10%.
Now you've got, what, 200,000 people willing to throw money at someone for doing something like this?
In this instance, the woman is going to be taken care of.
She committed a physical act of violence, albeit very low level, I get it, against Eric Trump, and now she's going to cash out $5,000.
Probably more!
Probably more.
And, you know, I'll say this too, I admit it.
Like, I understand providing publicity for this will likely result in, you know, more money going towards them because I'm sure there's people who hate watch my content.
But, look, it's got 11,000 shares.
This is viral enough.
I'm really worried that, you know, when 2020 lights up, when we actually get into campaign season next year, throughout the 2016 campaign, people were running around attacking Trump supporters.
Like, I kid you not, lighting hats on fire.
I watched an elderly couple get knocked to the ground.
They're emboldened.
They're going to be even more emboldened because they know if they get arrested, people will pay for it.
Now look, I'll throw it back to Trump who said I'll pay your legal bills, but he did walk back those comments, and now we have a phenomenon of anonymous people.
So you can argue that Trump started it sure fine, but he did walk it back eventually.
It doesn't matter.
You can blame whoever you want, the escalation is here, and it's not going to be good for anybody.
Let me know what you think.
For those that are hanging out watching, you can go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
If you like these videos, share them.
It's the only way to get the message out because YouTube has made some changes recently which are negatively impacting suggestions for my channel.
It is what it is.
Podcast is available on iTunes and Google Play as well as many other platforms.
So every day around 6.30 I publish the full hour and a half of all of my content.
It's available there.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you on the next segment starting at 1 p.m.
on youtube.com slash timcastnews.
Recently, there's been some hubbub over old photos surfacing of Ocasio-Cortez seemingly staging a PR event outside of a detention center.
In the photos, you can see Ocasio-Cortez, you know, weeping and crying, and it looks like she's crying.
Let's pull them up first, because I know some of you have probably already seen this, but I want to make sure anybody who missed the context will see these photos.
The news here Is that we have a new photo that is being shared showing the bigger picture as to what Ocasio-Cortez was protesting.
And as you can imagine, it was nothing.
It was an empty parking lot.
I'm not exaggerating.
So first, let's do this.
Here are the photos posted by Ivan Pierre Aguirre.
He says, before AOC hit the national stage and was just a fairly unknown House candidate from NYC, she took time away from her campaign and came down to Torneo to protest the tent city housing migrant children.
I made these previously unpublished photos a year ago today.
So you can see this photo and, you know, she looks forlorn and upset.
In this photo, it looks like she's crying.
She isn't, in my opinion.
Then you can see her crouching down and, you know, looking like she's just so upset.
And then another photo of her looking just so sad.
Now, here's the thing.
She was dragged by people on the left and the right for this.
Many people on the left said, dude, what is this?
You're taking pictures of- you're posting pictures of yourself?
I understand someone else took the photos, that's normal.
But she retweeted this, and they're like, show us the kids.
Don't show us you doing a- like, posting you looking to the camera all longingly.
And many conservatives on the right said basically the same thing.
We have this story from the Daily Dot.
This is what's funny.
I want to make sure it's clear.
The left and the right were dragging her.
I don't know how many people on the left or the right, but yes, there were people on both sides who thought she was using this as a PR stunt.
But of course, you'll find partisan media are going to make it about conservatives!
And yes, they're conservative outlets making it about liberals.
The point is, it was both.
It really was.
There was one article I read where it said her own base and supporters were questioning her, and that's true.
But to frame it in only one way is wrong.
Everybody dragged her.
Now, here's the thing.
Conservative outlets have no problem pointing out that conservatives are literally criticizing her because they're a conservative outlet criticizing her.
In this instance, Daily Dot's trying to make it seem like it's only conservatives who are upset, and they try and defend her behavior.
But here's what I'm gonna do.
I'm going to read this, and I'm going to show you some of the comments people made and how they framed the story.
Well, let's just do that, and then I'll show you the photo.
So, I think it's important to know, in the photo I have, she's standing in front of an empty parking lot.
I'll show you the photo in a second, but I want to go through the context and show you how they framed stories to make it seem like, you know, the story is actually one way or another by misleading you by omitting information.
The story writes, a batch of photos showing Ocasio-Cortez at a child housing complex for undocumented immigrants in Texas last year is sparking some criticism online.
The photos, which were made public by a photographer earlier this week, show Ocasio-Cortez just days before she would go on to win the primary in 2018.
in 2018. Now in fact these photos were published some of them were published a year ago. They show
the New York lawmaker clearly emotional standing next to a chain-link fence and crying. Well I
don't think you can say she is crying.
I think the fair assessment is standing next to a chain-link fence with her face on her hands.
I don't see any tears.
I just see her with a furled brow and her hands on her face.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the photographer on Twitter and said she would never forget going there.
You're gonna love seeing this photo.
As the Houston Chronicle pointed out in 2018, she was part of a group of protesters at the facility.
She tweeted about the protest, which was also attended by activists and celebrities on the same day.
She also tweeted similar photos a few days later.
Scrolling down, we can see one person said, I feel her emotions in every single picture, especially that last one.
It's pure anger.
And how can one not feel anger after seeing what she saw?
For those listening on the podcast, I understand you can't really see, you know, but I told you, it's an empty parking lot.
And for those that are watching, it's an empty parking lot!
There she is.
Here is a real photo, not taken from an angle that omits the context of what's happening around her.
She was crying while looking at an empty parking lot.
Congratulations.
You can feel her emotions?
Is that what you said?
Oh, w-what?
I- especially that last one.
It's pure anger.
How can she not feel anger after seeing what she saw?
I, too, get angry when I see an empty parking lot.
Not for the same reasons, though.
I see- I do it because I'm like, did you really need that big of a parking lot?
Can we plant some trees or something?
What can you see here?
There's a tent city, a facility.
Ocasio-Cortez is, in my opinion, pretending to cry, and here she is hugging someone, as she looks longingly at an empty parking lot.
Okay.
Listen.
I understand that beyond the parking lot there's a tent city, but she can't see anything.
She can't see any harsh conditions.
She doesn't see any kids.
She sees an empty parking lot.
So I guess you want to cry, but I have to wonder why this photographer didn't publish the photos showing the other angle.
Perhaps this photo came from him, I don't know.
On Twitter, he didn't.
Kenzie Borland, they highlight her tweet, says, Sure!
I'm upset by that, absolutely!
But she's looking at an empty parking lot!
I kid you not!
What is this?
There's two cops, standing on the other side of a fence, of an empty parking lot.
Can I say that again?
it too. Sure, I'm upset by that, absolutely. But she's looking at an empty parking lot.
I kid you not. What is this? There's two cops standing on the other side of a fence
of an empty parking lot. Can I say that again? Empty parking lot. A large contingent of conservatives
also criticized them for looking staged or for being part of a performance.
However, it wasn't Ocasio-Cortez who shared the photos.
Yes, it was.
She post- she quote tweeted the guy and said, I'll never forget this.
And it was she who went to a detention center a year ago, highlighting a cause she has continued to rail against since taking office.
We get it.
And then you have conservatives criticizing her.
So in this Daily Dot story, they've done one of the famous things that I love.
You know, I love how journalists do this.
Two tweets from the left to act like the left is defending her, and three tweets from the right.
Congratulations, you found random people.
But you know what?
It's like a man on the street.
It's like when Jimmy Kimmel goes out and asks dumb people dumb questions and makes them look dumb.
If you go outside and do an actual man on the street, you'll find some dumb people, some smart people, some average people.
And then what they do is they edit it down to make everyone look really, really stupid.
That's basically what we have today for most of media.
They'll take a few tweets from the left, criticize Cortez, and say, ah, look, the left is mad at her.
I'll take a few tweets from the right.
Same thing.
The Daily Dot is framing this with two tweets on the left to make it seem like it's only conservatives who are upset.
I'm sorry.
She was crying about seeing an empty parking lot, but you know what?
We're gonna move on from it because I got another story.
This one's from The Daily Wire, and come on, man.
These people I find, they're insufferable.
Alyssa Milano takes chauffeur-driven Mercedes to detention center, tries to enter, it doesn't work.
Okay, here we go.
Here we go again.
This time, not a year ago, but today.
On Wednesday, actress Alyssa Milano showed up at an immigration detention center in Florida in her chauffeur-driven Mercedes and attempted to get inside, boasting, quote, I'm Alyssa Milano.
I'm an actress activist, and I would love to be let in based on a community visit.
The government agents had a simple response.
Nope.
As the Daily Mail reported once back in her car, Milano filmed another video and asked her 3.6 million followers to submit requests asking for her to be allowed in on Thursday.
She urged her fans, we tried to get in, they wouldn't let us.
They gave me a card to email to make a visit request.
Maybe we should all email and tell them to let me in.
Because I'm going to go back there tomorrow and, again, try to be let in.
They want me to make an appointment to be let back in.
Usually that appointment is set up for two weeks later.
Of course, in that two weeks, they'll have time to clean up the place.
I thought it was important that they just let me in.
Okay.
They can't just let anybody in.
It's complicated.
But I do think she's right.
They'll definitely clean things up and try and give her, like, a Potemkin Village kind of visit.
But come on, you've got to be nuts to think you can show up randomly to a detention center, demand to be let in, and then get let in, and then the only reason she thinks, like, the only reason she above anyone else would maybe have that ability is because she's putting pressure, she's brigading.
Okay, look, if you go on Twitter and say, hey, I want X to happen, and you trigger your fans to go and do something, yeah, great, you have that power, it's called social currency.
But no, people just can't randomly be let into detention centers.
Milano said, we gotta shut down these detention centers.
There are thousands of children at Homestead.
They had pencils and pens taken away from them because they were cutting themselves.
They are not allowed to have any physical contact with each other to comfort each other, even if they are siblings.
The 17 year old, once they turn 18, they're put into solitary confinement and then shackled and brought to an adult detention center.
She continued.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There are laws in place that they don't seem to be following.
They wouldn't let me in, again, so the only glimpse I got of the children was over the
fence.
Please educate and empower yourselves.
Use your voices.
We can all make a difference.
If you have any of these detention centers in your community, please show up.
Ask to be let inside.
Make sure they know that people are watching and that we're going to continue to watch
and as always, thank you for your support and your love.
I feel honored.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, we get it, Alyssa.
I have no problem with that statement following, right?
Look, you're not going to get let in, okay?
And you've got to set up an appointment.
That's just the way things work.
I don't blame her necessarily for trying, I guess.
She wants to highlight these issues, and I think the conditions there are bad.
That's been reported far and wide.
Here's what needs to happen, though.
You've got the extremes on the left saying, shut them down.
And do what with the kids?
Are they better off just walking around outside with nowhere to go?
I mean, seriously, where are you going to put them?
Okay?
I'm genuinely asking.
Comment below, let me know what you think.
Where can these kids go?
A lot of these kids at Homestead came without parent.
They were unaccompanied minors.
So what can we do?
Some people have said send them off to community houses.
In the debates they said, you know, have them be housed in the community at a fraction of the cost.
Yes, but where?
Right?
In Mexico, here, and at the border.
We're overwhelmed.
Hundreds of thousands of people have come across already this year alone.
Yes, we want to make sure they're safe.
I assure you the ICE agents aren't evil trying to harm people.
They're actually helping them.
Some of these people are dying of heat stroke in the desert.
So maybe they're better off in bad conditions than dead.
I honestly don't know what the solution is.
Because, think about it.
When they're put in these conditions that are really bad, people then, you know, you get the Democrats and the left-wing activists saying, how dare you?
Okay.
What do we do?
Because if you shut it down, are they gonna be better off outside?
No.
Then the Democrats are gonna say, these poor children are homeless and outside, we need to do something.
Why aren't they setting up centers for these kids?
And then you do, and then they get mad, and then when a company like Wayfair is gonna put beds in these places, they protest that too!
So you know what, man?
Just tell me what you're gonna do with the kids instead of just saying, shut it down and be compassionate, because that's not a solution.
Alright?
Final thoughts, wrap this up.
Look, I have no problem with the activism, just- but you have to talk about solutions.
Okay?
I don't always know the answers, but I do often propose some ideas.
And I will point out problems.
I won't call for- you know, when I talk about, like, Google and big tech, I flat out said the other day, I don't know if breaking them up is the right thing to do.
It seems better than getting rid of Section 230.
But I ultimately don't know.
We need to have this conversation and talk about solutions.
Imagine if people came out and said, just shut them down.
Just, just, you know, burn to the ground.
Okay, then what?
That doesn't change, doesn't solve the problem.
You're just kicking the can down the road.
In this instance, what they're, what they're demanding might actually make things worse.
But you know what?
Regardless of their opinions, they can always show up to an empty parking lot and cry, and get attention for their political campaign.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
You can go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
Share the video if you like the content, and I will see you all in the next segment.
Most of the stuff that Project Veritas has put out has been really plausible.
Documents about algorithmic bias, emails, and it's got a whistleblower providing documents and giving a statement, so I lean more towards it's very likely that this stuff is true.
Plus, I believe Veritas does a decent job of vetting their sources.
You don't have to trust them, you can criticize them for things that they've done in the past, but we have documents that are corroborated by on-camera statements As well as other reporting from other sources.
That's why I'm more likely to believe this is true.
However, this latest document dropped by Veritas is so insane, I'm sorry.
I'm gonna have to hold a little grain of salt here.
I'm not saying I don't trust them, but listen.
If this document proves to be true, It is a document telling their employees how to protest and giving them examples of far-left protest chants.
If this document does prove to be true, I imagine it could trigger emergency hearings.
These are literally advocating for no wall, sanctuary cities, far-left policy.
They are giving these examples to people of how to protest.
They released from resist at Google is about teaching people to protest.
Okay, the examples they give far-left policies.
That's what's mind-blowing.
So I'm going to say this I reserve the possibility that Veritas slipped up on this one just because it is outside the realm of what I find to be plausible, but I'm not saying they're wrong.
I'm just saying you look I have no way to verify the document.
Everything they've published in the past has been, like, look, when Veritas published the documents, you actually had a guy on camera talking about the documents.
You actually had Jenjanai talking about certain things that appeared in the documents.
You have a leaked email with a bunch of different people on it.
This is just not, it's just very unlikely to be faked, but possible.
I always reserve the right to be wrong.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
But the reason I'm saying all this is not to discredit or insult Veritas in any way.
I think, you know, they've come out with real proof of wrongdoing and corruption over the past several weeks.
It's just, I really can't believe this latest, this document telling people no ban, no wall.
You know what the chant was?
They were chanting in California, no ban, no wall, no USA at all.
That's what they were chanting.
And so they have those hashtags here.
We know what that rhetoric is.
No USA at all.
Internal at Google.
So, again, I'm saying, if it's true, I'm doing a heavy disclaimer on this because Wow.
Seriously.
So if you're someone who trusts Veritas, this is shocking information.
I gotta do this.
I'll do it with a lot of videos.
TimCast.com slash donate.
There's a PayPal option, there's a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
I really, you know, I could use your support.
Comment, subscribe, engage.
We're dealing with censorship, overt censorship, and we're seeing it from within Google.
So it's possible those of us who challenge the machine will get purged at some point.
Veritas has had his videos removed.
He's been banned from Reddit.
Vimeo took the video down?
Yeah.
The censorship isn't gonna stop.
So I'll say this.
If you think what I'm doing is important, don't rely on YouTube to recommend my content.
I ask you to share it and to check out all of this content Across all the podcast networks, Spotify, Google, iTunes, etc.
I know they're big tech as well, but at least there are alternatives, and I'm on minds.com slash Timcast.
From Veritas, leaked new Google document, Resist, shows internal beginner's guide to protesting.
Resist at Google.
So let's just, we'll skip the subheads.
Project Veritas has obtained a document from an insider at Google which appears to show internal suggestions of how to protest political events.
Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe says, This document leak is the fourth in a series of leaks from inside Google and their subsidiary YouTube.
This new document appears to show internal coordination of political protests which contradicts Google's public statements that they are politically neutral.
More tech insiders are coming forward and we will continue to work with them to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley.
The document labeled, The Beginner's Guide to Protesting, Googlers Unite, states it was created to, quote, assemble best practices and ensure that everyone feels comfortable and pumped about resistatgoogle.com marches and protests.
Why is Google organizing a specific arm to protest?
Very weird, isn't it?
Check this out.
The document includes politically charged example chants.
What do we want?
Justice.
When do we want it now?
Means nothing.
Oh hey, hey ho, that Muslim ban has got to go.
Overtly political.
Show me what democracy looks like.
Yeah, that's generic.
No ban, no wall.
No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all.
No ban, no wall, Americas for all.
Yes, the actual chant they used in California when I filmed them was, no ban, no wall, no USA at all.
The video, it's on Twitter, it's on YouTube.
No hate, no fear.
Refugees are welcome here.
No hate, no fear.
Immigrants are welcome here.
From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go.
That is, like, these are, look, these are examples.
But these are overt political statements being recommended to their staff about how to protest.
Okay?
They say, 1, 2, 3, 4, bring your rich, bring your poor, 5, 6, 7, 8, no more fear, no more hate.
So a lot of them are generic and mean nothing.
In the section titled Do's and Don'ts, the document tells readers that they should not feel obligated to stop at crosswalks, and that the point is to disrupt.
Look, I have no problem if they want to teach people to protest, and this may be like one employee saying, hey, I want to set something up.
But if this email is real, resist at Google, that means Google has allocated email server space to a protest-oriented group.
In the set, they say, Google executive Jen Janais said in a response to the first of four Veritas Google reports,
Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information without regard to
political viewpoint.
In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. That is not true.
More insiders can securely share their stories with Veritas.
Okay, so then they have the document and I have it pulled up
and there's some some statements we'll go through.
But I'm gonna say it again, man.
When I saw this, I just... I don't believe it.
I really don't.
I really, really don't.
So, while I trust Veritas to vet their sources, like, the Pinterest stuff checked out.
You know, we saw this stuff.
He did a demonstration showing you couldn't post this, and then Pinterest published a statement saying, yup, we banned them.
Plain and simple.
O'Keefe was right.
Veritas was right.
This insider gave a statement.
He gave documents to Veritas.
They're Google documents!
I can- So listen, I want to stress this.
I'm a very skeptical person, right?
I don't overtly trust Project Veritas.
But one of the documents they released, I could independently corroborate some of the information.
Some of it.
I don't want to act like I was able to confirm everything, but there was some of it I was able to confirm.
Because I also have sources within Google.
They're not giving me these kind of documents.
So this one is so shocking to me.
I find it hard to believe.
And I want to stress, it is possible That people will leak fake documents on purpose to discredit journalists.
So I'll say this now.
I just hope Veritas have crossed their T's, dotted their I's, and are acting with the utmost care right now.
Because, like I said, their stuff in the past has checked out.
They're being banned for it.
One of their documents, I was able to corroborate some of the information.
So I trust that what they're presenting is most... I can say...
I'm leaning towards it being true because I was able to corroborate some of this and the Pinterest stuff checked out.
I'm just... I'm so... I just... I don't know how to explain it.
Like this document goes above and beyond to show that Google is encouraging their employees to protest and giving them examples of statements that are far left.
Look at this.
Let's look at this section.
What to bring.
A sign.
Feel free to make your own sign, but you don't need one to participate.
Ideas for signage include.
No Muslim ban, no wall.
Don't be evil.
Refugees welcome.
Immigrants welcome.
Make America welcoming again.
Googlers unite.
Resist, never again.
No ban, no wall.
This is not who we are.
Muslims cure cancer.
This, it just seems so over the top.
You know what?
say this, whether or not it's real or fake doesn't even matter at this point. Of course,
Google might deny it, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't change the fact that it's
being released. And with what we've already seen from Veritas, we have already seen Dan Crenshaw,
Ted Cruz, and now Louie Gohmert issuing a statement about Google's activities.
Crenshaw and Cruz grilled Google staff. How soon until we actually have an over?
oversight hearing, a launching of an investigation into the political bias of this company and
their suppression of legal speech in politics.
More importantly, you can argue first amendment fine, but we're talking about election meddling
here.
We're talking about a company telling their employees to say things like, you know, no
ban, no wall, overtly political, resist.
They say, have a plan, bring a friend.
Debrief afterwards with resist at google dot com.
I'm sorry, man.
I'm shocked to see this.
They do say no violence.
Okay.
I appreciate that, Google.
Assuming this is true.
No shouting obscenities, don't escalate.
Absolutely.
Look, I'll say this for the most part, outside of the political statements, it's fairly good advice.
Don't escalate, no dangerous routes.
Now, I implore people, stop at crosswalks, okay?
Sometimes you can, you know, break the light, and you'll have, like, police or the numbers to, like, actually stop traffic.
Be careful.
I'd be really careful about this stuff, so anyway, I'll leave it here.
Veritas published this document, and if this turns out to be true, these are overt political statements.
Direct calls to action and advice on how to commit these actions.
This is above and beyond anything we've seen already.
This shows Google to be acting as an overt activist organization within a certain capacity.
But maybe it's not real.
Look, this one throws me for a loop.
It is what it is.
If you want to trust Veritas, it's on you.
A lot of journalists don't.
Their information of the past few weeks has checked out to a great degree.
The Pinterest stuff checked out.
I've corroborated some of the details, but this one, I just can't believe it.
I really can't believe this.
This is truly, truly insane.
So, man, I just don't know what else to say.
More segments to come up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The Dalai Lama has made controversial statements in the past, but perhaps where he comes from, it's not controversial.
I don't know.
In America, it is.
The story from the Daily Mail.
Dalai Lama warns that the whole of Europe could become Muslim or African if migrants are not returned to their home countries.
It's very interesting!
The Dalai Lama has gone alt-right, identitarian?
There are people in the U.S.
Let me break down one of the arguments you'll hear from like alt-right types as it goes
from like the US to Europe.
There are people in the US who argue that Europeans colonized the US.
and therefore, the white people of Europe have no claim to it.
But they simultaneously argue that they think, because Europe is, you know, where they originated from, they actually call themselves indigenous rights activists.
They claim that they have that right because they're indigenous.
It's a really interesting phrasing of the argument.
Because if you're an indigenous rights activist in North America, you'd be for Native Americans and First Nations people.
But in Europe, you'd be for the white people who live in those countries.
Now there's a difference between that, Identitarianism, and the alt-right where you have people in the U.S.
wanting the U.S.
to be a white ethnostate.
I think that's insane.
And I think to a certain degree as well, it's true for Europe.
Look, I'll throw the criticism to the Asian nations as well, because they are basically ethnostates.
And I'll speak to Koreans?
Racist.
For sure.
A lot of them.
Not all of them.
The younger ones are getting better.
But, look, at a certain point, there will be globalism.
I'm not saying it's good or it's bad.
One of the things that I think is pushing that's going to make globalism a reality is the fact that all of these nations are pointing weapons at each other and are hacking the critical infrastructure and there's mutually assured destruction that's going to make sure like we can never go to war ever again.
It's complicated.
I don't know what the future will hold.
I'm not advocating for morality.
I'm just saying, keep that in mind, right?
The fact that mutually assured destruction in terms of hacking and nuclear technology is going to force the suspension of war, and the rapid communications technology is going to mix all of these cultures together.
If you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's not the point.
But, to the Dalai Lama's point, it's really an interesting argument.
We read that headline already.
we read that headline already. They say the Buddhist spiritual leader, who has been living
as a refugee in India since fleeing Tibet in 1959, said only a limited number of migrants
should be allowed to remain. This is like a full-on alt-right argument. During an interview
with the BBC, the Dalai Lama added that refugees who have fled to Europe should be given skills
before being returned.
He said Europe was under an obligation to take in those who needed help.
That's nice of him.
But ultimately said they should be returned to their homelands.
It's interesting that this story...
It's from today.
But he said the same thing a while ago, like a year ago.
The 83-year-old said European countries should take these refugees and give them education
and training.
And the aim is return to their own land with certain skills.
I would agree with that, not for any race-based reason.
Listen, Tim Pool, as you may be aware, is mixed race.
I absolutely like, I appreciate, I encourage, I respect diversity.
I think that immigration is a good thing.
Legal immigration to protect our economy and allow for integration and for people to learn the language.
I don't think there's an obligation necessarily to learn the language, but I do think for social cohesion, we need groups to share a common culture.
And that common culture should be American culture, and we are a nation of immigrants.
The Dalai Lama is right, though.
I'll disagree with his concern over, you know, Europe becoming a Muslim or African nation.
And I will say, giving these people skills and returning them is teaching a man to fish, and I believe that is one of the best things we can do.
That actually sounds wholly noble, and I really like the idea.
Let the refugees come, you know, give them workshops, training, and then send them home with skills to help fix the fracturing in their society that caused them to flee in the first place.
We don't want people to abandon their homes because of problems and just come to the US or to Europe because it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't solve anything.
In fact, these people, if they can't build the economies and repair the damage to their home nations, they're likely going to live in squalor because they're going to be outside the culture of the countries they go to.
And I saw this in Sweden.
You had people who had come to Sweden, couldn't speak Swedish, and struggled to find work.
Some of them would resort to crime, and it's unfortunate.
So perhaps the Dalai Lama has a good point.
Maybe our programs should focus not on just letting people stay in the U.S.
forever, but giving them resources to better themselves, to learn new skills, and then provide them with the ability to go home and help improve the conditions in their home country.
You know, because you look at some of these countries like Syria and they're war-torn, and that's really sad.
Have you seen the photos of Aleppo before the war?
Beautiful.
Just absolutely beautiful.
And now it's just chaos and destruction.
I would love to see people go and bring that city back to life.
There is ancient history in Syria that is being destroyed.
By these awful people.
These fringe extremists.
Destroying ancient sites.
That breaks my heart.
What can we do to help those people go home?
And beyond that, how many of them really want to go home?
I imagine it's a lot of people.
If something happened in the United States and I was forced to flee, I would loathe that circumstance.
I love this country.
I love the trees.
I love the Pacific Northwest.
I love the climate.
And it's not just about the culture.
It's about the beauty of the specific ecosystem that I like to be in.
I've grown accustomed to.
The lakes, the hills, the mountains.
If something happened and things fell apart and I had to leave, I would want to come back.
And I would need help to do so.
So that's just my opinion.
I'm not a fan of like, you know, look, you've got a lot of people that will want to demagogue refugees.
I have no problem criticizing the rush of economic migrants who are trying to find jobs in foreign countries and say, listen, there's a legal process for this and you can't just leave your country and displace actual refugees.
That's the big concern.
I did a documentary with two brothers who were separated by the war in Syria.
One got asylum status in Romania, the other was stuck in Turkey.
It's a heartbreaking story.
Absolutely heartbreaking.
The older brother provided, uh, uh, created a care package of, uh, or I'm sorry, the younger brother created a care package of treats, of candies from Turkey that you could only get in Turkey and Syria and in similar locations.
And we brought it to the brother in Romania and he's crying, you know, reading this note from his brother saying, I hope to make it there soon.
The good news is he did make it.
The reason I highlight these brothers and why I'm proud of this documentary is these were two guys, they spoke English, they learned, they said, we're going to learn a language because we really do want to be a good part of your society.
They respected the culture.
They were, you know, I do think it sucks that we provide Like a bias towards those that embrace our culture, but in terms of finding work and surviving, it's something you have to do.
So these were guys who knew how to, you know, design things on the internet, how to animate, spoke English and other languages, and they were a family guy in South Park.
And so what we have here Are the perfect examples of refugees and why we should be doing our best to help them.
I certainly believe if there are refugees who don't speak English, we can do our best to help them as well.
But when you have, you know, two young guys who really are here because they're in fear of their lives because of a war in their country, and they're straight up saying like, you know, we can do work and we can help you and we will be a net gain in this economy, they really were.
They really, really were.
So there are security issues with the refugee crisis.
There are, you know, cultural concerns.
There's regional concerns, like why don't some of the neighboring countries take them in?
But there really are people who are good people, who respect you, who are, you know, willing to understand the culture and get jobs and do everything they need to do to be productive members of society.
The problem I see is that people on the left assume every single person coming is a refugee.
Not true.
People are trying to exploit the system.
Okay?
I don't know how many, but they exist.
And then you have, it's the activists, right?
I'm not trying to say, you know, middle-of-the-road people, like moderates, like us, you know, like regular people with opinions.
We understand.
But you have people on the fringe right and the fringe left that pull the extremes.
All the refugees are evil.
All the, you know, or say, all of these people aren't refugees, they're liars.
The other side says, all of these people are refugees.
Listen, man, that's not true.
But I want to make sure we can break through the bias and talk about the reality.
I know, you know, the Dalai Lama statement, we kind of deviated from it, but it is what it is.
Look, we gotta do what we can to find the real refugees and asylum seekers.
We have to ignore the extreme rhetoric from someone like Ocasio-Cortez, where she refers to all of them as refugees.
That disgusts me.
They're not all refugees.
There are people trying to displace refugees, and they're causing problems for those who truly need our help.
Okay?
And it's true for Europe as well.
But the Dalai Lama makes a great point.
Even these two brothers, who came to... I believe they're in Romania now?
I wonder at what point you guys go home.
You know, seriously.
Can you go back and now rebuild the country that you left?
One of the challenges is, it'll be really hard.
You know, especially if you've built a life, you can't just upend your life and go back.
But someone has to help bring back these lost cities.
The war was tragic.
You know, there's going to be volunteer organizations who try to repair the buildings and bring back life to these places following the war, and we need that.
So maybe there is a civic duty to those who are granted refugee status to be provided with resources to go back in repairing the countries they left.
Maybe that's something we should encourage and hope for.
In the end, it's funny that the Dalai Lama says this, and of course it'll be used by, you know, identitarian groups and as such to be like, aha, see, the Dalai Lama agrees, but I do believe it, you know, he probably agrees because of the Tibet situation, and so he's got a nationalist, you know, view.
Of a lot of these countries, though there is a difference between ethno-nationalism and nationalism, I understand that.
It's a complicated problem.
You know, we can't just allow every single person to come in because it's bad for the economy.
But we can set up legal screening processes to bring in people who can benefit our economies.
The Dalai Lama brings it to a racial and religious issue, and that for me, it's like, nah man, you're not gonna get me on an argument about culture changing, sorry.
But you can get me on the argument that these people can go home and fix their home countries because We don't want their countries to be in ruin.
You know, we send aid to these countries to help them.
Why don't we send aid along with the people and skills back to help repair the country?
It makes a lot of sense, right?
Hopefully that's kind of like a logical solution.
I'm the smartest person in the world, but I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you shortly.
From CBS News, the Straight Pride Parade clears first hurdle toward proposed August event.
Apparently, they got some document that approved them for their Straight Pride Parade.
I was thinking about the story, and I've been thinking about the trolling campaigns we see a lot of.
You know, you see, like, the signs where they say that, you know, it says that it's okay to be white or whatever.
The goal is to make an innocuous statement that everyone assumes true and then get the left to freak out about it.
And like clockwork, it works.
You get these people who are ragging on it and insulting it.
So for those that aren't familiar, a group called like Super Happy Fun America, we'll read through the story, proposes a straight pride parade.
Apparently it was because they wanted to put up a straight pride flag and the city said no and they said how come there's a gay pride but there's no straight pride?
And now you've got a bunch of celebrities criticizing it, insulting it, being mean, condescending.
Play along!
Have fun!
Have smiles!
Like, why can't we all just be positive about our interactions?
And this is what I asked last time I talked about this.
The response I see from the left because of this is to insult and degrade.
Why?
Nobody's being mean here.
They're saying, in fact, Milo Yiannopoulos is the Grand Marshal.
Like, I kid you not, they have a gay man as the Grand Marshal.
It's clearly meant to just be funny.
They want you to get angry, but don't get angry, grow up!
Somebody did a livestream, okay?
It was Owen Benjamin, and he called me an ugly half-breed and said I looked ridiculous.
And I laughed, like genuinely, you can see me, I'm smiling.
I laughed when I saw it.
Someone sent me the link, they were like, he's talking smack about you, and I watched it.
And it's funny.
It's funny.
Look, I don't care if you think I'm ugly, if you think I got crooked teeth, or I'm bald.
I really don't care, man.
I'm an adult, and I've got priorities, okay?
I've got a business to run.
I've got news to read.
I've got passions.
I try to make it to the skate park as much as possible.
I'm not going to be affected by you sending me a message and insulting me because I'm an adult, okay?
But we have these people who are permanently children.
unidentified
Who are going, oh, someone's having a straight pride parade.
Look, there are a lot of people who have actual hateful bigoted parades and marches or whatever.
Don't care about those either.
Okay?
Sticks and stones can break my bones.
Words?
Nah, not gonna hurt me.
Look, I'll tell you this, man.
There's literally nothing you can say to me that would hurt me.
I mean... I mean, there's a better way to put it.
You could probably say several things to me that would hurt me, like, I don't know, if my dog died, and then you were like, you know, you told me that you killed my dog, then I'd probably be infuriated, but that's different.
You can call me whatever you want.
People call me names all the time.
They insult me.
It's all over the comments.
It's all over Twitter.
Dude, I grew up a long time ago, okay?
I was 16, 17 years ago.
I'm over... You know, at a certain point in my life, I'm like, wow, it's just pointless to waste time on this stuff.
You know, if I tweet about it, I'll tweet it once.
Okay, I'm getting off on a tangent here.
I don't want to do that.
I want to read the story.
But before we get into... They got their approval, the first step.
Before we get into it, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share the video if you like the content.
Because I rely on you now, considering YouTube has kind of changed the system.
But also, go to minds.com slash timcast, follow me there where I will be uploading videos.
And I also have this available as an hour and a half long podcast.
All of my segments available.
Just listen to the whole thing.
It's everywhere you can find podcasts.
So I ask you, you know, leave a good review if you're listening on the podcast.
But let's get back to the story.
The organizers of Boston's proposed Straight Pride parade this summer announced their public event application was approved by the City Wednesday Report CBS Boston, and the group claims there is already a date set.
The organization Super Happy Fun America, which claims to advocate on behalf of the straight community in order to foster respect and alliances with people from all walks of life, is planning the event to celebrate straight pride according to its website.
There are so many people that are angry about this, and I'll tell you what bothers me.
This is an opportunity to have a community of straight people with the LGBT community coming together as one event in recognition of humanity.
And that's why I'm bothered.
Instead, they play right into the bait, get all angry, and throw fits, and say, we don't stand for this, we won't attend this, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
They said they want to form an alliance of people of all walks of life.
Come on down!
You get two pride events!
No, seriously, think about this.
You have gay pride, right?
LGBTQ pride.
Whatever acronym you want to use.
And allies can show up.
What about the inverse?
Where you have the straight community inviting you, as a member of the LGBT community, to come as an ally to them, together.
That's one of the coolest things I've ever heard.
I think they're trying to troll, but no, take it back.
This is fantastic.
And the fact that they brought Milo in, I know Milo is controversial and people don't like him, but they're literally saying the straight community will put a gay man in front of the parade.
To me, this says we are now seeing one of the best shifts in terms of civil rights and acceptance.
The straight community is going to come out and stand in the street and they've welcomed you to stand alongside them.
No hate, just love and alliance.
Isn't that cool?
But instead, they take it to a dark place.
And that, to me, is frustrating.
The group's president, John Hugo, said they had been told they can hold the parade August 31st at a press conference outside City Hall Wednesday, reports CBS Boston.
The date is also listed on the parade's information page.
Well, hold on.
I'm sorry to say to them, you guys shouldn't go to this.
Because you should go to my event.
I'm only half kidding.
We're putting on a speaking event in the Philadelphia suburbs, August 31st.
It's in Pitman, New Jersey.
Tickets are available at irl.minds.com.
We've already sold a ton of tickets.
There's going to be a ton of awesome speakers.
I'm only bringing this up not to do a plug, but to mention, like, the date is there, and I want to let you know that we're doing an event, too.
It's unfortunate they'll be on the same day, but if you're not in the Boston area, you're in the Philly area, you want to come on down.
I will be there.
A ton of other speakers.
There's going to be, like, Count Dankula, Sargon, Shuwan Head.
We've got some progressives, some social justice activists who will be there to, you know, point—to criticize and condemn our failures, which is always a good thing.
I say this.
Everybody deserves a good pie in the face every so often.
I mean that, you know, metaphorically, not literally.
And what I mean by that is, if you had no critics, you would never improve.
So I- I look at my criticism.
Like to mention the people insulting me, well look, if you call me a dumb name, I just mute you, that's- that's not- But if you have genuine criticism, I listen, and I'll even have a back-and-forth with you in some- to some capacity.
Let's read on.
They say, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh's office said it is not a done deal just yet.
The public event applications approval is a step in the process toward receiving a permit.
Walsh's press office emailed in a statement.
As a next step, the organizers will need to receive necessary approvals from the police department and the licensing board to receive both a parade permit and an entertainment license.
So it might not even happen.
But it does seem like they're resistant.
However, it's a legal event.
They're doing nothing wrong.
They've said nothing bigoted.
And that's what frustrates me.
It's like, dude, don't play games.
They're trying to call you on a double standard.
Don't get caught up.
Embrace the love, man.
The route begins in roughly the same location as June's Boston Pride Parade, Copley Square.
Excuse me.
It will be a one-day event consisting of a parade followed by a flag-raising ceremony, writes the group.
The site claims the parade will be free and open to the public.
All are welcome, reads the event description.
Antifa, short for Antifun, is not welcome because they oppose happiness and fun.
Conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos will be the grand marshal and mascot for the parade.
This to me sounds like it's going to be hilarious.
You know, that's another big thing about the left is they can't have a sense of humor about things.
Not all of the left.
I think Bill Maher does a good job.
He calls out these people for having no humor.
But the conservatives have really embraced comedy.
At least the younger ones.
And this is leading to Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay man, being the mascot for Straight Pride.
It's gonna be funny.
They want it to be a joke.
The parade appeared to be a reaction to the city's rejection of the group's application to raise its straight pride flag on city flagpoles this spring.
This request to raise the flag was respectfully denied as use of city hall flagpoles is at the city's sole and complete discretion, writes the press office in a statement.
The city maintains that its flagpoles are a form for government speech.
As such, the city maintains selectivity and control over the messages conveyed by the flags flown on our flagpoles and has chosen not to display the straight pride flag.
Is it really fair that you will fly the gay pride flag but not the straight pride flag?
The flag isn't disrespectful to you.
No one's made a disrespectful statement.
So what's wrong?
Don't be the mean person.
Don't be the bigot.
Let people, you know, live and let live.
That's the message in the first place.
I say, the group posted a blog post in late April expressing its frustrations and announcing the idea of holding a parade.
So we'll move on.
They say, we are disappointed that the Walsh administration has chosen hate and discrimination.
Therefore, we have decided to launch a campaign to educate the public, politicians, and civil servants about the straight community and the unique problems we face.
We have determined that a parade would be the best way to promote our community and its diverse history, culture, and identity.
We anticipate that the city will eventually choose to embrace tolerance and inclusivity.
Earlier this month, Walsh commented on the event in a Twitter thread.
Well, that's a bit bigoted, isn't it?
public event are granted based on operational feasibility, not based on values or endorsements
or beliefs.
The City of Boston cannot deny a permit based on an organization's values.
Walsh will not be attending Strait Pride Parade, according to his press office."
Well, that's a bit bigoted, isn't it?
Look, I'll say it one more time.
Can we all grow up?
If somebody wants to march around with a silly sign, let them do it.
I don't care.
I'm an adult.
I've got work to take care of.
The last thing I'm gonna concern myself with is someone waving a sign around, but I'll tell you this.
These people are bored.
They're bored.
Too many of them live with their parents, and too many of them are actually well-off.
So they have nothing else to do.
So they complain about words on the internet, and they complain about signs in the street.
Sorry, I'm busy, okay?
So, by all means, you know, Owen and anyone else, call me all the names in the book.
I really don't care, okay?
I don't care.
You're allowed to do it.
That's free speech.
I respect your right to do it, and I'm gonna go take care of business while you sit there flapping your lips with insults.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all tomorrow on this channel at 10am and every day at 6.30 on Spotify and where podcasts can be found.
