Democrats Now Actively Assisting Illegal Immigration, Campaign In Mexico
Democrats Now Actively Assisting Illegal Immigration, Campaign In Mexico. Cory Booker accompanied illegal immigrants into the US recently. The story is a bit complicated, the women had previously been sent back to Mexico under the Migration Protection Policy and according to the Washington Examiner were seeking to bypass the law to gain entry to the US.In what I would call an odd PR stunt Booker provided political and PR protection for the migrants as they entered the US.Oddly, Beto O'Rourke was also campaigning in Mexico. He traveled there to meet asylum seekers recently.Outside of Democrats campaigning in Mexico other odd instances are Democrats advising illegal immigrants on how to avoid federal authorities or in one instance a Judge being indicted for aiding in the escape of several illegal immigrants. The far left posturing will likely ensure Trumps landslide victory in 2020 as the New York Times says that this rhetoric is "making Americans feel like strangers in their own country"Ocasio-Cortez for instance is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who routinely advocate for open borders. It seems now that the rest of the Democrats are falling in line and tacitly agreeing with loose open borders policy.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There have been some stories over the past couple of years about Democrats actively aiding illegal immigrants when it comes to ICE, when it comes to actual enforcement in this country.
We have sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, so yes, there are local governments mostly on the left.
I think entirely on the left, actually.
that are defending illegal immigrants in this country from enforcement from federal authorities.
But now we have a couple stories.
One, particularly, is Cory Booker, a Democrat, actively aiding illegal immigration, meaning he accompanied actual illegal immigrants as they crossed the border and observed what happened and said he's going to fight Trump's policies.
Now, we can get into a semantic argument over whether or not he actually aided them or whether or not they're asylum seekers.
And this is one of the big challenges in the political debate.
The left will say they're asylum seekers.
I do not believe that's fair.
Some certainly are.
But the big problem I see is that many of these people are only claiming to be asylum seekers so they can be granted protections.
In a story published by Vox, V-O-X, the left wing website, They said some of the migrants were quoted as saying they missed PlayStation and they wanted Buffalo Wild Wings.
I'm not saying all migrants are coming for Buffalo Wild Wings.
It's highlighting specific examples from left-wing sources showing many of these migrants are not asylum seekers.
In this instance, it's actually kind of confusing.
And again, it's going to come down to semantics, so I know I will take heat from the way I've kind of presented the story, but it's the best I can do based on how I'm seeing what's going on.
The reason why I would say Cory Booker is aiding in illegal immigration is because these are the women that he accompanied had previously been removed under the Remain in Mexico program, meaning their cases are already being processed or it's possible they're coming for their thing.
I'm not entirely sure.
But if they were removed previously, and Cory Booker comes with them on the way back, he's providing press and political protection around them with his presence, so I would consider this to be people returning after it already being removed, and you know, being told to wait, now just coming back in the country with the aid of a Democratic politician.
There's also a story about Ocasio-Cortez giving advice on how to avoid ICE.
And then we have a judge who is indicted for actually helping an illegal immigrant escape ICE agents.
So let's read through these stories and go through what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a cryptocurrency option, and a physical address.
But of course, The best thing you can do, share this video so you effectively act as a suggestion feed because YouTube no longer suggests my and many others' content.
I rely on you.
Here's the first story.
Booker personally accompanied asylum seekers across the border.
They say presidential hopeful Cory Booker was in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico on Wednesday, and traveled with asylum seekers as they crossed the U.S.
southern border.
I will point out, Washington Examiner, which is where the story is from, is not a left-wing source.
So they are saying asylum seekers, I think that's fair to point out.
The New Jersey senator's trip to Mexico comes as the situation at the border has gained notoriety for the conditions at migrant detention centers.
Corey observed the crossing, their interactions with federal immigration authorities, and the disastrous impact of President Trump's cruel immigration policies as the migrants attempted to avoid the so-called migrant protection protocols implemented by the Trump administration, an email from his campaign said.
Booker helped five women make it to a U.S.
shelter and not a detention center, according to Andrew Kimmel.
Those women were originally sent back to Mexico under the migrant protection protocols, and Booker told reporters Wednesday that his office intends on keeping in touch with them.
Now, here's why I said it's aiding illegal immigration, because they were already removed under the protocols.
Excuse me.
And are actively trying to avoid them by returning, and they're being aided by a Democratic politician, which creates, effectively, a press and political shield.
It's going to force ICE agents and CBP to act differently to how they would normally enforce border protections.
We know these women, We're already removed.
We know that they're supposed to be waiting for asylum and they're actively trying to bypass the law.
So let's do this.
Some important points to bring up.
The Migrant Protection Protocols, according to the DHS.
It's a U.S.
government action whereby certain foreign individuals entering or seeking admission to the U.S.
from Mexico illegally or without proper documentation may be returned to Mexico and wait outside of the U.S.
for the duration of their immigration proceedings, where Mexico will provide them with all appropriate humanitarian protections for the duration of their stay.
That means these women came to the U.S.
Well, maybe it's not necessarily a law, but we can say they're trying to bypass these protocols put forth by DHS and otherwise.
I pulled up Vox, the left-wing site, as a source specifically to address some of the concerns over what they're doing and how Cory Booker is helping them.
In this story, they say, what is the U.S.' 's new policy of returning asylum seekers to Mexico?
They say, migrants traveling from Central America through Mexico have a legal right to seek asylum in the U.S., and that right is triggered when they set foot on U.S.
soil, which is traditionally where they stay until their cases are resolved.
Now, side note.
Many of the migrants coming, I believe most of them are claiming asylum.
Because that is a way you can get in the country, claim asylum, and then what happens is they say, okay, now come back to your hearing in a month and a half or whatever.
Many people don't.
It's disputed among the left and the right to what number.
Certain organizations say, I think it's racist it's called.
They said, nearly all of the migrants we sponsor do go to their hearings.
Sure, the ones they sponsor.
Let's talk about the number of all of the migrants, the hundred plus thousand per month.
Are they coming to their hearings?
What are they doing?
Or are they just being released into the US?
That was a big concern on the right.
So Trump enacted this policy to return them to Mexico.
The important point here, they're coming from Central America.
The migrant protection protocols only apply to those from certain Central American countries, not Mexico.
The question that's being brought up, why aren't they getting asylum in Mexico?
Why are they going through Mexico to the U.S.
if they really need asylum?
They'll be safe in Mexico, and Mexico can provide them with aid.
If these women were removed based on the MPP, They're safe in Mexico getting the aid they need.
Why then violate those protocols and why would Cory Booker help them?
Let's read more from what Vox has to say.
Though, when migrants present themselves to CBP agents to seek asylum, they're given a date in a U.S.
immigration court 45 days in the future to start their asylum case, and then turned over to Mexican authorities to stay in Mexico until the 45 days are up.
The policy, which the Trump administration calls the Migrant Protection Protocols and others call the Remain in Mexico policy, applies only to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
And isn't being used for children trying to enter the U.S.
without an adult.
It relies on a rarely used provision in immigration law, which allows the U.S.
to return certain people who enter from a contiguous territory to be returned to that contiguous territory until their claim for legal status is either accepted or denied.
This is the law.
I think it's fair to point out these are migrants entering the country illegally in violation of a policy after already being admitted to try and avoid the law being aided by Cory Booker.
The Democrats are in a bubble on this issue.
They're making Americans feel like strangers in their own country because we have Democrats actively campaigning for non-Americans.
Sure, there's a small subset of Twitterati leftists who might agree with this, but it's not mainstream.
The group that agrees to this may be growing, that's true, but it is not mainstream America.
So, I want to move on from here because I think I've made the point.
Cory Booker just aided illegal immigration.
The law is clear.
They are not from Mexico.
They can wait in Mexico, whether you agree or not.
It is illegal immigration aided by a Democrat.
We also have this story from a couple weeks ago.
Ocasio-Cortez gives illegal immigrants advice on evading federal law enforcement.
From the Daily Caller, they say, New York Rep AOC used her Twitter account Saturday to give
illegal immigrants advice about evading a potential ICE roundup.
She's saying, warning, the Trump admin is expected to begin ICE raids across the country
tomorrow targeting people for roundup, Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Now is the time for us to come together.
Check in with your neighbors.
Share know your rights info.
If you see ICE, report to United We Dream.
I will push back a bit on the conservative approach to this.
I will not, you know, look, AOC is in every right to tell people they have rights and to reach out to organizations for protection.
But it is fair to point out she is telling illegal immigrants how to avoid ICE.
So, look, it's not black and white on the issue.
Ocasio-Cortez isn't necessarily breaking the law by telling people how to uphold their rights.
In fact, that's not a bad thing, but she is providing aid to illegal immigration.
Take it for what you will.
I'm not putting my opinion on that one.
I know the left and the right are both gonna come after me for it.
She says, uh, please share this info widely and make sure your neighbors have it.
If your home can be a safe space or haven for others, let your neighbors and community know, even if it's just to relax in the stress of this time.
Plan, prepare, protect your neighbors.
Now, this is where I think she actually does cross the line.
Telling people to harbor illegal immigrants, I believe that could actually be a violation of the law.
Maybe not telling people to do so, but harboring illegal immigrants to hide them from federal authorities, I believe that is actually a crime.
There is somebody who is being charged right now for harboring illegal immigrants.
I don't know if AOC can be in trouble for advocating for people to break the law, but perhaps.
But let's go back in time.
You know, you want to have an argument about AOC's comments on Twitter?
Fine.
But let's take a look at this.
This is a story from last year, in February, where they say ICE begins deportation raids in Northern California as federal officials blame Oakland mayor.
Warned illegal immigrants about what was happening, they say.
The arrests began on Sunday, a day after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a Democrat, issued an unusual warning to her constituents that she had learned from multiple credible sources that ICE was planning an operation in the Bay Area.
Shiaf is one of many mayors around the country at the helm of a sanctuary city, one that
has barred city employees from helping federal immigration agents, and she has been particularly
outspoken on the issue of immigration, saying in interviews that she'd be willing to go
to jail to protect residents from deportation.
So there's a little bit more here.
On Tuesday, ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan seemed to blame her for the fact that a number
of suspected undocumented immigrants were still at large.
Quote, thanks to the dedication and professional work of ICE deportation officers, we were able to
remove many public safety threats from the streets of the Bay Area during the past few days. However,
864 criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community.
And I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor's irresponsible decision.
We've seen calls for sanctuary cities for some time.
We've seen sanctuary states.
This means that they basically refuse to work with federal authorities.
So, when it comes to this Democratic mayor of a sanctuary city, I can't say I'm surprised.
But it's a huge step up what we're seeing now.
From creating a space that won't cooperate with ICE, to actively warning people about a potential ICE raid, and now it brings us to an update in another story.
From two judges actively abetting criminal evasion of ICE.
It's one thing to say we won't cooperate.
It's another thing that a judge and a bailiff are accused of allowing immigrants to escape through a basement to avoid being deported.
That's a whole new level.
This story from the Mercury News.
Indicted Massachusetts judge nixed deal in ICE obstruction case.
Offer from U.S.
attorney required she admit to helping immigrant flee courthouse, they say.
Newton District Court Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph was offered a deal to avoid prosecution if she admitted she helped an illegal immigrant escape out a basement door in the courthouse to avoid ICE agents last year.
The deal that Joseph turned down was offered up by U.S.
Attorney Andrew Lelling's office.
A source familiar with the matter told the Herald.
Joseph, 51, of Natick, was indicted last month on federal charges of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting for allegedly interfering with a federal investigation.
The State Supreme Judicial Court quickly announced it had suspended Joseph without pay effective immediately.
They also go on to say that a trial court officer, Wesley McGregor, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting, as well as perjury.
Joseph and McGregor have both pleaded not guilty, and Judge Jennifer Bull released them both on their own recognizance.
Now, we'll say innocent until proven guilty, but this seems to fall in line with the narrative we have seen thus far.
From actively, you know, from creating sanctuary cities so they won't work with ICE, to warning illegal immigrants, to then abetting them, allegedly, to now having Cory Booker actually go with them, providing physical protection to an extent, right?
Obviously, if they got arrested, who knows what would have happened.
But Cory Booker created a massive PR spectacle, which in my opinion would result That's the PR effect.
They're gonna back off and say whatever, let him do his thing.
they normally would. That's the PR effect. They're going to back off and say whatever,
let him do his thing. To stress, the women that Cory Booker was with had previously been
removed under immigration law and were actively, according to the story, trying to avoid the
MPP, the Migrant Protection Policies, and come back into the US in violation of that
law. And there we are. Democrats now actively engaging in this behavior.
I want to make a couple more points on this story.
What we're seeing here, in my opinion, is the Democrats just going nuts.
Plain, just nuts.
Beto O'Rourke travels across Mexico border and meets with asylum seekers.
Sure.
I think it's fair to call them that, but almost all of them are claiming asylum, even though they're not claiming asylum in Mexico, which makes, to me, very little sense.
Mexico is not some backwater, dangerous place.
It's actually very nice.
Mexico City is actually very beautiful.
It's curious why they would go through Mexico to the United States.
Now again, they're in their legal right to claim asylum here, but they're not in their legal right to bypass the law, which states, If they're in a contiguous territory when they come, they can be sent back to that territory to wait.
Which is what's happening.
Why would Beto O'Rourke go and meet with asylum seekers?
It feels like Democrats are actively campaigning in a foreign country.
This to me is absurd.
Listen.
You can support the asylum seekers.
You can defend the rights of undocumented immigrants.
Those can all be debated.
But to see Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke now go to Mexico to aid non-citizens, I throw it back to the opinion posted by the New York Times.
Americans are being made to feel like strangers in their own country.
The Democrats aren't campaigning for Americans.
They're on stage saying they're going to provide health care to illegal immigrants and they won't deport them.
Now they're actually going to Mexico.
It was a funny joke when Trump supporters said the Democrats are trying to become president of Mexico.
But I got to ask you what they're doing.
What are they doing?
Are they going to go to middle Americans and tell them how they're going to secure their jobs and protect the economy and make sure their kids can go to school?
Apparently not.
Apparently their priority is Mexico to talk to people who aren't citizens.
I get it.
We want to protect asylum seekers, but what about showing up to California and talking to the homeless?
What about going to New York and talking to the homeless?
This is a PR spectacle, and it's a stunt that I'm gonna bet is gonna backfire.
There are a lot of problems with what's happening on the border outside Listen, we've got homeless people.
We know they're homeless.
We know many are mentally ill.
We know many can't find jobs.
I would appreciate them to go to Skid Row instead they go to Mexico.
Well, let me tell you something.
You can look at the homeless problem in California and ask why is the problem being solved and actively work towards solving that problem.
That makes sense.
These are American citizens.
They are homeless.
We have problems with traffickers.
Recycling children, they call it.
Laura Logan reports cartels are renting kids to families so they can come across the border and claim to be a family.
Then those kids get sent back and they do it again.
The kids are being used as a shield.
It's been reported before.
So what ends up happening, in my opinion, is the Democrats chasing after the Twitterati nonsense, start believing just ridiculous, absurd, fringe, far-left rhetoric, and then they actively chase after it.
The protester is not the voter.
But of course, they're trying to win those votes for the Democratic primary.
Here's the problem.
If you want to win the presidency, you need moderates.
People like me.
People who didn't vote for Trump.
People who are traditionally Democratic or on the left.
Who are willing to vote for a Democrat.
But not you!
Not when you're going- Like, so, look.
They're all gonna run.
They're gonna actively abet, you know, and aid illegal immigrants.
They're gonna campaign in Mexico.
And people like me are gonna be like, dude, I'm not gonna vote for you.
You can win the primary, sure.
But what then?
It's a cathartic victory.
You win, congratulations, and now you lose the presidency because you're too far to the left.
Congratulations on winning the vote of regressive far-left activists, but why would any middle American want to vote for you?
This is an impasse for the Democratic Party.
You need the fringe activists to actually win the nomination, but by doing so, you will never win the actual presidency because most Americans don't believe in this nonsense.
There's a couple things that I want to point out.
Moving beyond this, talk more beyond what the Democrats are doing.
I want to talk a little bit about this video put out by CBP Arizona.
They say here is a look inside of a Border Patrol Processing Center with Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson Sector, Roy Villareal.
In this video, which I'm not going to play because it's a few minutes long and those on the podcast, you can't see it anyway.
But he actually shows the detention center for migrants in the Tucson area is fairly nice.
There's food and snacks available, there's clean water, there's shirts, there's toothbrushes, they have medicine.
He shows the water works, he even drinks from the potable water fountain toilet combo himself!
However, Forgive me for not taking the government tour of a facility that's not El Paso with a grain of salt.
Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats went to the El Paso detention center.
We've seen photos.
It's not good.
We've heard stories.
It's also not good.
Tucson sector may be great, but of course CBP is going to show us the best of the best.
It would be nice if we had some honest journalists who could actually get into these facilities and show us what's really going on.
It won't happen.
So for now, you have the right who will believe CBP, and the left who will say Ocasio-Cortez.
The right will say she's lying, the left will say CBP is lying, but I'm going to point out I'm not going to believe the government.
I'm sorry.
CBP, I don't think you're a rogue agency.
I don't think they're actively trying to hurt people.
But I do think they're trying to show us their Potemkin village.
The best of the best in these facilities.
Plain and simple, I think the rational approach is this.
There's problems on the border.
The facilities, many of them are not well.
Some of them are pretty good.
We need money.
The Democrats have finally agreed to it, but AOC still obstructs.
They obstructed from the get-go.
If they didn't, perhaps we wouldn't be in this problem.
I don't need to see CBP show me this border facility to convince me things are okay.
I'm not going to believe you anyway.
But I can understand if the Democrats just said, we're going to fund this, things would be, you know, look, we'd be okay.
But now I want to highlight just a couple more issues that I think are important in terms... Actually, no, I'm not gonna do it.
I have a couple other stories showing how the Democrats really are losing the plot.
Really, really are losing the plot.
And they're believing this insane far-left Twitter-arty nonsense, which results in Cory Booker actually going and helping illegal immigrants.
Okay.
I think you've gone so far away from where Barack Obama was.
Think about it.
Obama in 2012 was still deporting illegal immigrants.
They called him Deporter-in-Chief and he defended the policies.
He defended child separation.
He defended all of this.
These facilities existed under Obama.
Now you've got Cory Booker helping illegal immigrants.
That's a mirror image to where Obama was.
So you're going to ask me, somebody, I voted for Obama one time, you're going to ask me to now vote for these people who are so far to the left of Obama I can't recognize them?
It's never going to happen.
I don't see how they plan to win.
I'll leave it there.
And we'll pick up in the next segment, YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
For those in the podcast, it'll be like in two segments from now.
And we're going to talk about the 4th of July, which is today, and how Twitter is just going insane.
I don't understand how the Republicans have remained grounded for the most part.
We've seen the data.
Republicans have moved a little to the right.
Democrats have just shot straight to the left.
Maybe it's because the Democrats don't operate strictly on emotion.
They operate on five moral foundations, and the left just on care and harm.
Makes it very easy for the left to be manipulated into believing and supporting nonsense, like straight-up illegal immigration.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segments will be coming up shortly.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
The internet is an awful, foul place, full of mean people who do mean things for mean reasons.
Mini AOC was doxed and threatened.
Family shuts down all her social media accounts.
If you're not familiar with Mini AOC, it is a little girl who pretends to be Ocasio-Cortez and makes jokes.
She's like eight years old, so it's probably her dad writing the script for her, but it's kind of funny.
In one segment, so this is the Daily Caller.
I want to read the Daily Caller, but I do have the Fox News version pulled up.
The Fox News is really short.
But we can see this is who she is.
She is a little girl.
And she says silly things.
In this Fox segment, they highlight one of her videos where she says, I've never seen a garbage disposal, but I've also never seen Bigfoot or the inside of a book.
And I thought that was really funny.
Congratulations, when you were famous, people make fun of you.
Right now, I'm working on a video for Later Today about censorship, and I'm arguing with some Antifa people, and they're posting pictures of me making fun of me for being bald or being an NPC, and you know what?
I gotta be honest.
I laugh.
It's crazy to me.
I talked about this the other day.
Oh, actually, let's do this.
Before I go on to a philosophical rant or moral rant, I want to talk about what happened to Minnie AOC.
She's a little girl.
They doxed and threatened her, okay?
I say the family of a young girl who went viral for mocking Democratic New York Rep AOC
shut down all her social accounts after receiving death threats and harassing phone calls.
A tweet from the account purporting to belong to the little girl's stepfather
said she will not be doing any more content because the harassment and death threats have gone too far
and threatened her and her family's safety.
Ava will not be doing any more mini-AOC content.
The left's harassment and death threats have gone too far for our family.
We have been getting calls on our personal phone numbers.
For our safety and our child's safety, we deleted all many AOC accounts."
She recently did this tweet where she was pretending to be AOC standing at the
doing the fake PR thing or whatever.
I want to point something out.
Do you know Desmond is amazing is?
There are several children who are drag queens.
And they have also been doxxed.
They have also been threatened.
They have also been harassed.
It is wrong.
It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It doesn't take, I don't know, some kind of special political position to recognize these things are wrong.
It doesn't take being on the left or being on the right to be morally correct.
I shouldn't say morally correct, because of course people are going to argue one side is better or worse.
But what I'm trying to make is, even if you don't like Minnie AOC for mocking Ocasio-Cortez, harassing a little girl in her family is absolutely wrong.
And the same is true for Desmond is Amazing.
If you don't like what his parents are doing, sending them harassing phone calls and death threats, and threatening them and sending letters, is wrong.
Now, by all means, criticize them and their families.
I've made a couple videos critical of Desmond's family.
I think that is completely appropriate.
I'm not gonna call the kid and, like, yell at him.
I'm gonna be like, hey, here's what's happening, here's what some people have said, here's how I feel about it.
That's acceptable.
The same is true for many AOC.
But it absolutely crosses the line when you get to the point where you're harassing the family, calling them from blocked numbers.
That shouldn't be acceptable for anybody.
And this is why we can't have nice things, okay?
Now, I will say this.
I bring that up specifically to say there have been other instances of young kids who have been harassed for being in the public.
And it's wrong, but I'm not trying to create, like, a moral equivalent between what MiniAOC is doing and what Desmond is doing.
I'm personally critical of what, you know, Desmond's family is doing with these child drag- uh, drag kids, because it's one thing to have the kids play dress-up.
That I really don't care about.
If your kid wants to mar- like, there- there was one video of, like, a pride parade, where a little kid was wearing a dress and just, like, bouncing up and down, and, like, some conservatives got mad, and then the centrists, like, people like me, rightly were like, who cares?
Look, I get it.
You know, it's one thing when the kid's pulling his clothes off, and people are throwing dollar bills at him.
That, like, dude.
I am familiar with how the stripping industry works.
There are bars where women don't get fully naked.
They do the same thing.
They're modeled very similarly.
That, in my opinion, is a step over the line, and I will criticize that.
A little kid wearing a dress, jumping up and down at a parade, I really don't care about.
If your kid wants to play dress-up at home, and you want to post pictures on the internet, like, I, I... Well, I think there's some, like, child pageant issues with that.
I also will be a tad critical towards MiniAOC, because it's funny that she's doing this, but the parents are choosing to put her out there, and we know how volatile things can be.
Admittedly, though, it's a really tepid criticism.
For the most part, I think MiniAOC is hilarious and okay, and it's just a little girl doing photoshoots and making jokes.
That, to me, is not crossing the line.
So, you know, one is worse than the other in terms of the criticism, but the threats, the harassment, the doxxing is wrong across the board, no matter who it is.
Whether it's the Drag Kids or it's Miniyoshi or otherwise.
And you know what?
I just feel like I'm always preaching to the choir, because of course you all get it.
I'm sure there's gonna be a bunch of people saying, of course, you know, they think Desmond is worse.
Of course, they think Miniyoshi is okay.
It's all wrong.
But I'm pretty sure every, like, 99% of people are gonna be like, man, that sucks that everyone's doing this.
The threats are wrong.
So it feels like, you know, choir preaching.
I will say this.
It sucks that Mini AOC is coming to an end because I did find it very funny, and it was a little girl who was doing comedy.
And she was doing it well, obviously with the guidance of her parents, but She was doing something that she found fun, and I'd imagine that you get, you know, a child like this excited about doing, you know, comedy and to an extent acting, and then people are going to, or she's gonna get, you know, she's gonna get passionate about it.
I think something like this could be a good thing for her growing up.
Granted, there are issues with child acting that, you know, could maybe screw the kids up.
But I don't think we need to necessarily read too much of the story, because I think we get who MiniAOC is.
So I'll say this for now.
No one should ever be harassed, threatened, doxxed, regardless of who you are, regardless of the political debate, regardless of the arguments.
That's different.
I will also say that the Desmond family and the drag kids, they're saying that getting investigated by Child Protective Services is harassment.
It's not.
You know, if the kids are on stage dancing and law enforcement are going to investigate, that's not harassment, okay?
If people are sending you threatening letters, yeah, we're crossing that line.
But back to the point I wanted to make in the beginning, because I did a video about this last week.
And I'm very proud of this point, right?
I want to make it clear.
You will be made fun of.
Be it Ocasio-Cortez getting mocked by a little girl, or the Ocasio-Cortez parody account which was taken down a month ago for being misleading, which is insane.
Yes, you're going to get made fun of.
Trump gets made fun of all day and night.
One of the most popular Ocasio-Cortez parody accounts was suspended.
They called it misleading.
I think that's complete BS.
It said parody in the name.
It said parody in the description.
This to me is like you can see the bias from the left and it's heavily in favor of censoring their political rivals.
But the point I wanted to make is that I mentioned there are people who make fun of me, they make NPC memes about me, and the specific point that I wanted to highlight was that in a video, a livestream, it was Owen Benjamin.
I'm not super familiar with who he is, I know he's like a comedian.
He said that I was an u- like, I can't remember exactly what he said, but he said something like I was an ugly half-breed who looks ridiculous.
Somebody sent me this link and I played it, and he said that, and I laughed.
I found it genuinely funny.
He called me... And then, you know, my response to people when they tell me that, I'm like, well, I prefer Daywalker because, you know, Blade and the vampires.
Or Mudblood because I like Harry Potter and I'm a millennial, right?
It's just a silly joke.
It means literally nothing to me.
There are people who have... There have been parody accounts of me on YouTube, on Twitter, and there are actual accounts that are trying to smear me, and you know what?
I just don't care.
I just really don't care.
There are so many other things to worry about.
I mean...
You know what I'm more concerned about?
The other day, when people are posting these things, I was more concerned about whether or not I was going to get a ticket for the new Spider-Man, as opposed to someone making fun of me and calling me ugly.
I don't care if you think I'm ugly!
I think you're ugly!
Whatever!
Who cares?
There's a lot of ugly people walking around, and not everybody thinks everybody else is attractive.
Now, you want to argue about saying I'm an ugly half-breed who's now bigoted or racist or whatever?
I still don't care.
Let me tell you another funny story.
I don't know if I should name the individual I was talking to, though, for their sake, but I did mention this a long time ago.
I was talking to somebody about YouTube demonetization, and I was saying, like, it seems like YouTube is randomly stripping ads from content.
And I'm talking to this right-wing individual, and I said, you know, my mom makes math tutorial videos, and even she is getting demonetized.
And the response was, why am I not surprised Your Korean mom makes math tutorial videos.
And I started laughing, and I immediately sent a message to my mom telling her the joke, and she laughed too.
We get it.
It's not meant to be, like, derogatory.
It's meant to be silly.
It's mocking the stereotype.
It's pointing out how funny it is that there's a stereotype of Asians doing math, and there's my mom making math videos.
I thought it was hilarious.
And I also gotta take it as a compliment.
Like, my mom taught me math at a young age.
Good!
I'm glad she did.
But that's the thing.
I think most people who get offended, the people who are threatening MiniAOC, the people who got the parody account taken down, are just, like, overly sensitive, you know?
Like, very soft and fragile, squirming, little terrified things, who just... I think there's two things to it.
Some people who just can't take criticism at all, even if it's a joke not meant to be insulting you, and there are some people who are like, I'm gonna pretend to be angry right now so I can get this person removed because they, you know, because they're my political rival.
So you end up with, like, half of these fragile little snowflakes on the left.
And I love how the left and the right both call each other snowflakes.
And I think, to a certain extent, they're certainly right-wing snowflakes.
Well, I'll get into that in a second.
But these people are very fragile and scared.
You know, they're offended by a flag.
So Colin Kaepernick gets the shoe removed.
Oh, grow up, dude.
If you don't like the flag, don't buy it.
And then if nobody buys the shoe, Nike will stop doing it.
Stop imposing your will on others, you authoritarian wingnuts.
I'm going to leave it there because I don't want to make this a 20-minute video.
I won't go into any greater detail on that.
I think you get the point.
A lot of the smears, a lot of the takedowns, I think it's absolutely in bad faith.
They're pretending to be outraged because these companies bend the knee.
In this instance, they couldn't get many AOC suspended because it wasn't misleading, so what do they do?
Well, in come the barrage of threats and the harassment and all that stuff.
I can't say I'm surprised, but I can say this.
Grow up.
Be an adult.
Sometimes people say mean things, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Of course, we're seeing all these non-profits emerge, and they're now pushing for overt censorship.
But that's going to be my bigger segment for later today at 4pm on the main channel, because it's a developing story.
But the left is absolutely facing the brunt of the recent censorship and policy changes at YouTube and otherwise, and I can't say I'm surprised.
You reap what you sow.
Stick around, the next segment will be up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
YouTube has just deleted a very prominent Antifa YouTube account called Three Arrows.
Three Arrows, of course, is a reference to the Antifa logo.
I think this may be likely due to the negative press from the Andy Ngo incident, where people were throwing cups with Three Arrows on them.
Now, some far-left activists are saying that YouTube has no idea what Three Arrows means.
This guy's channel may have been banned for other reasons.
It's true.
But it is convenient timing that shortly after this big wave of press and a ton of conservatives denouncing Antifa, which they've been doing in the past, but now it's a big concerted effort, I'm not surprised that Three Arrows, a YouTube channel with that symbol, was banned.
But I'll say this.
This is what the left wanted.
Now, obviously not everyone on the left wants this.
I think it's silly that anyone would ever assume that simply because I said the left.
I'm referring to prominent organizations, I'm referring to corporate leftists, and I'm referring to the Antifa activists who rally behind them.
There are absolutely people like Jimmy Dore and David Pakman who aren't... You know, Jimmy Dore especially opposes censorship.
David, I'm not entirely familiar with his position, but he's been very principled on a lot of these issues.
So, I do want to highlight some of David's posts, because David Pakman himself has actually taken a big hit, as have all of us on YouTube.
So it's not the entire left.
It's typically the corporate left, the Democrats, the prominent figures, which makes up a large vocal and powerful subsection of the left.
Most people that would assign themselves the, you know, the tribe of left, probably aren't paying attention.
And this is true for some personalities.
But what we're seeing here, Antifa being taken down is completely in line with everything that's happened since the Vox Adpocalypse.
So let's start with a timeline.
And yes, there's criticism for YouTube here, too.
First, let me just say, Dan Arrows, who runs the Three Arrows YouTube channel, it was actually a very good channel.
I've seen only a few of the videos.
They were calm, rational, and there were decent arguments and decent pushback from the left.
I can absolutely respect that.
His channel should not be removed.
However, His channel is specifically using a symbol associated with an extremist organization that has been labeled as terrorists in the U.S.
He is not an American.
I believe he's in Germany.
Hence, YouTube has taken him down.
I don't really know what to say other than I think his speech was fine.
However, it does become strange, it's hard for me to even talk about, because I literally have people arguing right now saying, Tim, you would defend extremist speech.
Well, the guy literally has the three arrow symbol, and yes, they're labeled a terror organization.
What do you want me to do?
I get it, Antifa is a decentralized network, it doesn't matter.
They're flying an extremist flag.
As far as law enforcement is concerned, as far as the shareholders of Alphabet, YouTube, whatever, are concerned.
So first, here's what happened.
Dan Arrows tweeted, YouTube removed my quote, Jordan Peterson doesn't understand Nazism video for hate speech.
Yes, this has been happening.
It's the Vox Adpocalypse.
Historical channels, teachers, activists have been purged before.
This is what mainstream left-wing activists have advocated for.
I am not being hyperbolic.
Change the Terms is a very prominent, high-profile organization that wants to reduce hate online.
That includes You for using these words.
Let me just clarify to those who maybe don't watch my content.
The actual Nazi people will just mask their language behind hidden terms and innuendo and they'll put on a suit and tie.
They will be fine.
When you try to expose them using those words, you will be banned.
He said, Team YouTube, the video in question is co-written with a
PhD historian who wrote multiple books on various aspects of the Third Reich,
and is educational in nature. Don't see how this qualifies for hate speech.
I completely agree.
Excuse me, it should not be taken down. His channel should be restored. Hopefully, YouTube does.
He goes on to say, maybe I should have just called someone a, I'm not gonna
say what he said, but he's referring to Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza, over and over again,
then it might just have been demonetized instead of deleted.
Okay.
You are now defending the guy who got you banned in the first place.
Okay?
unidentified
When I point this out, they say, they say, oh, Pym Tool doesn't understand censorship.
You are the ones advocating for extremists to be taken down.
Steven Crowder saying naughty words is not far-right extremism.
It's just him being a dick.
So YouTube actually punished him, even though his commentary didn't cross the line.
You can claim it did.
It didn't.
Because if you want to claim his did, then you're moving the line past Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Jon Stewart, etc.
We're not there.
Fine.
He's been punished.
You're defending that.
You are literally a far-left extremist organization.
Decentralized organization, sure.
Team YouTube said, hi Dan, thanks for tagging us.
We passed this along to the team, and upon further review, it was confirmed to be an incorrect takedown.
The video is now back up.
Let us know if you need any additional help.
Well, that's good, right?
And then we see this.
Justin Wang says, YouTube tweets this at the dude shortly before deleting his whole channel.
You can't make this up.
And yes, he said, OK, never mind.
Just received an email that my channel got deleted, LOL.
I'll tell you what's happening.
I think your arguments are reasonable.
I think you provide good pushback against other extremists, but you yourself are an extremist.
I'm sorry.
Antifa and the Three Arrows are not a mainstream, moderate organization that is acceptable by most people, especially after they brutally beat a gay Asian in Portland.
It doesn't matter if it's decentralized.
It doesn't matter, you know, what you think your beliefs are versus theirs.
It matters that you all fly the same flag.
You all use the same symbols.
Period.
You want to get into an argument with a white nationalist about how they disagree with the Klan?
I don't care!
It's basically the same thing, and I'm not surprised they're getting banned.
Now here's the thing.
I believe in free speech.
I am not a free speech absolutist.
I think there are reasonable restrictions on speech, and that's what the Supreme Court has determined.
I also believe online it's reasonable to remove threats and doxing, and yes, to a certain degree, harassment.
But it's hard to know where that line is, and thus I kind of fall back and say, man, I really don't know.
I do know doxing should not be permitted.
Threats shouldn't be permitted.
Harassment is hard to define.
So I step back on that one.
Jordan Peterson wants to launch, he's launching a network where he says things will only be removed by court order.
I disagree with that.
Doxing should be removed, and threats should be removed.
You shouldn't need a court to tell you what a threat is.
But it is challenging.
I can understand why he's doing it, because he wants a legal standard so that you can't be accused of bias.
Without that standard, the left-wing activists will just target the right, the right will get taken down more often, because the right typically doesn't call for the left to be shut down on the internet.
Which is what I brought up.
My response was, uh, Dan tweeted, would really love some of YouTube's alleged left-wing bias right now.
Censorship is the left-wing bias.
The right hasn't been calling for censorship on YouTube.
I'm talking about YouTube.
This is YouTube taking action based on the demands of several left-wing groups, such as ChangeTheTerms.
You don't need left-wing bias, you need free speech advocates coming to your defense.
However, they love slamming me when I defend all of them.
There have been a few left-wing individuals who have defended their speech and they've been targeted, and they
have thanked me for that.
But however, some of these people, you know the way I describe it?
I put out a tweet, I don't think I have it pulled up, where I said,
They're shocked that free speech advocates don't rush to their defense when they get
That's like saying, like, listen, you are the fire burning down the internet.
You are literally attacking these companies, demanding censorship.
And then when they say, you got it and censor you, you're like, why won't you defend me?
Because you are the fire we are trying to put out.
But you know what?
That is the paradox of free speech.
Even though these people are actively calling for censorship, I will still defend their right to do so.
You have every right.
YouTube should not take them down.
It violates no rules.
This channel did nothing wrong.
As far as I can tell, they did nothing wrong.
If you want to put out criticism of right-wing and centrist figures, by all means, please do.
It's good to have balanced debate from all sides.
I do not believe Den Air's content of the stuff that I've seen was actually pretty good faith and respectable critique from the left.
One of the better channels.
So I think it's wrong he was taken down.
But it is rather frustrating that it is these mainstream left-wing organizations, and his response is that YouTube isn't biased towards the left.
Change the Terms is aligned with, one of the organizations involved is the Southern Poverty Law Center.
There are no right-wing organizations in Change the Terms.
It is the left.
The left-wing bias is what got you banned.
You are a fringe group damaging to the left.
They got rid of you.
Uh, so I said this.
I have talked to the few progressive YouTubers who have all seen their views drop by the millions per month after YouTube took action against all news and politics.
The left were the ones complaining about this.
Well, now you reap what you sow.
I then go on to point out that my suggestions are way down, around 90%, as are many other progressive channels.
My homepage recommendations are way up.
The thing is, they're no longer autoplaying videos from political content.
For the most part, it's still there a little bit.
But now you're competing against me.
I am not here, people are saying like, oh Tim's now talking about how his business is doing well.
No, I'm saying that when you advocate for censorship, and then YouTube says we're changing the system so no one gets suggested to like content anymore, and they put your left wing up against my moderate centrist content, I win.
Period.
My views are way up because people would prefer to watch my content.
Here's what happens.
There are two videos about Trump.
In one, I say, I'm not a big fan of the guy, okay?
Here's what I think he's done wrong.
In this instance, I believe he deserves credit.
More people like that than like you saying orange man bad, therefore your content is losing millions of views.
Congratulations.
In this instance, Three Arrows goes beyond and is just wiped off of YouTube because it's extremism.
Three Arrows is a symbol associated with Antifa, which has been labeled a terrorist organization in the US by DHS and the FBI, as reported by The Independent and many other news outlets.
So don't be surprised when you say, ban the extremists, and they say, okay, you first.
That's what I've been warning about.
We've all been warning about it.
So, uh, we'll move on, there's a bit more.
because Dan responded and said, give me a break man, the US government is currently charging a
journalist under the Espionage Act for the first time in history, but censorship is supposedly the
left-wing position because people want YouTube to enforce its terms of service for harassment.
When did I ever agree with the persecution and prosecution of Julian Assange?
I'm pretty sure for the past decade I've spoken out against it.
I'm talking about typically the press and the espionage actions by Barack Obama, but yes, when it came to Assange, I've done nothing but defend the man and his right to the press, as have many other journalists.
Is that your only defense that because the current right-wing administration is targeting Assange, Barack Obama didn't?
No.
We can point the finger at the authoritarianism in the government all day and night.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm specifically talking about YouTube, the fake narrative of the rabbit hole.
That has resulted in everyone being hit and has resulted in you getting banned and the Vox Adpocalypse?
Do you think the shareholders at YouTube care about your three arrows?
Do you think they care about your politics?
They don't.
They care about the shareholders.
So I'll tell you what happens.
One, there is a bias against conservatives.
You are wrong.
Okay?
There is a left-wing bias.
It's not in favor of you fringe extremists that hurt their bottom line.
When Google employees said they wanted to protest during Pride, Google said no.
Because Google is corporate leftism, pretending to be Antifa, So that they can, you know, cater to the market and make their shares go up to try and be safe.
Google's bias is in the left.
Not in the socialist, to an extent.
They'll still defend you.
But it's in the left.
Their policies are built around the left.
And marketing is typically favorable to the left.
You also then have left-wing activists who mass flag the right and get the right banned, and then corporate leftists and media target the right and get them banned too.
So yes, YouTube does target conservatives more than the left.
But when it comes down to what the corporate, you know, media is saying, goodbye!
A gay Asian was just beaten by Antifa.
You're the bad guy.
Plain and simple.
So I said, uh, you know, and I basically made the point, change the terms, Data & Society and the New York Times are not making stories about harassment.
They're specifically talking about extremism.
As far as YouTube is concerned or Alphabet, Three Arrows may as well be a swastika after the Andy Ngo incident.
And then, of course, they get all bent out of shape.
How dare you compare the two?
I don't care.
I'm not saying they're the same because I don't think they are.
Of course, one is worse than the other.
It doesn't change the fact that you are a roving band of black-clad individuals starting fires and beating people.
Okay, one clearly is worse than the other, but you're still bad.
Two things can be true at the same time.
So I'll say it again, his channel should be restored, but heaven, heaven forbid.
Now, now, let's move on a little bit.
This was where his channel was.
Just show you that it says this channel does not exist.
I think I already highlighted this.
Censorship is the left-wing bias.
The right has not been calling for this.
Here's what I want to show you.
This here is a video from David Pakman.
It's from last week, where he interviewed Caleb Kane, who is... Look, I'm gonna say this in my opinion, an obvious grifter.
He's a guy who claims to have been alt-right, but then claims he wasn't alt-right.
His story makes no sense.
The New York Times published a front-page thing, none of it makes sense.
Okay, the dude claims he never fell for the radical beliefs of the alt-right, but then says he's a former alt-right.
I'll tell you what I think happened.
Over the past year, there's been a narrative There's a YouTube rabbit hole.
I think this dude is just some slimy grifter who realized he can make money by pretending to be- Oh no, I was radicalized!
Yeah, he claimed he was a tradcon, a traditional conservative.
That's not an extremist, but sure enough he puts up this video where he says he's former alt-right, and then lo and behold, the narrative hits the front page of the New York Times.
Congratulations, bravo, you've won.
Your narrative worked, and now you're being interviewed by David Pakman.
Well, unfortunately for David, I don't think he understood the context, and I mean no disrespect, but I don't think David actually read the story.
If you actually read the New York Times story, you can see that this guy, according to the New York Times, was actually, you know, watched conservative videos, became conservative, never bought into the far right, and then eventually watched left-wing videos and became a liberal.
That's the opposite of their narrative.
He was never alt-right in the first place.
This story is part of a narrative that has created the problems for everyone on YouTube and has resulted in all of us losing suggestions.
Now it's coming down to no- So listen.
If you watch Stephen Colbert, it would autoplay David Pakman.
They shut that down.
Now, the only way to see David Pakman is on the homepage in Recommendations.
However, that means David videos compete with mine and others on the same subject matter.
This is technically a good thing in a lot of ways, but I don't really know... Look.
My channel's doing better than ever.
Because when there's two videos like I've pointed out, and one is kind of like, eh, Trump's kind of bad, but not that bad, and then you got someone who's like screeching about Trump being orange man, orange man bad, people click mine.
I win.
Which means some people's views have dropped dramatically.
In the millions.
Well, whereas mine and some others have gone up dramatically.
This change was brought about due to the false narrative of the rabbit hole, of which David interviewed a guy who was pushing nonsense and fake news, which makes no sense, in my opinion, for personal gain.
So, I'm not going to act like David's interview of him resulted in what happened to everybody else.
I'm just saying, this narrative that has persisted is why we are all getting hit.
And David is getting hit as well.
So he's got a bunch of videos, and I'll show his videos.
And again, I do respect David's channel.
I was just watching one of his videos.
It was really, really good, called, you know, Why the Left Shouldn't Destroy Itself, and I thought he did a really, really good job calling out the wackos.
He made one video, How Quickly Will YouTube Destroy My Channel?
In this video, yup, YouTube might be over for our channel.
And we can see here that his views, recommendations, have dropped dramatically and right around May, like everyone else.
There's a point where, I don't know if he has the graph here, here we go.
This graph shows that his suggested videos was around 3.5 million, and after May has dropped to around 1.2 million.
David has lost millions of views per month.
Following the algorithmic change that was brought about by the fake news and the lies.
It's all the same thing.
The Vox Adpocalypse, the New York Times front page, Data & Society.
What they do is, they shriek Nazi, so that regular people say, ooh, ooh, get rid of it!
And then what do they do?
They come for people like David Pakman.
David is nothing like Three Arrows.
David is mainstream commentary on left-wing progressive issues.
But they have absolutely taken action against him, and now here's what happens.
Where it used to be, you'd watch Stephen Colbert, you might get recommended Pac-Man.
You watch Pac-Man, you get recommended more Pac-Man.
Here's what's happening now.
You watch Pac-Man, you get recommended CNN.
You watch Colbert, you get recommended CNN.
Congratulations!
It wasn't David calling for these actions.
But I will have some criticism because David did promote the narrative that is continuing to damage independent commentary and news on YouTube.
More importantly, it's a narrative that has been around for over a year and completely fake.
Change the terms, Data & Society, The New York Times, and all the corporate leftists have been pushing this, and here we are.
We have this video also from David.
Is YouTube trying to get me to quit?
Because not only have they been deranking suggestions for David, they've actually been demonetizing his content.
As have they mine and many others.
Independent news is getting hit.
The reason I bring up the stuff having to do with David is because David is the perfect example of a channel that should be promoted.
David is an authoritative source.
I think he gets some of his stuff wrong, but I think he does pretty good content.
I'm a somewhat regular watcher of his content.
We've done videos together, and I have tremendous respect for the work he does.
I've known him for a long time.
I disagree with a lot of his positions, but he approaches things fair.
In a professional way, he sometimes gets things wrong.
Like, I think he got this one wrong, but hey, it is what it is.
I get things wrong, too.
I'm open to criticism.
For the most part, his channel's pretty good.
And I'll stress this.
I was just watching a video where he was criticizing, you know, regressive leftist types who were talking about prejudice plus power and all that, and he was like, no way, shut it down.
So David is the, in my opinion, a great example of a good left-wing commentator.
So is Jimmy Dore.
YouTube should be promoting them.
YouTube should be.
He is not like Three Arrows.
Even Three Arrows isn't that bad.
Three Arrows isn't an Antifa channel calling for violence or anything like that.
He's criticizing the right.
But of course, it's going to hit everybody because YouTube feels it's safer to just say, Fox News and CNN, those are your channels.
So now we all get hit.
We all get hit because of this.
Because of this narrative and the lies that have predominantly come from the left.
Show me the right-wingers demanding censorship on social media.
They exist.
Of course they do.
For the most part, the body of conservatives that exists online has been calling for free speech because they're the ones getting banned for the most part.
But this is the game that's played.
They will point to a bigoted racist and say, oh, that person's bad.
Then the left starts screaming, why won't you ban these people and their harassment?
And they go, okay.
And then what do they do?
They get rid of the left who would dare challenge the establishment.
Congratulations, you reap what you sow.
And I want to stress, I'm not saying David is one of these people calling for censorship.
No, by no means.
I'm saying he's a victim of the fringe left-wing activists who he's actually called out in the past.
I'm highlighting David specifically to say, to those on the left who like David Pakman's content, who appreciate his commentary and think he's shining a light in dark times, the advocacy of censorship from Change the Terms, from Data & Society, and other left-wing organizations is hurting progressives.
And it's getting Antifa channels deleted.
I'll say this, This channel, for the third time, should be restored.
100%.
I actually reached out to Three Eyes before and wanted to have a conversation with him because I thought he did good work.
He didn't want to do it, though.
He declined.
Which is typical.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it is.
I reach out periodically to a ton of leftists for a conversation.
They don't want to do it.
It's another reason I have tremendous respect for David Pakman because he does, and it's not that hard to get a hold of him.
Like, hey, you want to do it?
Yeah, let's do a video.
And then we do a video.
It's great.
And then there's some criticism back and forth, but I think for the most part, like, that's where we should be.
We should be in a position where, like, David and I will be like, oh, yeah, you know, I disagree.
I think you're wrong.
I think you're doing this.
And at the end of the day, we're like, hey, you know, there we go.
End of story.
It shouldn't be about ban them, ban them, ban them, and then people fighting and insulting each other.
The content that should be promoted is content that's thoughtful, engaging, and I think Three Arrows was.
But I'm gonna say, I'm not gonna do a half an hour on this one, I'm gonna stop soon.
When you fly the symbol that is associated with the attack on a gay Asian in Portland, don't be surprised when you get the X. I do think they will restore the channel, I do.
But I'm not entirely sure though.
The symbol is...
The symbol is what it is.
It's extremists.
Plain and simple.
So, look, the point of this video is... This is what happens when the left advocates for censorship.
Now, of course, it's mostly the corporate left.
But there are many Antifa-aligned individuals who are defending corporate leftists.
Even Dan himself has... What did he say when he responded to me?
He said, um...
Is this the one?
Yeah, he said that because of the left-wing position, he wants YouTube to enforce its terms of service for harassment.
Harassment isn't a legal standard, the way YouTube enforces it.
There is a standard for it, and you have to file a police report, and if they continue, then, you know, you can take action against them.
But when you want YouTube to enforce vague policies, don't be surprised when they enforce it against you.
YouTube forbids extremist content.
Congratulations!
So here's what I have to say.
If everywhere you go you smell... poo?
I can't swear.
Check your boot!
If YouTube says they're gonna ban extremists, and then they ban you, maybe it's time to go look in the mirror.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, and I will see you all there.
That's YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
You know the big problem with the Democrats chasing after the woke left is?
The woke left hates America.
If you're trying to be the leader of America, you might have to actually like the country.
Now here's the thing.
They're gonna come out and say, we don't actually hate America.
Here's the thing, they do.
Okay?
Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes their words speak just fine.
Like this story from Salon, which has been going viral because it is the goddamn 4th of July, God bless America.
And we have this story.
Because, you know, here's the thing.
ugly truth exposed.
The Declaration of Independence is sexist, racist, prejudice.
How can we embrace the underlying spirit of the Declaration of Independence and also learn
from its shortcomings?
Because, you know, here's the thing.
Normal adults in this country who like this country understand that we have bad things
in our past.
But we also understand that humans in general have progressed greatly and civilization has become pretty damn wonderful.
Did you know that most people in the United States contain in their pockets a device which can grant them access to the summation of human knowledge?
Talk about progress!
We've done pretty good.
And with the Internet, more people have the ability to speak up Challenge the system and be heard.
Yes, I understand that in the time of the Declaration of Independence there were a lot of really bad things.
But we don't look back to the Declaration of Independence and complain about how bad it is.
We look back at what is good about it and how it brought about one of the most progressive and powerful nations the world has ever seen.
We are one of the countries that actually grants rights to marginalized groups.
Very few countries actually do.
Of course, most of the modern ones do.
But there are a lot of countries that are extremely oppressive.
I can't say I'm surprised by any of this, however.
In hindsight, it all looks so predictable.
The outrage over the Declaration of Independence.
Completely predictable.
Take a look at religion.
For a long time, religion, Christianity in this country, was considered to be the norm.
Most people were Christian, and most people are Christian to this day.
Think about, you know, entering a world, we've never had a president who wasn't a Christian.
So for the longest time, Christianity, normal.
Everybody Christian.
In fact, I went to a Catholic school for a few years when I was little.
I wouldn't consider myself Christian at all.
I do believe in God.
Whole other issue, though.
I'd love to do, like, a religion debate with somebody who's, like, big into religion.
But the reason I say it's predictable is that when you look at the Bible, there are a lot of really, really bad things in it.
You know, the Bible, the Torah, whatever.
A lot of really bad things.
But when it comes to Judaism and Christianity, it's mostly the good things that have, you know, persevered throughout the ages.
We no longer stone people because they ate shrimp.
You can eat pork, okay?
Some people who are, like, strict observers don't, but even those who are extremely strict in their interpretation when it comes to Christianity, they aren't adopting the weird, like, bury people up to their neck and, like, lash them or whatever.
You know, the Old Testament and a lot of the stuff in the Bible, it's just archaic, and we don't use it.
Scholars say that Judaism and Christianity have gone through a transformation, a modernization, right?
A reform.
In which now, we uphold the best parts.
So, I love telling this, this like kind of, I love this idea.
Blackstone's formulation, I think, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer is, in my opinion, one of the most important aspects of a free, you know, a liberty-based society.
The idea that we will actually allow bad people to go free to protect the freedom, the liberty of the innocent.
This actually has its roots in Christianity, and I believe actually Judaism as well, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where God said he would not destroy the cities, you know, if they have even one righteous person inside.
The reason I highlight this, I personally think there's a lot of problems in organized religion, in many organized religions.
I, you know, grew up as kind of like on the left, Democrat, rather atheist.
I don't think atheist is the right word to describe what I am today, because I've done a lot of soul-searching, learning, and have become more wise in my years.
But I do see what's happening now with America, with the American flag, and the Declaration of Independence as completely predictable in how they target religion.
I was talking to some religious folks recently, and I said, if you want to explain to people why the Bible is a good thing, you need to find the aspects of our society that are rooted in the Bible, and explain how, hey, do you like this thing we do?
That's actually from the Bible, and we got rid of the bad stuff.
So, I often see the left attack religious folk for believing the Bible wholesale.
Well, you can criticize certain portions of the Bible, for sure, while recognizing many of the ideas in there have persisted to this day and evolved into something better.
Where we're at today?
Well, it's the good old 4th of July in the year of our Lord 2019.
And we can see that they don't like the Declaration of Independence now.
Yes, because instead of taking the good things, declaring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they're focusing on the bad of the era.
So I don't know if you've been following the Colin Kaepernick Nike shoe fiasco, where they cancelled a shoe with the Betsy Ross flag on it, the original flag of the US, saying it was offensive.
Because once again, we can see on this, 4th of July, the celebration of our independence from Great Britain, many people on the left are saying these old symbols can only be bigoted.
They can't be symbols of something good.
They can't represent good.
They can only represent bad.
Check this out.
Georgetown professor compares Betsy Ross flag to swastika KKK burning crosses.
Are you kidding me?
That flag symbolizes how we declared ourselves to be independent.
That foreign oppressive rulers could not tell us what we can or cannot do.
And I kid you not, we are now hearing people, I think it was like Beto O'Rourke, saying that white nationalists have appropriated the flag.
Not true, it was like one guy who flew the flag.
So here's what happens.
Someone's flying the flag, they happen to be a white nationalist, and all of these people on the left start wiggling their arms in the air and hooting about, you know, the encroachment of the alt-right.
Because there seems to be an obsession with the left to give up our symbols to the worst of the worst.
They're pessimists.
They hate America.
Listen, for a long time, right, I made this point before, a family guy did a joke where they were, you know, it was like a fight, it was like Hannity and Combs, and this guy is saying, liberals hate America!
And the joke was that liberals don't hate America.
I still believe that liberals don't hate America.
I'm liberal, I love America, and I know many liberals, they all love America.
The issue isn't that liberals hate America.
It's that whatever the left is becoming hates America.
And so long as these people on the left become more prominent and more vocal, then it's fair to point out the left is not liberal anymore, as we know, and the left absolutely does not like America.
They hate it, in fact.
They call it whiteness colonialism.
They don't like it.
Listen.
If we were going to give back the land to everyone who had ever had their land taken, then we just, like, you can't.
It can't be done.
To trace it all back to its roots and rewind time to restore ancestral homelands would be like, you'd wipe out Asia and Africa at the same time because there's been, you know, people, humans have conquered other lands.
But here's the thing.
We're at a point now where we can recognize why we shouldn't do this.
Why we shouldn't have a bunch of people with guns go and take stuff from other people.
Colonialism is not a good thing.
For the most part.
So, today, we can say, well, we have, you know, our history rooted in bad things.
We have done great things.
We have done great things.
And now we can stop doing the bad things and everything will be better from here on out.
But if you're a pessimist on the left who thinks the Betsy Ross flag is offensive, and the Declaration of Independence is offensive, well, you're only focused on the negative of everything.
And I assure you, if you do that, we can find negative things in every culture, from every people's history, and no, you will not be doing anyone any favors.
But this is a tweet that I actually really like in reference to the Betsy Ross flag.
Alex Griswold tweeted, not a great sign that the articles about how the Betsy Ross flag is a white
supremacist symbol quote a bunch of experts saying they don't really see it being used that way.
On the other hand, though, you have quote many on social media.
So here's one where it says, while she has never heard of the Betsy Ross flag being used by white supremacists, Jelaine Schmidt, an associate professor of religious studies, and the next one.
To be clear, the Betsy Ross flag is not nearly as recognizable a symbol of white supremacy as the Confederate flag, quote, this is not a flag I see waving at events or even displayed on their websites.
And that's from Mark Pitkovich from the Anti-Defamation League.
It's outrage.
Check this out.
He says the social media hyperlink goes to freaking Adam Best.
Adam Best is also known for just blatantly lying for retweets.
And here's a pants on fire.
This all feels rather Trumpian, in that Kaepernick just sort of said something, and dozens of people felt the need to immediately scramble for justification after the fact.
This is not Trumpian.
This is Ocasio-Cortesian.
This is what she does.
She says something that's ridiculous, and then everyone just says, my tribe said so, therefore, yes.
You've lost the plot.
And look, to the Democrats, you've got to throw this away.
Okay?
We cannot be a country that thinks our history, our historical symbols, which represent the birth of a nation, are bad things.
Otherwise, you just don't like America.
On this 4th of July, wave the American flag.
Because I think America is a great place.
You know why?
I've been around the world.
I've seen other countries.
Many of them are not fun.
And they're extremely oppressive.
Even countries we think are good are not.
In some ways.
There's good and bad everywhere.
And if we only ever just be negative and rag on these things, it's just gonna be unfun.
You know why I think the left is gonna lose time and time again?
Because today, for whatever reason, the right is having fun with memes and jokes and a chortle and a laugh.
Trump is hilarious.
He posts memes.
People feel good about this.
The left is saying everything sucks all the time and who wants to live in that world?
I don't!
I'll tell you what'll happen.
You've got people who are looking at the left and the right, and the right makes a joke and laughs.
They're looking at this group on the left, and there are people grumbling and angry and fighting all the time.
And they're going to be like, look man, these guys sound like they're having a good time.
I want to smile.
Some people want to be angry.
They really do.
They want to be upset all the time.
I don't, so I'll tell you this.
You're gonna find moderates, centrists, center-left individuals who are gonna be like, I don't like those guys on the right, but I am not gonna hang out with, you know, Debbie Downer, okay?
If you wanna go be grumpy and complain all the time, I'm gonna go skate, okay?
I'm gonna go skateboarding, and just say no to everything, and ignore everything.
If you're not having fun, why be involved?
They just hate everything, don't they?
It's like everything's always offensive.
And now apparently America is offensive!
Great.
Whatever.
Have a happy 4th of July.
Take this video not as a negative.
Don't be upset.
Be happy.
Smile, wave your flag, launch something in the air that explodes, and look at it and celebrate.
Because I'll tell you what most Americans are going to do today.
They're going to have a beer, a hot dog, a burger, or a salad if you're on a diet or vegan.
And they're going to celebrate American independence.
To a lot of people, I don't think they think too much about what it means, but they're gonna have a good time with their friends and their family, and they're not gonna be griping over the Declaration of Independence like the rest of these wingnuts who are driving the Democrats off a cliff.
Stick around, more segments to come, and I will see you shortly.
I saw this story from the Media Research Center, Newsbusters, and on its surface, I completely disagree.
This appears to be a call from conservatives to de-platform or censor, in some way, Antifa and far-left groups.
I can understand the sentiment, and I do want to read through this because I don't want to pass judgment before we've actually gone through the statements by many conservatives.
But let me just say before we read through this.
The far left should not be censored, nor should the far right.
Violations of the law should be censored, doxing should be censored, like, I mean like removed, you know, censored is kind of a loaded term.
Political ideology should not be censored.
Threats of violence should be removed, death threats, doxing, etc.
It's hard to know where the line is for harassment, so maybe we should just leave that to the block and the mute feature.
I do not believe demanding Andy Pho to be banned is the appropriate response because we've seen more violence, because we've seen what happened to Andy Ngo.
I do not think censorship is the response.
But I can understand why a lot of conservatives are outraged over the double standard.
Conservatives get banned for innocuous things.
Even a feminist getting banned for saying men aren't women, though.
Meanwhile, you have the left actually calling for violence.
I'll say this.
If someone on Twitter says something like, hey, we should do X, get rid of it.
They're calling for violence.
I am not a free speech absolutist, and I don't think the law should necessarily be dictating what is or isn't taken down.
However, The problem is inconsistency.
If Antifa is going to post violent content, they should be removed, and I think that's the core message here.
So let's read what these conservatives have to say from Newsbusters, writing, on Wednesday, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell and other conservative leaders called on Facebook to live up to its own standards when it comes to standing up to violent and extremist groups like Antifa.
Here's the challenge.
Some of it should be removed.
But a blanket ban of all Antifa might not be the appropriate response.
That's what they did to the Proud Boys.
is enabling these extremists to commit more violent acts and further spread their hateful
message.
Here's the challenge.
Some of it should be removed, but a blanket ban of all Antifa might not be the appropriate
response.
That's what they did to the Proud Boys and to some other figures who are on the right.
I think if you're not saying things directly, then you shouldn't be banned.
The problem, though, is the tacit support and the ability to organize.
This is where the conversation becomes complicated.
Jordan Peterson's platform, ThinkSpot, says they'll only remove it with court order.
It's actually not a bad idea, but I still kind of disagree with it.
We know there has to be a line because the real world is different from the digital world.
If someone outside started yelling my personal details, like my address, my phone number, I'm pretty sure they're allowed to do that.
However, online, man, I think there's a line to be drawn because that can actually put you in danger, like doxing somebody.
But perhaps I'm not right.
I don't know.
It's really complicated.
Let me know what you think on this one.
I believe in public, I can hold up a sign with your phone number on it, with your address, and that's legal.
Should it be the same on the internet?
The challenge is, the reach in the real world is very different to the reach on the internet.
I certainly think opinions should be protected, but maybe there should be a line for doxxing.
Before we read this statement, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, share this video because YouTube doesn't suggest political content anymore.
That means channels like mine.
So if you want people to see this and think I do a good job, please suggest it to your friends by sharing it on various platforms.
The first statement, quote from the president of the Media Research Center.
I don't think I'll be able to read every single statement, but I'll try and read some that I think are prominent because I know who some of these people are.
Quote from Brett Bozell, the Antifa-led assaults in Portland this past weekend were not the first
instance of violence from the militant leftist group. Antifa's core principles condone and
encourage the harassment and physical assault of those that disagree with their beliefs.
The DHS has classified their activities as domestic terrorist violence. Facebook has just
come out with a major document outlining how some 90 leftist organizations under the leadership
of former ACLU executive Lauren Murphy and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg will be overseeing
the site's content.
Their community standards certainly condemn violence, and they claim to have always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
And yet no action has been taken to de-platform this domestic terrorist organization.
In allowing Antifa to retain its accounts, Facebook is enabling these extremists to commit more violent acts and further spread their hateful message.
Facebook must enforce its policies equally.
This is not a partisan issue.
There should be no place for violent extremists of any kind on Facebook, period.
I believe that's actually a fair point.
But here's the challenge.
There are certainly some far-right groups that we can discernibly say, that's an extremist group that likes violence, okay?
I'm not gonna name them.
I'm not gonna get into that.
For my own safety.
We can remove them, and we can point to Antifa as another organization that, though not as bad as many of the fringe far-right groups, it's still very bad and doesn't engage in violence.
The problem is, where does the line stop?
It's a vague, it's a vague policing.
The Proud Boys shouldn't, like, okay, in the hierarchy of the worst, we have fringe far-right groups, We have Antifa, and then we have the Proud Boys.
The Proud Boys, for the most part, aren't actively starting fights.
Sometimes they have.
They've gotten arrested for it, they've gotten in trouble for it.
But typically, they'll go march around, and then Antifa confronts them.
Do we that- So here- I mean, here's one problem, is that Facebook has, uh, Instagram, Twitter, they have banned the Proud Boys.
But Antifa's the one starting the fight, so certainly you'd think Antifa would be banned before the Proud Boys.
But therein lies the problem.
Then who's next?
Antifa gets banned, then the Proud Boys, then what?
Any protester who might engage in a protest and they say, oh, but violence broke out?
There's no easy way to know where that line is.
So while I certainly think Antifa in many instances should be banned because they've actively called for violence and they're not being banned, I can agree with that statement.
But insofar as saying that all Antifa should be banned, I completely disagree.
You should be allowed to have your silly little three arrows on your face tattoo and on your chest, whatever you want to do.
Then I know who you are and I know to avoid you because you're crazy.
I certainly think there are other worse groups.
This is not an equivalence to, like, you know, you can be worse and still, there can be other groups that are worse and you can still be bad.
The point is, you should be allowed to have your opinions.
When you cross that line, then action should be taken.
Facebook isn't taking action, nor is Twitter.
And this is why Twitter actively has people saying, like, hey, go do X. I'm like, ban that!
What are you doing?
YouTube does a better job.
Let's move down, because I want to read specifically content that I... No offense to the other conservatives, but there are some people I actually am familiar with, and that's particularly Raheem Kassam of Human Events.
He writes, Let's see.
In the last few months, Facebook has blocked Reverend Franklin Graham, censored paid ads by pro-life civil rights activist Elveda King, censored an image of Santa Claus kneeling before the baby Jesus deeming it violent or graphic content, shut down two Facebook pages managed by triple amputee Iraq war vet Brian Kolfage, and removed a post consisting almost entirely of text from the Declaration of Independence.
Yet groups openly affiliated with Antifa, a fascist terrorist movement, that doesn't just preach violence but continually practice it against innocents, are welcomed with open arms on the pages of Facebook.
That's actually a really good point.
I believe that's the statement.
In what order?
Hold on, let me make sure I got the order right.
I believe that was the correct...
Okay, so no, that wasn't Rahim Kassam.
Sorry.
That statement was read by the president of WND.
Rahim Kassam said, Facebook allows Antifa, the flip side of the same coin as neo-Nazism, and yet they routinely ban middle-of-the-road conservatives, including gay, Muslim, black, and other minorities, simply because they're on the political right.
If Facebook wants to highlight why they deserve no legislative protections like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and should be treated as a biased monopoly, they could do no better favor to us than continuing this heinous practice.
So I believe that was, right, so that was the actual statement from Rahim Kassam.
Again, no disrespect to the other people I'm not familiar with, but I also want to read Cassie Dillons, because she's someone I'm familiar with on Twitter as well.
She is the founder of Alone Conservative, who writes, The assault of Andy Ngo is absolutely abhorrent but
predictable from Antifa.
Conservative college students have felt the wrath of the radical leftist terrorist group at UC
Berkeley and other campuses across the country. Facebook's selective outrage over extremism on
their platform is disgraceful. There's too many for me to go through, so I'm not going to, you
know, I'll link this in the description below, but I want to point out the real issue is the press.
And perhaps conservatives don't realize this.
They don't do enough journalism.
But more importantly, these organizations, Facebook or otherwise, are aligned, ideologically, with mainstream media.
They feel it's safe to hold these positions.
So long as the media doesn't take action against Antifa, why would they?
However, you get one crazy far-right guy, and the media will write for 10 years about it because it's terrifying rage bait that shocks the average American.
When will they wake up to Antifa?
I don't know, but we did see CNN report on what happened with Andy Ngo.
Possibly the worst thing Antifa could have done was attack Andy Ngo, because all they did was create a massive wave of mainstream press condemning them.
Unfortunately, we can see the mask slip on those in the media at left-wing organizations who are still defending Antifa.
And so long as that happens, Facebook is not going to take action.
The real debate here, how should Facebook deal with this?
Should Antifa be banned wholesale?
Should anybody who flies the three arrows be banned?
I think no, but they've already done it with other symbols.
They've done it with the far right.
Maybe they'll do it with the far left.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think about these statements.
I think it's dangerous to call for more censorship.
I think we can absolutely call out the people who call for violence, encourage it, or organize it.
But if someone wants to have a silly icon and express their opinions, we need to be careful we're not calling for a blanket censorship.
I can't say I'm surprised, though.
The double standard is pushing people to these points.
So, anyway, stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
You may not be familiar with the game Hearthstone.
It is a card game based on the World of Warcraft.
I don't mean the game The World of Warcraft, but kind of is, but I mean, like, the general lore of the Warcraft universe, which is produced by Blizzard.
They've recently made some changes that people are calling censorship.
I think you could say that to a certain extent, this card game is getting woke.
Whether or not they'll go broke is to be seen.
But I think whether or not you're familiar with Blizzard and Hearthstone, you will appreciate the sheer absurdity of the changes being brought to the game.
Some of which I think are okay, and some of which I think are absolutely absurd.
Some of these cards show scantily clad women, like you see on the screen.
Succubus.
Yes, she's wearing a thong, and she has a whip.
Because for those that don't know, a succubus is a mythological creature that sleeps with men to steal their energy.
The male version is called an incubus.
You may be familiar with the Ben incubus.
So this card was removed and changed to something else, and they've also removed blood and gore.
Now, here's the thing.
I can understand removing blood.
They're trying to make the game more family-friendly and bring about mainstream appeal.
But interestingly, some people are accusing Blizzard of bending the knee to China because China might be offended, so they want this game to be playable from China to the United States, and thus, it's going to result in mass changes to the game.
But they deny this.
Here's what we gotta do.
Let's actually just look at some of the changes they've made.
And, um... Let me see if I can make this a little bigger.
Because some of them are funny.
Check this out.
A card called Succubus.
It's very sexually suggestive.
They've changed it to Fellstalker.
And this is kind of screwed up, because look.
A Succubus is a real mythological creature that exists.
It's a real thing!
Like, I obviously don't mean Succubus literally exists.
I'm saying it's a real mythological concept that wasn't created by Warcraft.
Having this in your game is just referencing mythology.
Felstalker, I believe, is just a Warcraft creation.
They literally changed it from a scantily-clad woman who's a demon to some weird, fanged, giant, weird monster.
Now this is one of the funnier ones.
Mistress of Pain, they say, is now Queen of Pain.
That is pure getting woke.
I'm sorry.
Think about it.
A mistress.
What is a mistress?
A guy is cheating on his wife and he's got a mistress.
Now, because that's offensive to women, she becomes the Queen of Pain.
Now she's royalty.
Some of these are just art changes, and there's an argument they've put forward as to why they've made the art changes.
So here we can see Windfuryharpy, the name has stayed the same, but the art has changed.
In this, you can see that she's wearing very revealing clothing.
Windfuryharpy is still wearing rather revealing clothing, it's a bikini, although it's not as revealing.
This one is, and I'll explain this in a second.
This one is Secret Keeper.
Secret Keeper is, you know, you're looking at her backside, and she's turning and looking at you.
Perhaps that was too offensive, because the new one now shows her just looking towards you with her hand up with some kind of magic in it.
I want to make a point about these two cards, however.
A lot of people are outraged, saying they're getting woke and they're catering to feminists and the rest of left.
I believe that's true for Queen of Pain and Succubus for sure.
The argument they've put forward for these two art changes is not that, you know, they've denied changing anything for political reasons.
But with this one, they said, the art was actually based off of the physical game, the World of Warcraft card game that's really old, and they wanted to create new art for the digital game.
That actually makes sense.
I do believe these changes can legitimately- because they're still- look, they're still wearing, like, bikinis.
But I do think that it makes sense to update art, and I think it's fine.
However, they've made the argument in the past, they don't want to change the art because, you know, people recognize the cards.
So now we can get to the point where they remove blood.
And this is not getting woke, but I think it is still infantilizing society.
And it's another sign of how, you know, games are going to be changed to cater to the weakest and the most sensitive.
You can see that in this art they've removed images of blood.
This card called Bite shows a creature of some sort, panther maybe, biting into something else and there's blood squirting out.
They've removed it and now it's just a rawr!
We can see here Deadly Shot.
This card shows a gigantic ballista bolt ripping through the torso of a tauren, a bull-like humanoid creature.
But they've changed it now to just a ballista firing the bolt.
And then we have Headcrack, which showed someone getting whacked in the head, I think, but now shows someone with a slingshot.
In response to the criticism, someone made a very funny post on Reddit a couple days ago, where they've changed a bunch of cards that use the word blood to ketchup.
Here we can see Ketchup Bloom, Ketchup Warriors, Ketchup Razor, Ketchup Claw.
It was all blood before.
Ketchup Troll Sapper.
The way I see it, the point being made here, is that the game is changing it to cater to overly sensitive individuals.
So look, in some of the cards they removed blood.
So the joke is that they'll remove the word blood, I think removing blood from the art is ridiculous and absurd, because the game itself is violent.
In the game, you are playing a hero character, and you are literally trying to kill the other hero character.
The game is based around violence and weapons, as most games are.
But I think there's been a trend recently, and you know, I gotta say, the gamer people, like the Gamergate and all that, probably know this way better than I do, but I've seen it too.
There's been a desire to remove violence from video games, period.
That people would prefer games where it's like a puzzle, or like a friendship simulator, or as some people call, walking simulators.
Because a lot of games are built around violence.
Seriously, think about like 99% of games.
Mario, for instance.
What does he do?
Like, in the first Mario, violence!
He runs and crushes people, little monsters beneath his feet, kicks turtles, and then uses an axe to cut a drawbridge, dropping a giant lizard creature or something, turtle, into a pit of lava.
It's violent.
In fact, stories have violence in them.
Like, a lot of our culture and games and stories are rooted in violence.
I look at Mario, the original Mario Brothers.
Why is he violent?
Because he's rescuing the princess from a monster who kidnapped her.
Like the trope of the knight battling the dragon to save the princess.
So there are people, predominantly on the left, who are upset with these narratives and upset with these tropes.
They don't like the idea of men saving women, and we can see this now reflected in modern woke movies and TV shows.
And I think what we're seeing with Gamergate, with these changes, you know, look, if you don't care about the game, it's fine.
I think there's a bigger point here.
In that we've got tradition versus progress.
And the left tends to be the progress side.
Progress doesn't necessarily, in this context, doesn't mean what you think it means, right?
Typically, when we refer to progress, we're talking about things slowly advancing forward.
Technically, that's how you can frame it.
Traditional individuals want, you know, women to be wives, for the most part.
You know, they want to have families, traditional families.
They believe in old games and religion and tradition.
Staunch traditionalists.
There are some people who think some tradition is good and some are bad, kind of in the middle.
And then you have the far left, which completely oppose tradition and want all of it purged.
When they have their way, you won't have stories about, you know, the burly knight rescuing the princess, and they don't like the idea of marriage.
Right now, you have, you know, in this country there's been progress away from tradition.
Not all tradition is good, some is.
Many people, typically conservatives, will defend the tradition.
So when you look at these games, how they're violent, how the women are scantily clad, you know, that's catering to men, how there's blood, it's based on just the history of our games in general.
Some kind of violence.
You look at chess, for instance.
It's a violent game!
You literally are taking the pieces and trying to, you know, checkmate the king.
It's a conflict.
It's a battle between, you know, two armies, essentially.
The people on the traditional side, who are like far-right, and we're talking about like far-right versus far-left in the tradition and in the cultural context, will defend the right for these stories to exist.
And the far-left wants to purge them.
It's not too dissimilar to what you see in the communist China.
They want to erase all remnants of the past to create something new and just change and transform society.
One of the problems we've seen politically recently, which has resulted in a massive culture war, is that the left has lurched so far to the progressive side, it's been, like, alarming.
Look, if you want to be progressive, it's fine.
Most of my friends are progressive, but they're only slightly progressive, meaning the left and the right will slowly move.
Typically, the right slowly moves to the left as well, and the left moves further.
But as people have described it, the right kind of holds the left back.
Since, in my opinion, tech companies and the media have been dominated by the left, there's nothing restraining them anymore.
So now what happens?
Art is being rapidly changed in video games.
Blood is being removed.
Walking simulators become a thing.
Violence is wrong and bad in gaming depictions.
But I'll tell you what's so weird about this.
They want to remove blood from these games and make it more appealing.
That's a corporate decision I can kind of understand.
Getting rid of Mistress of Pain to Queen of Pain is a bit on the nose, right?
And what was the other one?
Felsucker, getting rid of Succubus.
Also a bit on the nose.
Okay, so we can see there's definitely some wokeness here.
This is going to, like, the dramatic shift is shocking the system and resulting in the culture war.
When you gradually change, people, you know, they move right along with you.
But the massive shift really quickly is pissing people off very, very quickly.
So the point I wanted to make a second ago is, it's interesting to me how you can see some of the wokeness in these game changes, how they don't like violence in games, how they don't like traditional storytelling in games, like, you know.
But then when it comes to the street, when it comes to reality, they advocate for violence.
That shows to me that their principles, you know, I think the grand and ultimate, you know, end to things like this is to get rid of the past.
Tear down statues, change our culture, change our history, change what is acceptable, and make everything different.
It's not about opposing violence.
They like violence.
So why change the game?
Just to rip away traditional culture.
Plain and simple.
Violence is a tool to these people.
But they don't like our culture, and they want it to be ripped apart and create something new from the ashes.
That's why they have to change games and movies and books.
That's why they want to rewrite things in the past.
That's why they want to tear down statues.
It's not about violence.
It's not about blood.
It's not about, you know, offense.
It's about erasing the past.
And that's what we're seeing.
And that's why they want to tear down statues and destroy murals.
Anyway, I really deviated off of the hearthstone thing, but I think it's silly.
