Democrat Calls On Tech Giants To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris Debate
Elizabeth Warren Calls On Big Tech To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris Debate. Several months ago Don Lemon had a debate on CNN about whether Kamala Harris is Africa-American. Recently a conservative man made the same point as Lemon and Donald Trump Jr. Retweeted it.This resulted in the typical far left social justice outrage. How dare Trump Jr retweet such a thing? Yet this ignored the context of Don Lemon bringing up the same conversation. FOllowing this Elizabeth Warren called on big tech companies and social media giants to "stop the vile lies"She said it was their obligation.Curious as Elizabeth Warren has called for breaking up big tehc but now makes demands against political rivals. What do you think the tech giants will do in response? Its almost as if it was her intent, if the companies don't do what she wants she will regulate or break them up. Leftists have increasingly called for more restrictions on speech and now we can see that even at the highest levels there are politicians who do not believe in free speech. This move is very worrying as it is an outsourcing or privatization of government censorship. A Politician can call for censorship and it doesn't violate the constitution because its enacted by a private entity.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elizabeth Warren is outraged that people are making comments about Kamala Harris' race.
She has called on tech companies to stop these vile lies.
It's essentially a call for censorship.
In my opinion, it's a call directly targeting her political rivals.
The conversation around Kamala Harris' race didn't start recently.
It didn't start with Donald Trump Jr., as they claim.
It actually started a while back with Don Lemon, a black man from CNN who argued Kamala Harris shouldn't be able to call herself African American.
Yet today, When a conservative brings up the same point, it is weaponized by the left, and then we see Elizabeth Warren saying big tech companies should shut this down.
Thus, censorship only targeting a political rival.
We have another big update as well on this front.
In that Facebook recently completed a civil rights audit.
And guess what?
They're calling for more censorship.
The recommendation to Facebook is that they need to do more to censor more content.
There is a growing sentiment among the left to stop free speech.
You will hear the lies and the smears and the cheating, as far as I'm concerned, when they claim, oh, it's just a private platform.
It's not about taking away anyone's free speech.
You don't have free speech on social media anyway.
But they burn free speech signs.
We've seen it.
There's a video from Berkeley of a guy burning a free speech sign.
So, yes, we understand they are not in favor of free speech.
And what we are seeing here from Elizabeth Warren is, worryingly, the outsourcing of censorship to private companies.
The First Amendment can protect us from the government, but all the government has to do is point to a private company and say, you do it, and it's legal.
So today, let's take a look at what's going on with Elizabeth Warren's call for censorship, where the claim originated from, And also what's happening with Facebook calling for more censorship as well.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address if you'd like to support me.
But of course, just share this video if you think it's worth being shared.
We recently learned my content is no longer being suggested by YouTube the same way everyone else's, so I rely on you to suggest my content if you think it's worth people hearing.
But let's start with the Daily Caller.
Liz Warren urges tech companies to nix racist and ugly posts about Kamala Harris.
Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren suggested Saturday that tech companies have an obligation to ding tweets and other social media posts that call into question one of her presidential opponent's American lineage.
The attacks against Kamala Harris are racist and ugly.
We all have an obligation to speak out and say so.
And it's within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks.
Warren said in a tweet, following a post Donald Trump Jr.
retweeted that asked if Senator Kamala Harris is an American black.
They go on to say, Now I will say, I don't understand why that entity is so important.
As far as I'm concerned, Kamala Harris is a woman of color.
a mother from Jamaica, and a mother from India.
She often retells stories on the campaign trail about neighbors who wouldn't let their
children play with Harris because of her skin color.
Now I will say, I don't understand why the identity is so important.
As far as I'm concerned, Kamala Harris is a woman of color, she is a black woman, and
I don't understand the context around African American identity the way that Don Lemon does
and the way that Ali Alexander does.
They're both, you know, Don Lemon is a CNN host, Ali is a conservative, but this whole, I guess, scandal around Don Lemon retweeting it only got attention because a conservative mentioned it, and now you have Elizabeth Warren calling for the shutting down of these posts, which is in fact just censorship targeting a conservative.
Daily Caller says, Tweets questioning Harris' background started Thursday, when black conservative Ali Alexander told his followers that Kamala Harris is not an American black, she is half Indian and half Jamaican.
Trump Jr.
asked if the claim was accurate in a retweet, which was later deleted.
A spokesman for Trump Jr.
told reporters, he retweeted the post because he did not know Harris had Indian heritage.
Harris's team denounced the comment.
This is the same time of attack his father used against Barack Obama.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now, a representative for the California Democrats said.
However, Donald Trump Jr.
was just retweeting an American conservative who had a question, who was essentially reiterating what Don Lemon had said only a few months ago.
They want to say that Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, for her part, is staking much of her campaign on throttling big tech companies, many of whom she argues act as monopolistic giants.
She proposed in March breaking up the companies like Facebook and Amazon.
Warren is among 25 Democrats running for president in 2020.
Daily Caller says, Twitter did not immediately respond.
But we have this story here from Atlanta Black Star.
Quote, it's hypocrisy.
CNN's Don Lemon and April Ryan have heated debate over Senator Kamala Harris's blackness.
In fact, it appears that Don Lemon is saying she can't call herself African American.
If that's the case, why is Elizabeth Warren calling for censorship only against Ali Alexander and those who are agreeing with him or having this conversation?
It sounds like a politically charged act of censorship.
And of course, even though Elizabeth Warren is a politician, she can get away with it because she's outsourcing the censorship to a private company.
Therein lies the big challenge.
We can't let Facebook, Google, Twitter, whoever else, dictate what we are and aren't allowed to talk about, because politicians will weaponize that, they will outsource the censorship to someone else, and they'll get past the Constitution by doing so.
Don Lemon said this, and nobody cared.
There was no public outcry.
This video was on YouTube.
Why isn't Elizabeth Warren saying that YouTube should get rid of Don Lemon and CNN?
Because it's about a political narrative.
But moving on, I was wondering whether or not Democrats would openly embrace straight-up censorship.
Now, we've seen Elizabeth Warren.
This is, you know, one of the few times I've seen a Democrat overtly say censorship.
Of course, I'm talking about the high-profile presidential Democrats.
As, you know, we've seen the activists call for it.
We see them on Twitter.
We see them tweeting to her, congratulating her, saying, thank you for calling for censorship.
But in this story, from just about a week ago, Newsbusters writes tech giants Democrats band together to censor media.
In the story they say, a council on technology and society is a council featuring several tech companies CEOs including the CEO of mobile marketplace firm TaskRabbit.
According to Fox News' Tucker Carlson, The council met with the head of the Democratic Party, Tom Perez, last week and bluntly asked Tom Perez, again, the head of the Democratic Party, what they could do to contribute to the broad social good.
Essentially, when asking the head of the Democratic Party what their agenda is, you are asking how to fulfill the agenda of the Democratic Party.
I don't completely agree with their assessment, but I will point out You do have pro-censorship groups reaching out to Democrats.
That conversation exists, and at least for now, Elizabeth Warren is directly calling for censorship.
It's only going to flow in one direction, as I've stated time and time again.
You are not going to see—like, look, following what happened with Andy Ngo in Portland, how many people who have glorified what happened been suspended or banned, even though it's against the rules?
Not many.
None of the high-profile ones that I can see, none of the high-profile left-wing accounts on social media, as far as I can tell, have been banned.
And as far as I can tell, they're openly flaunting the rules and laughing about it.
They're tacitly... They're basically claiming they know what they did to Andy, they're making jokes about it, they're mocking him, and they're glorifying it.
All against the rules, Twitter has done nothing.
But of course, these big tech giants are biased, as we've seen from Project Veritas, and they are going to take action to benefit the Democrats in the long run, at least in my opinion.
We can see Elizabeth Warren's making this claim.
The tech giants will say they're not biased, but they absolutely are.
We know they are.
We've seen the emails in the leaks.
But now it gets scarier.
This story from TechCrunch.
Facebook's civil rights audit says white supremacy policy is too narrow.
For those that aren't familiar, recently Facebook banned overt white nationalism and white separatism.
Many people challenged this saying, why stop at just white?
Why not just ban, you know, the entire category?
Of ethnic nationalism.
They specifically targeted just white people.
Just white people who are making these claims.
Now look, most people in this country don't agree with those ideologies, so most people just don't say anything.
They're like, yeah sure, whatever, I guess they're bad people, right?
But what happens then when Facebook decides to escalate it?
And this is where it gets particularly nefarious.
The story reads, The narrow scope of the policy leaves up content that expressly espouses white nationalist ideology without using the term white nationalist, the report states.
As a result, content that would cause the same harm is permitted to remain on the platform.
Therefore, the audit team recommends Facebook expand its policy to prohibit content that expressly praises, supports, or represents white nationalist ideology, even if the content does not explicitly use the terms white nationalism or white separatism.
They say, in Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg's note today, she acknowledges the recommendation.
We're addressing this by identifying hate slogans and symbols connected to white nationalism and white separatism to better enforce our policy.
What we're seeing now is just another grain of sand added to the heat.
Now they're saying, well, things that may allude to this ideology should be banned.
This has resulted in one thing that we've been able to, like, there's been one big impact of this policy.
People on Twitter fighting against the hate are being banned and suspended.
One guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center had his content suspended because he was trying to prove that there was a particular news event that was, in fact, related to white nationalists.
But because he included evidence, well, that was enough to get him suspended.
And that's what's gonna happen, as I've warned time and time again.
This policy will not work because it will result in people putting on a suit and a tie and avoiding the language they've banned.
No matter what you ban, no matter what language you say is unacceptable, Oh, I guess they just blocked me anyway.
We'll move on.
No matter what language they say is unacceptable, it will result in someone masking what they're saying, and those that try to call them out will be the ones getting censored.
Therefore, trying to escalate the policy now will just result in innocent people who aren't talking about these ideas getting banned.
Think about it.
If they say you can't overtly say white nationalist, well then what happens when someone says something that sounds ethnically, you know, like, sounds like ethno-nationalism, but it's Korean?
Or Mexican?
Or, you know, I don't know.
Any other race.
Any Asian or African.
They're now going to say, that sounds too much like that.
How do you know what they're exactly talking about if you're trying to expand to just targeting nuanced discussions?
More importantly, if they're saying you need to get rid of anything that's peripheral or expresses an ideology, what if you're quoting someone to prove they have bad views?
This censorship will negatively impact those who truly want to fight against hate.
It's a short-sighted policy, and I think it's only going to result in a constrained authoritarian system that will suppress dissent.
What were the results of all the conversation from the left about YouTube and radicalization?
The result was channels like mine being removed, for the most part, from suggestions.
I still do get recommended, that's a different thing, and a lot of what people are saying is incorrect.
Suggestions are different.
Suggestions are after, meaning after this video, you probably won't get another video of mine.
On the homepage, you will, however.
That's the result.
Someone like me, who argues against hate, against bigotry, and against authoritarianism, is the one who faces the brunt of the censorship.
Activists at the Southern Poverty Law Center are the people who face the brunt of the censorship.
And where does this rhetoric start?
Why are we seeing Elizabeth Warren say it should be removed?
Because Don Lemon of CNN started the conversation, as far as I can tell.
Someone else probably started the conversation, but Don Lemon pushed it to the forefront, and no one cared.
As soon as a conservative black man says it, they decide it needs to be censored.
So, you know, look, I've praised Elizabeth Warren in the past for calling for the breakup of big tech.
I don't know if that's the right answer, but I think we've got to do something about their monopolistic power over elections.
But then what does Elizabeth Warren go and do?
Advocates for censorship.
So I'll say this.
I don't want to blanket all Democrats of being in favor of this, but I'd be willing to bet, based on much of their policy positions, they are absolutely in favor of overt censorship.
Except for one Democrat.
The one Democrat I actually like.
Well, there's a couple that I like.
But Tulsi Gabbard.
In this story from just last month, Tulsi Gabbard said unchecked First Amendment rights are going out the window.
That was on the Joe Ruggan podcast.
But she also tweeted this in March.
We must be willing to fight for the right of all Americans to express their views, even when we disagree with them.
We must encourage unfettered discussion of public issues and stand united to stop Facebook and others from attempting to censor, stifle, influence public debate.
One of the only Democrats who are actually bringing up these issues and challenging censorship.
One of the only people doing it.
What we're seeing now from Facebook is that their policies are too narrow.
That they need to do more to censor.
They do a civil rights audit, but I ask you this.
Where do you stop and whose civil rights?
In this instance, they're specifically talking about one ethnic group, white people.
By all means, I'm no fan of the white nationalist ideology.
I'm a mixed-race person whose family had to fight against it for a long time.
But I certainly understand you can't target one racial group and claim that civil rights.
What do you do to argue against black nationalism?
Which is still okay on the platform, and as far as I'm concerned, no different than white nationalism.
We are America.
We are a nation of immigrants.
We have people of all different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and that needs to be respected.
If Facebook wants to shut down one, why not all the rest of them?
In the end, what needs to happen as far as I'm concerned is the respect of freedom of speech.
Otherwise, you get big tech platforms catering to the whims of a democratic politician.
This is a democratic politician trying to influence what's spoken on public platforms, right?
They're privately owned public platforms.
For what reason?
To pander to her base?
Well, it's going to benefit her campaign.
She is calling for censorship to benefit her campaign, and I don't think we would be rational individuals if we allowed that conversation to exist.
So I'll say just a couple more things.
I've talked a lot about Tulsi Gabbard, why I'm a fan of hers and support her, and this should make it clear.
While I don't agree with all of her policies, she's an anti-war individual who has defended free speech and pushed back on big tech censorship, unlike others.
Unlike Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.
Who, even though it was Don Lemon who had this conversation, they're targeting conservatives.
So we know where this will flow.
Like I said, following what happened with Andy in Portland, none of these people are getting banned.
They're allowed to do their thing.
These companies will not enforce policies.
That target their own side.
So long as this is the way things are, Democrats have an insane advantage.
An insane advantage.
Because they know that conservatives who speak up can easily be banned.
They know that even feminists like Meghan Murphy can be banned for saying something as simple as, men aren't women though.
That's her opinion.
And she was suspended for it, ultimately banned.
When she came back, she refused to back down.
Yet what happens after there's an attack on somebody in Portland?
We see all these people glorifying it against the rules of Twitter, and Twitter does nothing.
When we see the bias this plane, when we see the emails smearing Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Prager University, when we see the leaked conversations that Project Veritas posts, we know what direction this goes.
And now we can see it's overt, with Elizabeth Warren calling on these companies to stop this.
It's very simple.
We know the companies are biased.
The Democrats are now calling on them to take these actions, to take people down, and there you have it.
The outsourcing of government censorship.
When a politician says you can ban them, and you should, and it's already happening.
When you see that these organizations that are in favor of censorship are reaching out to Democrats, you know what they're doing and why they're doing it.
It's because they know the Democrats will support it because it'll benefit them politically.
And then we see this.
This is from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Long overdue civil rights audit shows Facebook is making progress.
Yes.
They're saying straight up, censorship is progress.
I kid you not.
That's what they're saying.
Think about what this means.
Where are we at?
that Tulsi Gabbard had a conservative view on war, and that it soured her to progressives.
Think about what this means.
Where are we at?
Progressives are in favor of censorship, and they're in favor of war.
I know that's a bit hyperbolic, but that's what we're seeing.
They'll deny it.
But as far as I can tell, what we've seen over and over again is that they're lying.
They're straight up lying.
They'll claim to fight for the rights of marginalized groups, and then you see what happens to Andy Ngo.
They claim to support free speech because they say banning hate speech actually increases speech, which is some kind of insane cognitive dissonance.
No, it doesn't.
It's literally the opposite.
It is literally doublespeak.
It is newspeak.
They're literally saying censorship is free speech.
That's what they're saying to you.
They're saying censorship is progress.
They're saying opposing war is conservative.
And this is the future nightmare dystopia.
You know what?
I was willing to entertain possible support for Elizabeth Warren if she was going to run her campaigns heavily on breaking up big tech.
I would consider it, but I think it was a long shot.
But now we can see her true intentions.
She's not threatening big tech because she wants to break them up because she thinks they're dangerous.
She's threatening them and then demanding they censor her political opponents.
So think about what that means.
I'm gonna break you up.
Censor them.
Yeah, whatever you say, Elizabeth.
Whatever you say.
That's the direction it goes.
They'll now do what Elizabeth Warren and other politicians want out of fear of being censored.
They want to take action to protect their core business.
They want to be able to influence things the way they can.
They want to be able to sell ads the way they can.
And they don't want interference from government.
So when a politician steps up and says, I'm going to regulate you, and looks you in the eye, but then walks back and says, Banned those people.
What do you think the companies are going to do?
They're going to cite some kind of hate speech policy, ignoring Don Lemon, and taking down the conservative.
You know what?
I don't want to rant on this one for too much longer.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6pm.
For those on the podcast, the order is inverted.
But I will see you in the next segment.
Thanks for hanging out.
The attack on Andy Ngo is probably the most significant escalation we've seen in the culture war, which I believe is now... I mean, we're seeing definitive evidence of it escalating beyond just words and into actual acts of violence.
The reason I think this is the most significant is that when it comes to certain, you know, clashes between right-wing and left-wing whatever, You have kind of fringe groups, Antifa and, you know, like, alt-right people, and it's, you know, look, they don't make up the largest portion of the country, and they're not necessarily mainstream.
However, Antifa increasingly is.
And we can go to, like, Vox.com and BuzzFeed and The Verge, and we can see that they use the same language.
Moderates, centrists, conservatives don't use, for the most part, the same language as, you know, like, fringe far-right groups.
There is some overlap, there is some similarity, but it's very disparate.
Like memes, for instance.
People use memes.
So you're more likely to have, like, a far-right fringe group use a Pepe meme, uh, than someone on the left.
And Trump supporters will use Pepe as well, so there is some overlap.
But when you look at the way things are spoken and justified on like Vox.com for instance, an NBC funded venture, you can see that massive mainstream support speaking the exact same language exists.
Now here's an example.
Milkshake them all.
I would argue that every conservative of prominence, every moderate, every centrist, and even some liberals denounced calling for milkshaking against political opponents.
Ricky Gervais put out a tweet, it was actually good, he said, it's funny how the people who are arguing that milkshaking isn't violence tend to be the same people who think saying certain things is violence.
You see where this goes.
The point is, We have this language here from Carlos Maza.
Carlos Maza is calling for direct physical violence.
Well, he got his wish, in that Andy Ngo was pelted with, you know, milkshakes and other debris, punched several times, and put in the hospital with a brain bleed.
I said this is exactly what would happen, okay?
When you call for violence, like Carlos Maza did, albeit the lowest form, People go crazy in a mob.
So one person throws a milkshake.
You actually watch the video and you can see it happen systematically.
Someone throws something at no, then someone else says ooh, and then they throw something.
And then you've got, which is kind of like a physical broken windows kind of theory.
Because everybody's piling on and pelting, no, someone runs up and starts punching him in the face repeatedly, as other people throw things at him.
And then as he's walking away, they throw things at him.
That's what happens.
That's why it's dangerous to call for violent escalation, even if it's just a milkshake.
Even if it's just spitting on someone.
Because mobs go crazy.
So what are we seeing here?
Carlos Maza, this story from the Daily Caller says, milkshake them all.
Does this statement violate Twitter policy?
Yes, it does.
Twitter doesn't care.
Twitter will take down Megan Murphy for saying men aren't women though, like that's the quote, she said men aren't women though, and she's banned.
Meanwhile, you have, I kid you not, this is not an exaggeration, you have a woman on Twitter who said, people forget what used to happen, you know, she says that they would drag people out of their houses and beat them to death, and that if you can't throw milkshakes, you might as well start throwing, then she says they're gonna go back to throwing bricks.
It's quite literally a woman saying, we are going to do this.
Did Twitter ban her or suspend her?
They did not.
She then says, you know what happens next?
People are going to get dragged out.
You know, we, she says in referring to her and her and her ilk, are going to beat people to death.
Did Twitter take them down?
Of course not.
Why would they?
And so you talk about political bias, and these are your examples.
For instance, this tweet from Carlos Maza, which is still up.
Mind you.
Milkshake them all.
Humiliate them at every turn.
Make them dread public organizing.
Now, is that targeting right-wing groups?
Or is it targeting a gay, Asian, you know, like, center-right, moderate individual?
Here's the thing.
The reason why I was saying this is the most significant escalation is that what we are seeing now are mainstream personalities, a New York Times journalist, justifying the violence against No.
Well, weekly being like, oh, violence is always wrong, but a New York Times reporter saying this.
What do you think comes next?
It's really funny to me.
I've had a lot of people say, oh, Tim, society is too resilient for this.
Nothing will ever happen.
Surely you jest.
And I try to be tepid in my response, like, look, man, I've seen a path.
I have seen the rhetoric.
I have seen the actions only flowing in one direction.
There has been no reversal.
There has been no mainstream Democrat personality coming out and condemning this.
It hasn't happened.
In fact, what we're seeing now, following Andy Ngo, are high-profile individuals justifying the attack.
You have one woman, a trans woman from the Human Rights Campaign, of which I used to fundraise for, mind you, justifying the attack, saying it's the greatest thing for No's career.
Is that serious?
A gay person of color was violently beaten and put in the hospital and that was their response?
What do you think comes next?
Do you think it's just going to end with them now escalating their rhetoric?
Remember back in 2017 when they said, punch a Nazi?
unidentified
And they specifically were like, yeah, but look, these people are Nazis, so you have to punch them, right?
Punch a gay child of- a gay person of color who is a child of immigrants if he's walking around with a camera.
That's what they're saying now.
We are frogs in a pot and the water is boiling around us.
I think one of the only things that could prevent this is something akin to a system shock, right?
Because it's happening so gradually, because you have people on Twitter and at Kotaku and at Vox and The Verge justifying this as time goes on, people like Ezra Klein for instance, that makes it so slow and gradual no one is outraged.
It's kind of like this.
There was an experiment they've done, and this is what they train you in a lot of, like, conflict environments and emergency situations.
Don't rely on other people, okay?
Don't look to see how other people react.
There was an experiment, it's a great video, where they put a person in a room and they say, we're doing a study and we need you to fill out this form.
The person sits down in the room and starts filling out a form and they start blowing smoke under the door.
The real study wasn't the form, it was how the person would respond to the smoke under the door.
When one person is in a room by themselves and smoke blows in, they almost invariably get up, feel the door, and then start yelling, hey, there's smoke, something's happening, oh, like a fire.
So then they did something else, and this is hilarious.
They take two shills and they put them in the room.
They put a third subject in the room and do the same thing.
What happens when there's smoke billowing from under a door and there are three people in a room?
The subject looks up.
Look to the other people.
Goes back about his business.
Because nobody else was doing anything.
It must not be a big deal, right?
So, I was told by... I could be getting this wrong, so forgive me, Dad, if I'm getting it wrong, but... My dad told me a story once, and I've heard this from other firefighters and I've done conflict training.
When you're on a roof, you know, you're a firefighter, and you hear creaking, the firefighters will, like, you're trained.
Don't look to other people and see what they're doing.
Get the hell off the roof.
It'll collapse, and they'll take you down with it.
If you sit and wait to see what other people are doing, you're going down.
And this is the same thing that, you know, when I've done, like, hostile environment training, and in my own personal experience, I'll tell you this, growing up on the south side of Chicago.
When I was in Ferguson, we had gunshots.
Everybody gets down.
People are, like, embarrassed to overreact or run or something.
And then I saw other journalists just standing there, like, huh?
What's happening?
Looking around, why is everybody doing this?
And I'm just so impressed, just at the lack of ability to understand.
So here's what's going on in my view.
I look at these things from Carlos Maza, I look at the change in rhetoric, and I am no one's boiling frog.
I can see the path we're headed towards.
Admittedly, there are too many variables to accurately calculate what is going to come next.
But I pride myself in planning ahead.
And I can see the probabilities, and I can see the patterns, and I can see where this goes.
A year ago, I said the escalation will get worse.
A lot of people doubted me, saying, I don't know, man, like, you know, is it just the summer?
Like, I'm not acting like I have all the answers, and that what I say is gonna be 100% factually true, but I will say this.
Since then, it's gotten worse.
In 2017, they said, we're only talking about punching Nazis.
In 2019, they're talking about beating a gay child of immigrants who's a person of color, and it's just a brain bleed!
He was asking for it!
What do you think comes next?
Ocasio-Cortez goes up on her platform and says, concentration camps on the border.
I couldn't make up better propaganda than that.
Actually, I could.
I totally could.
What Ocasio-Cortez is doing is rhetorical escalation.
Before the violence, you need the words, right?
So first we saw people say, throw milkshakes!
Carlos Maza, throw milkshakes at him!
It's funny, hee hee!
Now what?
Well, now the police are saying, there's an updated statement from the police, that they got information there was quikrete being poured into some of these milkshakes, and a police officer witnessed someone pouring what appeared to be quikrete into milkshakes, and so they reported it.
It makes them heavier and it increases the pH which can cause burns.
The people online are pushing fake rhetoric where they're like, sugar mixed with concrete prevents it from setting.
They're lying.
There won't be an exothermic reaction.
Did you watch my video the other day?
Where I talked about the difference between the exothermic reaction and the alkaline reaction?
It's a chemical burn, not a heat burn.
Okay?
Drying concrete has an exothermic reaction which can burn you, heat burn, but it's also alkaline so it's a basic burn.
It's not acidic, it's alkaline.
I'm not a chemist, so I could be getting the terminology wrong.
But I read all this!
And now there are tweets going around where people are saying, Seriously?
Andy Ngo got milkshaked?
That's why people are upset?
What about X?
I tweeted something funny.
I said that Antifa is one of the largest white identitarian groups in the country.
And a white identitarian group just brutally beat a gay Asian journalist and put him in the hospital.
I'm not highlighting the identities of these people because I'm going to convince the fringe leftists.
No, they're nuts.
But it kind of shows the hypocrisy to any average person who might be reading that being like, oh, that's interesting.
But somebody responded, sorry, what's the fatality count of Antifa?
And my response, I'm not going to respond to it, because it's ridiculous.
It's like, oh, I get it.
You're saying it's okay to do the violence you're doing because you haven't killed Andy yet.
That's what they're saying.
They're like, well, he's still alive, so I guess it's okay.
It's just a brain bleed.
He's fine.
That's the pot boiling.
We're at a point now where Andy is in the hospital with a brain hemorrhage, a torn earlobe, cuts and bruises, and he is not some fringe.
He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.
He is a moderate individual, not overtly in support of Trump or any of his other personalities.
People are mad because he's critical of Islam.
Sure, there's a lot of people like Bill Maher.
Oh, they'll call Bill Maher alright too.
Yeah, we're getting there, alright.
Andy Ngo is kind of a moderate figure in this country.
They beat the crap out of him, put him in the hospital, and they're now justifying it.
They are boiling the pot and we are the frogs, and they're doing it gradually.
There's another video that came out that shows a guy trying to break up a fight.
There's an old, older man with white hair being brutally beaten, and someone tries to intervene, and they crack him over the head with what looks like a crowbar or a retractable baton, leaving a huge gash in him covered in blood.
That was a kill shot.
It's not the first time we've seen the kill shots.
In Berkeley, the bike lock basher, those are kill shots.
Here's the thing.
When you strike someone over the head, you have a decent probability to permanently injure them and cause a traumatic brain injury, which can result in dizziness, speech impediments, chronic fatigue, and just lifelong problems.
But, it's also a kind of low-grade attack, okay?
What this means, when you see some lunatic like that psychopath in Charlottesville, who crashed into a crowd of people, that was overt and extreme and it shocked the system, and that guy got life in prison.
The guy, look, you can make any argument in the world, the guy was nuts.
Plain and simple.
The fact that he shows up with his stupid little shield and does whatever he's doing, nuts.
But that's a shock to the system, ramming a car into a group of people.
We can see it, the media can report it, and we all talked about it for days, for weeks, even still today.
I made numerous videos, about like three videos in a row, talking about the escalation and the violence.
What Antifa is doing is low-grade and flying under the radar.
It could be because they're just weaker, or they need to be pushed by other people.
They're not individualists, so they only react based on how the crowd reacts.
But what we're seeing now is in Portland, with crowbars, retractable batons, they're
beating people over the head.
Eventually someone will die.
It's just a slower process.
And that's why the media isn't shocked by it.
They're defending it.
And so long as they slowly defend it, then people will be normalized.
So basically there's something in, a lot of people misuse the term social engineering.
Social engineering's original phrasing, original understanding, the way it was used by hackers, is human hacking, right?
Manipulating human behaviors for a desired outcome.
Today, a lot of conservatives use social engineering to imply that Google is like engineering society.
So, by all means, use the phrases you want.
But in social engineering, there is one of the first things you learn when you're trying to understand how people are bent and manipulated.
You have to understand that people can only move within their own personal, reasonable boundaries.
So the easiest way to explain it is, the way I explain it to people is like this.
Let's say on a scale from marriage to murder, You meet someone.
You probably will always lean a little bit towards the marriage side, right?
Obviously, it's a wide scale.
You meet someone, and when you meet someone on the street, you tend to be favorable towards them.
Meaning, you're closer to marriage than you are to murder, right?
Because humans are social.
We tend to trust one another.
We're in America.
You'll be polite to someone on the street.
It's very easy to become friends with someone.
If you take two people, and they just meet each other, it's easier for them to become friends than enemies, depending on where they're from in the world, what languages they speak, etc.
How do you get someone to one side or the other?
You can't simply walk up to someone and say, hey, go marry that person.
They'll be like, what?
That's ridiculous.
You can't walk up to someone and say, hey, that person, you know, you should do something to that person, horrifying, whatever.
That wouldn't work either.
But you can push them within reasonable boundaries, and it's incrementalism.
So first you say something like, that person said a swear at you.
You know, that person insulted you.
Now they're angrier.
You nudge them closer to the hate side.
If you do this over time, over a few years, eventually you get to the point where they're saying, that person, you know, I need to do something to them.
That's what's happening in society right now.
Everyone's being nudged ever so slightly towards more extreme actions.
So long as you don't have a shot to the system, this is what's going to happen.
So in Portland, they're at the point now where they're clubbing people, putting cement, potentially putting cement in milkshakes, at least according to the police, beating uninvolved parties.
Oh, he's a journalist, therefore he's, you know, whatever.
He's not.
He's not one of these groups.
He's not protesting or supporting.
He's filming.
We're at that point now.
And because it happened gradually, we're at a point where the media, not all media, but many people in media are actively defending it.
Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon, they've defended Antifa over and over again.
They've posted tweets about it.
Now they've condemned, you know, you've had Jake Tapper and Brian Stelter of CNN call it out.
But there's still a fracture here.
You still have high-profile personalities defending this assault.
Think about that.
Think about what would have happened like four years ago.
If a gay Asian journalist was brutally beaten by crazy people, I believe it would have been more shocking to the system.
But we've moved ever so gradually.
In 2015, what did I see?
People were getting hit, they were getting punched, it was getting bad.
They were throwing eggs.
Now we're at the point, but that was like, that was partisan violence.
Now we're at the point where Andy Ngo, a journalist who isn't out there supporting the president, Is being brutally beaten and put in the hospital.
You know what comes next.
Ocasio-Cortez's rhetoric has escalated.
Calling it now, like, aligning the U.S.
with World War II Germany.
This is going to trigger insane people to do insane things.
They really do believe they are in this fantasy world and they're like reliving World War II Germany all over again.
I think what we're seeing, you know, I think you get the point about incrementalism.
The media is playing the game, and so is Twitter.
And until these tech giants actually take a stand and say, listen, man, you can't actively endorse
and encourage this kind of stuff, then it's only gonna get worse.
And so there is a conundrum here.
And I have said this before, complete free speech as the law allows
would be chaotic on the social media platforms.
But on the point of principle, I recognize that and still think
it's the right thing to do.
There's a jump cut because a car alarm just went off.
But the point I was trying to make is, I don't know what the right thing to do is necessarily.
You can't restrict someone's speech because then you have moral arbiters, like the people at Twitter and Facebook and Google, who are deciding what is and what, you know, shouldn't be.
The problem, however, I see, is that when you choose, you know, to allow the violent rhetoric of the left to persist, we get this.
We get the escalation, we get the boiling frogs, and they're not going to do anything about it.
You know, so you need a moderate-centered individual to be like, all violence is bad.
And why is that so hard, right?
There are clearly people like, you know, who are in the peripheral to the intellectual dark web, whatever you want to call it, who all understand violence is bad.
But so are conservatives.
I look at these high-profile conservatives on Twitter, and they have no problem condemning the violence.
On the left, they endorse it.
They encourage it.
And thus, frogs in a pot.
So, you know what?
I'm not gonna make this video too much longer.
I'll leave it there.
Comment below and let me know what you think.
And, uh, you know what, man?
I can say it for, what, the 800th time?
It's gonna get worse.
You know it is.
Right?
I haven't been wrong about the escalation yet.
Admittedly, it's kind of a silly thing to be wrong about.
I'm just saying it will escalate.
Who knows what form it will take?
So, it's a pretty vague prediction.
But we've gone from, you know, punching Nazis to punching, you know, to them punching gay people of color and justifying it.
What comes next?
You have people who are being radicalized by, you know, Kazikortez's rhetoric and the Democrats, because they hate Trump so much, they want to push this nonsense, and you are going to get La Résistance-type crazy people who think they're literally fighting, you know, ze Nazis, ze Germans, and they're gonna go and do crazy things.
The FBI already, there was a story I reported on a while ago, About Antifa having trainings south of the U.S.
border to stage armed disruptions of the border.
I think I know where we're going.
I do.
And if there's a shock, there's two potentials.
A shock to the system on the left, which could make people be like, get rid of these people, lock them up, which didn't happen yet.
The attack on Andy Ngo wasn't shocking enough because we're already used to what Antifa does, and Antifa has already been heavily defended.
You would need some really extreme shock to the system right now from Antifa, which I just don't think will happen.
Boiling frogs.
However, a shock to the system at this point could potentially be a shot heard around the world, and that's what I'm concerned about.
All of this stuff has been gradually building up, and everybody can see it.
You look at the media, like, you know, CNN's reporting on this, so it's being seen by the mainstream.
A lot of normie, like, uninitiated people aren't paying attention.
I get that.
My friends know a lot about this.
But you can see the escalation from Vox.com.
You can see Carlos Maza encouraging and escalating.
You can see his allies using this language and saying it's justified.
We may be at a point now where any shock to the system is a shot heard around the world which sparks a true conflict that can't be rectified.
It's possible we're already past the point of no return.
I have no idea.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Stick around.
The next segment will be at 1 p.m.
and I will see you all on this channel at that time.
Donald Trump made history yesterday by being the first sitting U.S.
President to walk into North Korea, taking 18 steps into North Korea through the demilitarized zone, and I found it to be kind of incredible.
Amazing.
I don't know what to say about what his intentions are, what his plans are.
All I know is what's on the surface.
The President says he wants peace.
There's some back and forth, some meetings fall through, he comes back, and then all of a sudden there he is standing in North Korea at great risk to himself.
This is the premise of my video yesterday.
That Trump is trying his hardest to bring about peace, presumably, like based on what we see, I'm not going to make any assumptions otherwise, and the left and people in media are actively trying to sabotage him.
Now, I didn't go over everything I could have gone over.
This story actually came out, I believe, after I had already had filmed.
But once again, we are seeing this insane example of Democratic politicians attacking Trump for trying to bring peace to the peninsula.
Now, Sure, some people say they don't trust him.
They don't think he's actually doing... Look, look, look, I don't care if you trust him.
I don't care what he thinks he's doing.
He just did this, okay?
He just walked into North Korea.
There you go.
If that's all he does, and then he never says North Korea again, and the next president comes in and... It's a stepping stone, okay?
It's all incremental.
We want peace.
And so in diplomacy, sometimes you retreat or you lose a battle to try and win the war.
There are people coming out saying, but North Korea is so evil and they're so bad.
Why isn't Trump, you know, sanctioning them or doing these things because of the Americans they've captured, detained or killed?
It's like, listen, dude, I get it.
Here's the thing.
If Trump goes in there and starts berating Kim Jong-un or yelling at him about the actions he took, It's going to hold up peace arrangements.
You have to lose some of these battles if you want to win the war, right?
And so I'm using that metaphorically to quite literally say, if Trump wants peace, he has to give up some of the battles he's hoping to win, such as the Americans who were, you know, wrongly killed or detained.
Sure, they need to be released first and foremost.
And you get there not by, you know, it's like, imagine you get into a fight with like your girlfriend or boyfriend.
And so then you're like, what about that time you ate my chicken wings?
Like, dude, drop it.
You lost the chicken wings.
I understand that's kind of, you know, I'm not trying to be insensitive to compare humans.
I'm just trying to make an example of how bringing up these things isn't going to get you the desired outcome.
But let's take a look at what the Democrats are saying because apparently Trump trying to get peace in the Korean peninsula is a bad thing.
Or they just don't like the guy.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can Dunnit, but of course, the best thing you can do is share the video because YouTube no longer suggests my videos the way they used to for whatever reason.
Censorship, bias, I don't know.
I'm not the most, like, my politics are such boring, moderate, tepid, milquetoast, fence-sitter, but I guess YouTube can't be sharing none of that.
From Reuters, they say Democratic candidates dump on Trump over North Korean meeting.
candidates running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on Sunday criticized Trump's latest overture to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, saying the leaders' meeting lacked substance and elevated a ruthless dictator.
The Republican Trump became the first sitting U.S.
president to step into North Korea on Sunday, drawing on his penchant for showmanship and surprise to pull off talks with Kim and the DMZ.
Yes, it is!
It is!
If nothing but the show, if nothing but the image of Trump standing there, it shows trust, albeit a little bit.
They could have just snatched up Trump and carried him off.
But no, he walked in, they shook hands, they stood there, they waved, he walked back.
Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
Critics called it a publicity stunt and said Trump wasted an important symbolic move when there has been little sign that North Korea has taken meaningful steps towards denuclearization.
A number of Democrats vying to replace Trump in the White House in 2020 said there was nothing wrong with talking to US adversaries, including Kim.
This round of talks, however, they said, should have followed intense preparations and substantive progress by North Korea on the nuclear issue.
Our president shouldn't be squandering American influence on photo ops and engaging love letters with a ruthless dictator, U.S.
Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a Twitter post.
Her Senate colleagues Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris called the event a photo op.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I'll say this.
Out of anybody between the four of us who has skin in the game, I do.
You don't.
Okay?
So I appreciate what Trump did.
And I'll stress this, too, because people have asked, like, if Tim is so anti-war and Trump is anti-war, why doesn't Tim support Trump?
Okay, hold on.
Hold on.
Hold your horses right there.
Trump fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria.
He's selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
There's drone strikes and commando raids happening in Yemen.
Trump is not a perfect anti-war candidate.
He only gets a sane and rational praise from me in regards to Iran and pulling back and North Korea making this... Look, I don't care if you want to call it a photo op or a show or whatever.
I don't care if Trump just wanted a big old smile on his face so he could get his picture in the paper.
I don't care.
He did it.
You have to recognize whether or not there's anything written down, whether or not there's going to be anything on paper or we're going to gain anything outside of the press, Trump just has shown the world he took that risk walking into North Korea and Kim Jong-un welcomed him.
That is one of the most important first steps in bringing about peace.
Trust that Trump knew he could walk in without risk to himself.
Probably because the US would crush anyone who would try and snatch up the president,
but it's still a strong showing.
And Kim Jong-un allowing Trump in, also a very strong showing.
There have been really great strides recently in bringing peace to the peninsula.
So you know what?
To these people who are like, it's just a photo op.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Look, I'm gonna say this, man.
I don't care what the Democrats have to say.
I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that peace can come to this region.
I don't want to act like it's the most important thing in my life.
Okay?
Because I talked about this in the video I did the other day.
But my understanding, as family history tells, is that my great-grandmother and my great-grandfather were divided by what would now be considered North and South Korea.
At the time, there was only one Korea.
I visited Seoul.
I thought it was awesome.
It was meaningful for me to be there.
I don't know much about my dad's side of the family, because they've been in the United States for a very long time, but I have been to Dallas, and I met my great-grandmother.
I would like to visit Haeju in North Korea at some point.
Now, it's possible to do tours and stuff, but it is very dangerous, and I take a lot of these things into consideration.
I mean, specifically, it would be nice to just freely go, you know, back and forth and kind of just explore and be like, wow, you know, a part of my, like, one side of my family came from this place and they left for some reason.
So when I see that Trump made this move, I'm like, awesome.
Spot on.
He deserves criticism in other areas.
Tulsi Gabbard, I like because I believe wholeheartedly she is straight up going to be like, never going to have the war.
Like, no way we're pulling back.
And that's what a commander in chief is supposed to be doing.
Like, I don't mean retreating.
I mean, Or like pulling troops out, I mean specifically commanding our armed forces as one of their core tasks.
So Trump is nowhere near, in my opinion, as good as Gabbard is when it comes to the war issue.
But Trump will absolutely get credit and praise from me for something like this, even if it's just a photo op.
Images speak like the, you know, actions speak louder than words, right?
Trump, we can have these, we can have the news reports about what Trump did or didn't do, but we have Trump taking the steps, going into North Korea and standing there and taking the photos.
And what are the Democrats do?
Well, listen, the Democrats have to offer something, right?
What is, what, what, what, what, what are you voting for?
If you vote for Trump, you're going to get this.
You're going to get a guy who walks into North Korea, which is, you know, whatever your opinion is.
If you're voting for the Democrats, you need something different.
If the Democrats praised what Trump did, they're basically saying, vote for me, I'll do the same thing.
So I think one of the big things we see with the left, with the Democrats, is obstruction, you know, blocking the President, targeting him, ignoring him, calling him wrong, simply because they need to offer something else.
I think the president has a really awful attitude.
I think he's kind of gross.
I think he's in many ways the worst aspect of American culture.
Wealthy, oafish, gloating, snarky, you know, the way he talks about women, the way he jokes about body slamming the reporter laughing, ha ha ha.
He's said certain things that are absolutely worthy of criticism, and that would put someone off.
He's done things in terms of foreign policy that have been bad.
Domestic policy, for me, it's not my core issue, right?
So when Trump says there's a crisis at the border, I say, okay, well, define crisis.
I'm listening.
And then what happens?
Democrats obstruct simply because they need to offer something different.
Trump won.
Therefore, if Trump says it, they must resist.
Otherwise, what are you voting for?
If the Democrats came out and said that they mostly- Actually, I'd say this.
You know, you can solve- The solution to problems is often very counterintuitive, and I tell you this right now.
If you had a Democrat who came out and said, Trump was right about the border crisis, and the Democrats should have funded it sooner, so he could avoid what we're seeing now with these children, people would be like, oh wow.
Trump was right about Iran.
He shouldn't be criticized for pulling back.
People would be like, oh wow.
And then you say Trump was wrong for the weapons deal in Saudi Arabia because it's aiding the war in Yemen.
We shouldn't be engaging in commando raids and drone strikes in Yemen, a country we are not at war with because we're trying to aid the Saudis.
There's a lot to criticize him for.
And look, most of my criticisms are foreign policy.
They've always been.
The point is, if you could take the things he was right about in terms of domestic policy, the things he was right about in terms of foreign policy, but then criticize the things he's wrong about in foreign policy, you would be in a stronger position to offer up something real to American voters.
So what do we get now?
We get Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren just attacking Trump simply because they have to.
At least that's my opinion.
Because they call it a photo op.
And?
Seriously.
What of it?
Trump engaged in a photo op.
Great.
He literally walked in North Korea and took a picture.
I think that's profound.
I think that's incredible.
It shows an amazing step towards peace.
Why are you upset about it?
Why can't you have sane, rational people just say, you know what?
Hey, that was a pretty good thing.
I think Trump can do better.
I don't think it was good enough, but we should recognize it is a good step.
Andrew Yang did.
And that's why Yang and Gabbard are the Democrats I really like.
Yang said anything that helps bring stabilization and peace to the peninsula is a good thing.
And people were mad at him for it.
Gabbard, I don't know what she said specifically, I don't know if she said anything about this, but she's the anti-war candidate, period.
So I think it's really, really fascinating when you can see that even conservatives disagreeing with Yang and Tulsi's domestic policy recognize that A spokesman for former Vice President Joe Biden said Trump was coddling dictators at the expense of U.S.
We'll read a little bit more, uh, right this right.
A spokesman for former vice president Joe Biden said Trump was coddling dictators at
the expense of us national security.
North Korea launched missiles just into the sea just last month.
Senator Amy Klobuchar noted, showing the need for the United States to go into such talks armed with a clear mission and clear goals.
It is not as easy as going and bringing a hot dish over the fence to the dictator next door, she said.
I think you're wrong.
I think you don't know what it's like to negotiate with these people.
And you can't assume that going in there and being a dick is going to get you anything, is going to solve any problems.
Perhaps what really is needed is someone to come over with the hot pie and, you know, a six pack of beers and like, hey man, let's chill out and have a conversation and really just connect and try and figure out where our solutions are.
Trump can go in and be like, how dare you?
You can't do this anymore.
And you're gonna have an adversarial approach.
So let's start with a friendly approach.
Let's start with some symbolic victories, and then we can try and move forward.
I don't know what the right answer is.
I don't know how to solve the problem, but I can say this.
No matter what we're doing here, If Trump went and argued about missiles, or he went and did a photo op, they're both good things.
I'm just sick and tired of the Democrats saying Trump is wrong for the sake of trying to offer something to a new voter.
They just want power.
That's what I see.
Yang and Gabbard, I see as very different.
And Marianne Williamson too, I gotta admit.
I hadn't seen from her.
I do not believe that they're in it for the power.
Yang really does look like a reluctant politician.
Like, he's not a politician.
He looks like he's getting, you know, and Gabbard as well.
Gabbard's running, but it seems like she knows what she's after, stopping these regime change wars, this foreign intervention.
And I think what's really funny about Gabbard is that you're going to find a lot of, like, the libertarians and conservatives who are very, very anti-war are going to be like, I'll take, I will take the social democrat, you know, $15 minimum wage person If their core, you know, policy is just stopping the war and stopping wasting this money.
That to me is what's truly incredible.
That you actually have some conservatives saying, hey, she's better than the rest of them.
The point I'm trying to make is, while people might not, you know, like a conservative wouldn't choose Gabbard, they would take over every other Democrat for principles and other reasons.
So anyway, I just want to rant on this because I did yesterday too, but this is just more kind of a follow-up on how It's just what the Democrats are doing, right?
The election's coming up, so here's what they're gonna do.
No matter what Trump says, it's wrong.
That way they can try and get the vote of people who I guess they assume aren't paying attention, but there really are independents and moderates, you know, like actual Democrats who are more moderate saying like, dude, You can point out when Trump does something good.
I don't care.
I don't have to like the guy to recognize that Trump did something that was good.
That's the bigger point here.
You don't have to like Trump.
I don't.
And there's a lot of things I disagree with, but you have to encourage the good behavior.
When the dude from BuzzFeed who tweeted about, you know, killing white dudes apologized, I said, spot on.
When Brian Stelter tweeted out it was wrong for any note to be attacked, I said, excellent, thank you very much.
Because I can criticize them all day and night for the bad things, but I will always encourage the good things so they do more of it.
Boy, do we have some big updates in the Andy Ngo story.
First, from Congressman Jim Banks tweeting, in light of events this weekend in Portland, Oregon, I call on POTUS The Justice Department and FBI to investigate Antifa and declare them a domestic terrorist organization.
Their avowal of violence and routine intimidation, harassment, and assault of Americans has no place in this country.
Let's retweet this.
I want to make sure we have the most up-to-date because I pulled this up a while ago.
824 retweets already.
Now here's the funny thing.
This is what people love to do.
U.S.
deaths caused by extremists.
Far-right.
ISIS.
Antifa.
Oh, jeez.
Antifa's not bad.
They only gave a gay Asian journalist a brain hemorrhage.
Two things can be true at the same time.
Three things can be true at the same time.
In fact, this may be shocking to many of you, but did you know that multiple things can be true at the same time, such as ISIS is bad, the far-right extremists are bad, And Antifa is bad.
Some are more bad than others.
It doesn't mean that they're not bad simply because one is worse.
What is wrong with people in this country that they're like, well, Antifa did give a gay Asian journalist a brain hemorrhage.
But... But what?
That's bad!
And it should be condemned.
Now, I will say this to Jim Banks, huge, but my understanding is that Antifa is already considered a domestic terrorist organization.
Which is really funny considering Twitter allows them to use their platforms.
Isn't that weird?
There is more, however.
It's not just Jim Banks, we've also seen something from Ted Cruz.
Check this out.
This is from the other day.
Now, I don't know if this is specifically having to do with Andy Ngo, except for the fact that this is what sparked the big, you know, viral moment.
That, look, when it was the far left and far right or whatever, you know, fighting each other.
People, you know, turned a blind eye.
When it then became Trump supporters getting attacked by Antifa, it was frogs boiling.
It was people saying like, oh, but isn't it far right?
And then you get CNN and all these other people going on TV defending the delusions of these weirdos who are LARPing.
Now it's the gay Asian journalist who was brutally beaten.
He's a journalist.
He's going around filming.
You don't like the way he films things?
Well, that's too bad.
You don't like his opinions?
That's too bad.
But they beat him up.
And so now we're seeing a lot more action.
Let's see what Ted Cruz had to say. Senator Ted Cruz, a prominent conservative and member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, wants federal authorities to investigate and prosecute the
mayor of Portland, Oregon, after Cruz accused him of ordering police to allow attacks against a
conservative activist. To federal law enforcement, investigate and bring legal action against a
mayor who has, for political reasons, ordered his police officers to let citizens be attacked
by domestic terrorists, Cruz tweeted early Sunday, referring to Ted Wheeler.
Wheeler, who is also the police commissioner.
Really?
has faced criticism after Andy Ngo, a sub-editor and photojournalist for Quillette, a conservative online publication, was reportedly assaulted by Antifa protesters, leaving him with scratches and a black eye.
There's video of it, by the way.
I love how they keep saying allegedly or reportedly.
There's literally video of what happened.
Okay, they punch him in the face, they're attacking, they're throwing things at him.
Come on.
Rival demonstrations by far-right and antifa groups turned into violent street clashes in Portland on Saturday, resulting in multiple injuries and arrests.
Police reported the demonstrations became violent when some demonstrators started throwing milkshakes of quick-drying cement and using pepper spray.
Check that out.
That's now on the record.
They were throwing quicklime in milkshakes.
Now, I want to stress this too, just for people who want to make that argument, because I presented this in the past couple videos.
The left is arguing that sugar stops cement from setting.
Not the point.
When cement sets, it's an exothermic reaction.
It's converting from a liquid to a solid and heat gets, you know, comes out of it.
But what we're really talking about here is chemical burns because quick-drying cement, cement in general, has a very high pH.
It's alkaline, which causes chemical burns, okay?
Your sugar be damned.
It's irrelevant.
They go on to say the Daily Caller, a conservative outlet, published a photo of Noe spattered with what appeared to be a milkshake and a bruised eye.
He was later admitted to the hospital because of what a legal representative described as a brain bleed, according to the Daily Caller.
Cruz retweeted a photo of Noe and wrote, sickening a criminal assault to mainstream journalists.
Don't cover this up.
Don't ignore it.
U.S.
ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, also jumped on the story, tweeting, where is Mayor Ted Wheeler?
Where is the national media?
I want to break that down and stress.
I think the way it's phrased is not clear enough.
It's not that he's gay, Asian, and conservative.
radicals don't like that Andy happens to be gay, Asian, and conservative.
I want to break that down and stress.
I think the way it's phrased is not clear enough.
It's not that he's gay, Asian, and conservative.
It's that he's gay and Asian and then a conservative.
He's a traitor to the cause.
He's supposed to fall in line.
They don't like liberals who defend freedom.
They don't like social justice activists who defend freedom and reject authoritarian tactics.
I think you'd find most people who oppose Antifa, be it conservative, moderate, liberal, Believe in social justice.
Some people have pushed back and said social justice is just justice.
Whatever your point is, people believe in justice.
What we don't believe in is the authoritarian application of this ideology.
I have no problem if you are a far-left communist, you know, social justice activist, so long as you greet people with a handshake and a conversation.
When it devolves into bricks and baseball bats, that's the problem.
There are people, and those who would advocate censorship too, you're out the window.
The point I'm saying is, I believe in social justice.
I believe that we can do right by marginalized communities.
I believe that government programs can be a good thing to help alleviate a lot of the problems of historical and systemic racism.
I can go into great detail on all of this.
However, bashing people over the head, knocking them down, throwing cement on them, that doesn't do anything for the cause.
It makes things worse.
The only thing it's going to bring about justice and reform is conversations and liberty.
Because guess what?
Surprise, surprise, we've been doing it!
Okay?
This is the point I'm trying to make.
Over the past couple hundred years, there have been violent escalations.
We want to not have those things anymore.
We want to recognize how to make things better.
And we've done it.
With gay marriage, Supreme Court ruled, made a ruling nationwide, these changes come about.
Civil rights are being achieved in positive, peaceful, pragmatic, and calm ways.
Over time, the conversation changes and people become more accepting of liberty.
These people are the inversion to that.
They're mirror mode.
They're violent authoritarians that are hiding behind social justice to cause problems, to gain power.
That's all they really care about.
Let's read on.
Grenell later added that he had asked the Justice Department to investigate, writing,
I can't just sit by and watch my friend be brutally attacked.
Video showed Noe being punched and kicked by young men wearing black hooded sweatshirts and face
masks. The video didn't show any police in the vicinity.
When a police officer showed up, Noe asked, where the hell were all of you? According to a
video he took on his phone.
Now, I will say this. A lot of people are defending the attack on Noe by saying he
should have known better.
Well, first of all, Andy did know.
Andy tweeted about this.
He said they were singling him out.
They said they were going to attack him.
The difference here is not whether he should or shouldn't have been attacked.
He shouldn't have.
The difference here is he knew it was possible, and he had the courage to go out and still do his job as a journalist.
There's a difference between walking into a dark alley to use an ATM shrouded in darkness and getting robbed, And Andy knowing the risks that come with the job.
That's been the excuse presented by many mainstream journalists.
Well, he should have recognized that these things... He did.
He did recognize it.
And he even gave us evidence that they were targeting him, and they'd been threatening him, spamming his phone, and sure enough, it happened.
The real issue is that Andy doing his job was facing these threats.
Period.
It's really funny.
They like to hide behind, oh, now I'm being harassed, like when James O'Keefe did the expose on Jen Janai.
Her first post is, now I'm receiving threats from people, as if that's the worst thing ever.
It's bad.
It is.
Where were these journalists when Andy Ngo was receiving threats?
Nowhere to be found.
And then what happens when he says, I'm going to do my job in the face of these threats?
What do they say?
Well, he should have known better.
Really.
He did.
And he knew the risks that came with it.
And where were you?
They're not defending him now, and they didn't defend him then.
Their true colors, their mask, it slipped.
Huffington Post writers, Kotaku writers, a spokesperson, I believe, I don't know what Charlotte Clymer's position is, with HRC, the Human Rights Campaign, which is supposed to defend gay rights, defending it.
Defending the attack on this gay Asian journalist.
Let's read the last bit.
Someone stated that the arrests had nothing to do with Andy, so the people who attacked him are still at large.
were in connection with assaulting, no, or for other conduct. I believe they were not.
I believe it was someone stated that the, uh, the arrest had nothing to do with Andy.
So the, the, the people who attacked him are still at large, but people are compiling photos
and there were other people who were attacked as well. Gage Halepowski, 23 was charged with
multiple counts of assault, including on a public safety officer.
James Stocks, 21, was charged with harassment.
And Maria Dahart, 23, was charged with disorderly conduct and harassment, according to Portland Police.
I'll say this.
It seems like there's a crisis of purpose.
These people don't know what they're doing with their lives.
They're mediocre, but they were told they were going to be rock stars and presidents and celebrities.
And they're not.
They're just regular people.
They're not unique snowflakes.
That's the joke.
That's where it comes from.
Fight Club, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
We were all told we were going to be rock stars, right?
Well, you're not.
Well, that's life.
Life is just boring.
Well, they don't want life to be boring.
They need to fill that hole inside them, so what do they do?
They LARP.
Live action role-playing.
Pretending they're fighting in la resistance against ze Germans.
They're not.
They're a bunch of crazy young people who beat up a gay Asian journalist because they think they're fighting against an oppressive regime.
Sorry.
You're just a bunch of fringe wackaloons running around doing crazy things.
And that's all you'll ever be.
Well, actually, now these people will be criminals.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got some more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
You know, this story is a bit... conflicted.
It's hard to know what's right and what's wrong, but I'll say this.
Facebook is straight up saying they're going to be interfering in our elections.
Okay.
You have a right to lie, to a certain extent.
If you lie to someone to sell something to gain financially, it's fraud.
If you lie, you know, it's basically fraud when you lie to people for certain reasons.
And then you've got civil cases.
If you try and convince someone to buy something and you mislead them, they could maybe sue you.
When you lie about someone, it's defamation, that's civil.
But, for the most part, lying is free speech.
Not a fan of it.
There's also underhanded election tactics, like convincing people not to vote, or not to participate in census, which can affect a lot of issues like federal funding, gerrymandering, etc.
These things, as far as I know, are actually allowed, albeit unethical and wrong.
But there's a big difference between what's unethical and what's legal.
Facebook has decided to impose its own rules on information in the 2020 election, which means Facebook is going to have different standards than US law.
I think that is wrong.
I do not believe that Facebook, a massive, in my opinion, evil company that's stolen private data, I'll call it stealing.
And censors, ideas they don't like.
I don't think they should be engaging in any behavior that changes elections at all.
It's up to the public and the government to set these rules and make these changes.
But now we are seeing the evolution.
The outsourcing of violations of our rights.
Facebook details efforts to prepare for 2020 elections Census disinformation.
Now, the reason I say it's a conflicting story, because it might be the right thing to do from an action standpoint, but from a principle standpoint, it's a massive private corporation interfering in our elections.
What do you do?
I don't know.
It's tough.
But let's read on.
Before I get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, just share the video if you like it because YouTube doesn't anymore for the most part.
CBS writes, Facebook is banning misinformation about the 2020 census and elections as it updates its policies to deal with online trolls and other bad actors.
False stop.
Who determines what's true or not?
Some things are obviously true.
If I said, if you throw a rock at a window, it will probably break, that's a true statement.
Probably break.
You might not throw it hard enough, but for the most part we know rock, window, broken glass, right?
Unless it's bulletproof glass.
The point I'm trying to make is, some things are true.
Like, what goes up must come down.
Assuming there aren't any other factors, like, I don't know, rocket propulsion, the point is, we know that gravity tends to function.
For the most part, things are true.
Science, okay, I'm not gonna get into the whole science debate.
The point is, Some things aren't discernibly true or not, okay?
In my video earlier today, Elizabeth Warren said these companies should be removing certain content.
If I said that's censorship, someone else might say it's not.
Is it true?
Well, it's literally an opinion.
I think it fits the criteria of censorship.
Other people might say it doesn't because a private company can't censor you.
That's wrong, they can.
And then we argue.
I think I'm right.
I think what I'm saying is factually true.
The problem there is that someone else might not agree, and I can't do anything about that.
Why should Facebook have the right to tell us what is or isn't true information in our election?
What if I said that Elizabeth Warren is racist?
They say that's not true, and they remove it.
It's misinformation.
Who draws the line?
Is an opinion misinformation?
If you have a bad opinion, is it misinformation?
You give them the ability to police what's true or not, and I assure you, they will start stacking the cards in their favor.
I wouldn't be surprised if they come out and you see all this misinformation about Elizabeth Warren, and they go, well, you know, it's an opinion, but then when it comes to Kamala Harris, they say, you can't have those bad opinions.
Elizabeth Warren has called for breaking up the big tech companies.
I'd be willing to bet they will try and shut her down, but let's read on.
In a report released over the weekend, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg detailed a number of steps it's taking to secure the 2020 elections.
The company is banning ads that tell people not to vote, and last year banned a range of misinformation on voting, including posts that misrepresent when, where, or how to vote or threaten violence relating to voting in an election.
Well, hold on.
I agree with the things that are threatening violence, because that's a legal issue.
But people have a right to tell someone else not to vote.
That's free speech.
Why is Facebook deciding you can't do this?
If I want to walk around outside saying, hey, don't vote, that's my right to do so.
Now, it is an issue of a private platform selling ads, so I can certainly respect that, but I don't like the idea of Facebook having so much power in the ad market.
In the past, if you wanted to go to CNN or CBS or Fox and say, I want to run this ad, they could tell you no.
But there was competition.
Eventually you might find someone who said yes.
Most people would probably say no to running an ad saying don't vote.
But there was still a higher potential it could happen.
Facebook and Google have created a duopoly in the ad market, at least in the digital space.
I think it's disconcerting when they say certain things aren't allowed to be shared.
But more importantly, misinformation is them deciding what is true.
That's where it gets scary.
The company also plans to introduce a census interference policy later this year in the lead-up to the once-a-decade count of all U.S.
residents.
The policy will prohibit misrepresentations of census requirements, methods, or logistics, and census-related misinformation.
There we go, once again.
Look, I get it.
Don't lie to people.
That's wrong.
But when they say misinformation, what if I say something that they just don't agree is correct?
But it is.
What if they're wrong?
What if Facebook doesn't know what is true?
They will take people down?
They're interfering in the government process?
Man, I don't know how to say it.
Look, Facebook is sliming its way, like a disgusting little sludge monster, into public policy.
The government is essentially being outsourced to a private company, and we shouldn't allow this.
Facebook doesn't have a right to tell us what we can or can't share in terms of policy debate.
But they're doing it.
The report's lead author, former ACLU executive Laura Murphy, was hired by Facebook in May of 2018 to assess its performance on vital social issues.
Oh, the racist ACLU that champions racism against Asians at Harvard?
Thanks!
Excellent, excellent.
You see where this goes.
These are bigoted racist people claiming to fight against racism, and then they're going to tell us what we can or can't talk about?
That's not a future I think is going to be fun for anybody.
Facebook has been widely criticized for allowing trolling and misinformation on its sites in the lead up to the 2016 election with various actors using the platform to target vulnerable populations, discourage voting, and stir white nationalism.
Federal officials have expressed concern that similar tactics would wreak havoc on the 2020 census.
The census ultimately determines the allocation of hundreds of billions in federal funding, as well as the assignment of electoral districts.
Certain groups of people, including Black and Hispanic residents, Native Americans on reservations, renters, and poor people, have been undercounted in prior counts, while homeowners... Stop right there.
What if Facebook said, oh, that's not true.
We think that's an opinion, and removed the article for dare saying that marginalized groups were misrepresented.
What if Facebook... Listen.
When you give Facebook this power, they will invariably use it against you.
I should say companies invariably use it against you.
You give someone the power, they will abuse it.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
They say, while homeowners and white residents were over-counted, the Trump administration's attempt to add a last-minute citizenship question to the census, though it has been temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court, sets the stage for further confusion.
They go on to say that Facebook will make a searchable database for jobs, loans, and credit card offers available for all U.S.
users, the company said in its report.
It's taking those actions as part of a March settlement with civil rights groups that accused the company of encouraging discrimination in targeted advertising.
The groups had claimed Facebook violated anti-discrimination laws by preventing audiences like single mothers and the disabled from seeing many housing ads or excluding women and older workers from job ads.
The searchable housing ads database will roll out by the end of 2019, Facebook said, and Murphy said she expects the employment and financial service offerings databases to be available within the next year.
Murphy said she's very excited about the move and believes they could help boost the social mobility of millions of people in the United States.
But I would stop here and say, isn't the bigger question class and not race?
One of the challenges I see facing the Democrats is their obsession with race instead of class.
Back in a few years ago with Bernie Sanders, it was mostly about class.
With Occupy Wall Street, it was class.
I'll tell you what, when you tell the rich people, the powerful elites, That the rest of us are challenging your system, they get worried.
There is a clear dividing line between the haves and the have-nots, and I believe we can have a more equitable future if we talk about class lines, like the fact that blue-collar workers could be of any race, and if we can do better by the poor and lift up people through education, things will get better.
But here's what I see.
Around the time of this debate, when they were talking about the 1%, things started to change.
You now have some of the most powerful individuals in the world, who happen to be minorities, claiming they're marginalized, and pointing the finger at homeless white people, and claiming they're privileged.
That makes no sense, and it maintains the status quo.
This is the problem I have with social justice.
Warriors, as it is.
Because there is social justice.
There is historical racism.
But we're at a point now where we have to focus on class and not race.
So anyway, look.
The point I have about this thing with Facebook, for the most part, is that... Actually, let's read the hate speech monitors part.
They say Facebook continues to walk a fine line in its attempts to shed harmful content, including hate speech and fascist speech.
What does that mean?
To be more effective, the company will dedicate some content moderators on hate speech alone.
A few dozen are involved so far, the company said in its Saturday report.
All come from the more than 20,000 outsourced content moderators who screen the platform.
Okay, so they go on to say there's a 9,500-member secret Facebook group of border control agents.
Okay, you're right.
I don't want to read into too much of that because I want to keep it focused on elections and not get into a hate speech debate because I'll go on for another 20 years.
The point is, speech included, regardless of the speech, it shouldn't be decided by Mark Zuckerberg and his massive private company what we're allowed to talk about.
We should be allowed to talk about what we want to talk about.
That's why we have a First Amendment.
Because the Founding Fathers recognized the principle was paramount.
A free press, a free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
But now that speech is happening on private platforms, something the Founding Fathers probably didn't foresee, our speech is being shut down.
And that's not going to be good for our elections, because I assure you, we will all end up living under the rule of Mark Zuckerberg.
It sounds like a joke, but when he decides what you can or can't say, policy will flow towards what he wants and nothing else.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The escalation of the civil conflict is upon us.
We're now seeing an article from Vox, saying, I'm a left-wing anarchist.
It's time to reclaim guns from the right.
The long-forgotten history of pro-gun left-wing groups.
I don't care too much about the gun argument, for the most part.
I mean, I do, but the point of this video is not to talk about the gun argument.
It's more to talk about how two worlds are forming.
Scott Adams has said that there's a single screen with two movies playing.
The issue I see is that we're coming to a point now where the movies are becoming so divergent, there's no bridging the gap.
I read this article.
And I started thinking, the world these people live in is nightmarish, but it's very, very different.
And there's no connecting the real world to the fringe extremists.
You've got people who live online, who believe the Jews control everything.
Because they're insane.
Because they're not well.
Certainly there are a lot of Jewish people in prominent positions, but it doesn't prove any of these absurd conspiracies.
There's not that many Jewish people on the planet.
They live in a weird reality.
There are people who believe the earth is flat.
There are people who believe the moon is made of cheese, albeit not that many, that's more of a joke.
The point I'm trying to make is, the same creepy conspiracies that are held by fringe wackos of any conspiracy type, it's the same kind of false reality these people live in.
Case in point, they mention Redneck Revolt.
Let's read about how they view this group.
They say, When I was in Charlottesville, Virginia, protesting the Unite the Right rally in 2017, the only time I truly felt safe was when members of Redneck Revolt, a working-class anti-fascist, anti-racist armed community defense group, showed up open-carrying and secured the park where a number of us were gathered.
I said the police may have stood by and done nothing as neo-Nazis murdered one of us, but Redneck Revolt was there to offer protection.
And the fascists steered clear of that park because of it.
I could take this exact thing and re-read it and say something like, when I was in Berkeley, California, covering a Trump rally, the only time I truly felt safe was when Proud Boys, a working class, anti-communist, anti-racist community defense group, showed up and defended a park while the police did nothing.
You see the point I'm trying to make?
There are different worlds.
Depending on who you're aligned with, you will feel safer or not safe with someone else.
Now, I will say it's kind of funny.
In Berkeley, Antifa often attack each other because they don't know who's who.
There was one instance where a guy got his mask pulled off, turned around to run back to Antifa, and they started hitting him because they didn't realize he was on their side.
Proud Boys all wear the same clothes.
In no way am I speaking in defense of Proud Boys, and nor do I believe that statement's true.
I'm doing that to highlight the different worldviews held by these groups and what it means.
When somebody from Vox reads this, it's an encouragement to take up arms, because the armed faction Redneck Revolt made them feel safe.
I assure you, there are conservatives and Trump supporters who could say the exact same thing about the Oath Keepers, about the Three Percenters, about the Proud Boys.
And therein lies the fracturing of the realities.
So you want to talk about what you need for an escalating civil conflict?
For one, a call to arms.
This is literally what we're seeing.
This article from Vox is saying, I understand why many people on the left don't like guns, but the left needs to reclaim guns from the right.
Why would Vox publish this?
This is very, very irresponsible, especially for Vox, which is left, which routinely calls for gun control, now pushing people to buy weapons.
Where do you think this goes?
Let me start this question.
This line of logic.
We had street battles before Donald Trump was elected.
And I asked, where do you think it goes from here?
When random people are running up and knocking over elderly women and lighting their hats on fire, where does it go from there?
It escalates.
Then you see people on the right fighting back.
It brings us to Charlottesville.
Where do you think it goes from here?
We then see just street battle after street battle.
It's not really been in the news too much because it's kind of just, it's so common now, this fighting in the streets in the Trump era.
It is what it is.
Trump supporters get attacked routinely.
There was one video where a guy stops his car in the middle of the road, runs out and starts attacking Trump supporters.
Where do you think it goes from there?
We now have border crisis.
Trump said, hey, we have a border crisis.
Democrats did nothing.
The crisis gets extremely bad for everybody.
The Democrats then say, concentration camps.
Where do you think it goes from there?
You now have people literally comparing Trump to a certain World War II German leader.
Austrian, German, whatever.
Where do you think it goes from there?
Armed groups showing up to events, violence, journalists like Andy Ngo being attacked in the street, and now we have an article from Vox saying it's time to take back guns from the right because it'll make us safe.
I've seen Redneck Revolt, and I think they've been nothing but courteous, and they are trained well.
They're way, way better than what Antifa really is.
These Redneck Revolt guys are not walking around bashing people over the heads.
In fact, from what I've seen, when there have been extreme acts, They've been tempered and kept their weapons down and haven't engaged in the violence.
Good, because they're armed.
And I think it's important to know a couple things.
I was at an event.
I believe it was a Trump rally.
What was it?
Was it a Trump rally?
I can't remember.
It was in Texas.
And there was a guy showed up, a big black dude, wearing a shirt that said Black Guns Matter.
And he had, I believe, an AR-15.
I could be wrong.
And there was a Trump supporter.
There was a bunch of Trump supporters, all armed as well.
This is Texas, right?
So this Black Guns Matter guy walks right up to these Trump supporter guys, shakes their hand, and they start talking about their guns, you know, their preferences, and they had a conversation.
And I saw that and I was like, you know, honestly, while it is disconcerting to see the escalation, I do think that a group like Redneck Revolt, from what I've experienced, they know etiquette, they know safety procedures, They have differing politics.
Don't worry, I'm getting to the final point on this thought.
I saw a guy who very clearly disagreed with Trump supporters, but they had more in common as gun enthusiasts and they were able to have a conversation about the laws and what they thought was right and what was wrong.
And they were laughing and talking and having a good time.
And I talked to the guy and he was like, oh man, I get it.
I'm a part of the same culture and we understand the policies.
We disagree politically when it comes to other issues.
But they were actually able to form that bond based on being enthusiasts of a kind, right?
Here's the thing, however.
I want to make sure that's clear, because I have respect for those who are trained with weapons, know their rights, exercise their rights properly, and go about their business the way they're legally entitled to do so, be it Redneck Revolt or the Oath Keepers.
But I'll tell you this, there will come a time when one of these people does draw a weapon and it results in someone getting shot.
It might not start with Redneck Revolt or the Oath Keepers or whoever else.
It could start with one crazy person bringing a weapon because they want to be like Redneck Revolt.
It could start with something like an article from Vox saying, hey, go get your guns.
Or anarchists posting on a forum, which they did, saying, hey, we should bring guns too.
And then you hear a bang.
What is it?
We don't know.
Maybe it was an M80.
Maybe people don't know what a gun sounds like, so they assume the M80 was a gun.
Then someone draws their weapon, and it gets frantic and panicked.
And then someone sees them pointing the weapon and starts shooting at them.
And then they start shooting back.
And congratulations, that's where the escalation takes us.
I'll point out.
I think when it comes to people who are actually trained in firearms and have some experience, they're not going to fall prey to these accidents.
Right?
When I was in Ferguson, I was shocked to find there were people there who had never heard the sound of a gun before.
That to me was insane.
I'm like, how are you going to come into urban conflict where you know the cops have guns, there are gang members with guns, there are protesters with guns, and you don't know what a gun sounds like?
You know what they think it sounds like?
They think it sounds like in the movies.
Like, they think the sound effects in movies are what guns sound like.
That's not what guns sound like.
So then what happens when gunshots actually go off?
I see journalists going, those fireworks?
Are those fireworks?
I kid you not.
Now, think about that mentality.
You see everybody in Ferguson, they know what a gun sounds like.
They drop to the floor.
Several journalists are just standing there looking around all doofy like, those fireworks?
I'm like, do you see anybody with fireworks?
No.
Do you see people with guns?
Now think about that mentality, and think about what happens when one of these fringe-whack-a-loon antifa types decides to go buy a gun and bring it out.
And then they hear fireworks, and think it's a gun, and they draw their weapon and start pointing it around like a lunatic.
That's why this rhetoric is dangerous.
The people who go out and buy weapons and come to these protests, I don't think it's going to be the Redneck Revolt.
I don't think it's going to be like the Oath Keepers.
These are people who know how to use guns, right?
And from what I've seen of the videos of Redneck Revolt, they've been... Albeit, I think they had good intentions.
There's like a video of a guy blocking a road.
And I think his intentions are good, trying to de-escalate and stop the fighting.
Same as what the Oath Keepers have done and the Three Percenters.
But it's going to go bad.
And I'm not going to blame the Redneck Revolt for starting it.
And I'm not going to blame the conservatives or oath keepers for starting it.
You have a right to carry weapons.
But this is why I think it's very disconcerting to see Vox pushing this escalation.
They say, leftist gun ownership is about protecting marginalized communities.
And this is the first point I was making and my final thought.
The worldviews are so dramatically different.
Marginalized communities.
That's what they think.
They think a bunch of people coming out with guns, being armed, and engaging in these fights is about protecting marginalized communities.
Were they protecting marginalized communities when they beat the crap out of Andy Ngo?
They weren't.
So what do you think is going to happen then?
Right now we see them wearing the SAP gloves, the assault gloves, they got the plastic knuckles.
What do you think happens when someone tells them to go bring a gun?
Like Vox is doing right now.
They'll do it.
And then instead of swinging fists, they'll shoot somebody.
There was a guy in Charlottesville who fired a pistol.
I don't know if he was firing into the crowd, but he looked like he was firing towards protesters.
It'll happen.
In Ferguson, I was shot at.
It will escalate to the point where two sides of guns are shooting at each other.
Vox is not doing anyone any favors.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More videos to come starting tomorrow, 10.30am on this channel.
For everyone else, the podcast is at 6.30pm everyday around then.
