Communist Charged With Felony, Media Provides Sneaky Defense Of Antifa
Communist Charged With Felony, Media Provides Sneaky Defense Of Antifa. Recently in Washington DC several communists tried to light an American Flag eventually succeeding and throwing it on a Secret Service agent. One person was charged with a felony over the incident.But this recent news gives rise to a larger question. Why does the media insist on defending the far left? The answer is obvious, the media has a left wing bias. While its not a far left bias it is becoming so.When dealing with the issues of Antifa and right wing groups the media will allow the far left to define itself and its goals while also allowing the far left to define the right and what they believe their goals to be. In this framing the right will always be bad and the left will always be good, even when the media is forced to condemn certain actions.Following the Andy Ngo incident the Portland Chief of Police has called for unmasking laws saying that Antifa should not be allowed to wear masks as it allows them to escape justice. So long as these groups are allowed to define themselves the media will continue to claim this is a group fighting for social justice who sometimes makes mistakes instead of the bad guys they really are.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday in Washington, D.C., some far-left activists set an American flag on fire.
Someone threw it at a Secret Service agent, burning him.
Two people were arrested.
One person was charged with a felony.
There have been a lot of developments in Antifa news lately, mostly because of what happened with Andy Ngo.
For those that aren't familiar, in Portland, a bunch of masked individuals attacked and put him in the hospital.
Andy Ngo is a journalist.
He was beaten, received a brain hemorrhage from the assault.
Now we're seeing a bunch of stories pop up and we're seeing a lot of individuals provide excuses for and actually defense of Antifa.
But what I want to go over here is some of the breaking news.
We're seeing Portland's chief of police saying we need to de-mask Antifa.
We've seen an op-ed from CNN saying the same thing, pass laws making it so you can't wear these masks.
So we do have some breaking news.
But I want to talk about how the media actually provides protection for Antifa in several ways.
And I'll just give you the gist of it for now.
For one, they created false equivalents between Antifa and fringe far-right extremists.
They're not the same.
One is more lethal than the other, but one is more prevalent than the other.
They're completely different.
Two things can be bad at the same time.
Another thing we see from Vox, they actually claim that the center and the right, as well as the left, push information to protect their narrative, but it's interesting.
If centrists and conservatives kind of agree on what Antifa is doing, maybe they're right about this, especially when you consider Antifa is left-aligned.
The other thing they do in media is they allow Antifa to define themselves, but the right isn't allowed to do it.
Whenever they talk about the Proud Boys or Republicans, they say, here's what they really think because we know better.
When it comes to Antifa, they actually say, here's what Antifa says they're doing.
Why provide a platform for far-left extremists to define their own actions, but then have the far-left extremists define the actions of the right?
This is how the media provides protection for Antifa.
And what I think we're seeing here is that because of how extreme Uh, things were, uh, uh, the attack was on Andy Ngo, the media is forced to at least condemn Antifa a little bit.
So in their condemnation of the violence, they still provide some narrative protection with, uh, in the way I just explained earlier.
So let's start with what happened, just very quickly, because I did cover this on my second channel early this morning.
Just very quickly, what the breaking news is with Washington, D.C.
Then we'll talk about what's happening with the Portland mayor, and then I will break down how they're defending Antifa.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, just share the video if you think it's worth being shared.
YouTube doesn't suggest my content anymore.
It's affecting a lot of channels, so I ask you to share it if you think it's good.
From the Epoch Times, two arrested for burning flag near White House.
The U.S.
Secret Service says two people were arrested during a 4th of July flag burning incident on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.
The arrests were made about one hour before President Donald Trump paid tribute to the U.S.
military during a speech at the Lincoln Memorial, according to a statement by the Secret Service on Twitter.
They say, two individuals were arrested, one for felony assault on a police officer and malicious burning, the other for obstructing a police investigation and resisting arrest.
That's the gist of it.
We have this tweet from Marcus DiPaolo.
It says, Communists burn a flag in front of the White House, toss it on US Secret Service police who recoils in pain.
Another Secret Service member comes in with a fire extinguisher and puts it out.
We can see someone actually threw it on there.
I don't know if it was intentional or what happened, but they did.
So let's jump over to what's going on with Antifa following what happened in Portland.
This story from the Daily Wire.
Portland police chief after Antifa attacks, we need anti-mask law.
They say, on Wednesday, in the wake of the violence that erupted in Portland last Saturday, in which journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by masked members of the far-left group Antifa, police chief Danielle Outlaw, is that really the police chief's name?
Called for anti-mask laws, asserting, We cannot allow people to continue to use the guise of free speech to commit a crime.
A lot of people are emboldened because they know they can't be identified.
At a press conference, Outlaw, quote, called for laws that would bar masks worn by demonstrators, allow police to fully videotape protests, and give authorities greater control of protests by groups with a history of violence.
According to Oregon Live, she stated, we have to do something differently.
There were entities that planned a brawl in the city of Portland, and no one seems to be upset about that.
Entities came here for a fight.
I don't even know what they were protesting against.
Outlaw dismissed accusations from Portland's police union president that Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also the city's police commissioner, has, quote, handcuffed the police response to demonstrations.
They say, as the Daily Wire reported, after the attack on Ngo, his attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, told Fox News on Tuesday she was going to, quote, sue, going to sue everybody who the facts and the law support being sued.
Adding, the situation on the ground in Portland and policing is so bad, Portland has been consistently understaffed these types of incidents, and there have been many incidents.
They knew they were aware that this was going to happen, and they did nothing to prevent it.
So it's a little bit of legal language there.
Portland has been consistently understaffed these types of incidents and there have been many incidents.
They knew they were aware that this was going to happen and they did nothing to prevent it.
So it's a little bit of legal language there.
The important thing is they knew they were aware.
This may sound confusing, but the issue is when it comes to these lawsuits,
if they knew something was going to happen and didn't take action,
then they're basically legally liable.
If something happened and they didn't know what was going to happen, then they can say, we didn't know what was going to happen, we did our best.
But this rhetoric about demasking Antifa, It's very similar to something we saw from CNN.
This story from just a few days ago, we need to pay attention to the attack on Andy Ngo, in which the writer in the op-ed for CNN says that we need essentially anti-masking laws and goes into great detail about how the laws work, citing an 1845 New York state law that was a response to a dispute between landowners and tenant farmers who worked their land, saying essentially advocating for anti-masking laws.
But what I want to do here is I do have some more information we'll go over later on.
I want to show you exactly how the media provides cloaked defense for Antifa.
For the longest time, Antifa has romped about oppressing and suppressing speech.
Many journalists won't actually go out on the ground because they know they'll be attacked by Antifa.
So what the media does is they create a false equivalence between Antifa and fringe far-right groups.
When I bring up Antifa violence, I always invariably get tweets from someone saying, how many people have the far-right killed?
How many people have Antifa killed?
And I say, that's two different issues.
People on the right and the center have no problem calling out any and all violence.
So what happens is Antifa use gradual... It's a slow boil with Antifa.
The attack on Andy Ngo was a bit too extreme, which resulted in a small shock to the system, which forced many journalists to actually denounce this.
However...
Many high-profile personalities defended this, notably Charlotte Clymer of the Human Rights Campaign saying it was the greatest thing that could have happened to his career, getting a brain hemorrhage.
If this happened years ago, I doubt you'd see the support, but because Antifa isn't single, you know, lone actors who commit extreme acts, it's a slow boil, people are essentially desensitized to the violence.
Over time, there is a slow defense.
What happened to Andy Ngo was a bit too much for the system, so there was pressure on many organizations to denounce the violence.
Take a look at this story from Vox.
The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo explained.
An unjustifiable attack, and a subsequent controversy spotlighting the militant left-wing group Antifa.
We are now seeing many people in the mainstream trying to distance themselves from Antifa.
But not enough.
A New York Times writer said, well, you know, we should have known better.
HRC's communications director, I believe, it's HRC comms, whatever that means, saying it was the greatest thing that happened to his career, but still saying, well, you know, it was kind of bad, but...
You know, it helped Andy know.
In this story, there are a lot of framing devices that are really interesting.
Essentially, you have centrists and conservatives who will say, here's what happened.
Look at DC.
Some guys lit a flag and threw it at a Secret Service agent.
That's what we know to be true.
What they'll do though, in these stories, is allow the left to lie about what happened and smear people to create justification.
It's interesting because people on the left often talk about How both-sides-ism is fake news.
Both-sides-ism is a left-wing dog whistle to claim that you can't trust journalism.
It's not something typically used by moderate individuals and rational thinkers.
It's used by the left to claim.
When a news outlet tries to cover both sides, they are giving false credibility to, you know, one side over the other instead of the truth.
But that's exactly what they do, and it's really interesting.
What we see from the left is they will do something and accuse the other side of having done it.
It's very clever.
I believe it might be one of the rules for radicals, I'm not entirely sure.
But a good example is Andy Ngo, who is gay and Asian, the son of migrants.
And he was attacked by a bunch of white people.
Do they bring that up in their narrative?
They don't.
Even though they claim to be opposing racism and oppression against marginalized peoples, you end up with white people beating on a gay person of color.
Where's the outrage?
It doesn't exist.
And that shows you that they don't actually care about what they claim to be talking about.
Well, let's look at the news, because I've ranted about this stuff a lot.
Specifically, in this story, it goes on to explain what happened.
Here's one good example in the beginning of how they provide defense for Antifa.
They go on to say, Charlotte Clymer, you know, denounced the violence, saying, violence is completely wrong, and I find it sad and weak to allow a sniveling weasel like Andy Ngo to get under one's skin like this.
But I'm also not going to pretend that this wasn't Ngo's goal from the start.
That statement is somewhat an enunciation of the violence.
Somewhat.
But still is able to lie about what Andy Ngo's intentions are.
Andy Ngo is a journalist.
You might not like what he writes about, but he is certainly not a partisan actor siding with, you know, specifically on purpose as an activist with one group over the other.
And even if he is, he's allowed to observe and share his opinion.
But first, she does say it's wrong, but then goes on to say it was his goal from the- or she's not going to pretend like it wasn't his goal from the start.
What Vox did here was they omitted the first part of the statement, where Clymer said it was the greatest thing that could have happened to his career, then going on to say violence is completely wrong.
Vox omitted the initial context, thus showing the left does denounce violence, but leaving out the part where she kind of said, hey, this is good for him.
They say, so we'll look at how they explain the narrative of Andy Ngo.
Vox writes, according to a second narrative offered primarily by less well-known left liberal writers and social media accounts, the mainstream media is getting it all wrong.
Ngo is not an innocent victim, but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed Antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment.
and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result.
The outpouring of sympathy for Noh in this account is actually evidence that the mainstream media is falling for Noh's grift, funneling money to his Patreon and legitimizing a right-wing smear campaign against a group that's working to protect people from the threat of violence from groups like the Proud Boys.
There's a lot to break down there.
For one, the Proud Boys aren't showing up to random communities and attacking people.
The Proud Boys hold their silly little rallies and walk around and then Antifa shows up and fights them.
More importantly, why would we take the word of fringe weirdos on the internet?
Someone tried making the claim that I was alt-right, but it was a fringe cartoon avatar Twitter account.
Wikipedia, someone presented it on Wikipedia, it was immediately deleted.
It wasn't put on my page, it was put in the talk page where someone said, hey, take a look at this.
Some people have accused Tim Poole of this.
And one of the immediate responses was something to the effect of... Why?
It's a random Twitter account.
That's not a source.
That's just some cartoon anonymous profile saying nonsense.
So they removed it.
Why would Vox entertain this nonsense?
Well, because Charlotte Clymer is a high-profile left-wing individual running defense for Antifa, while still condemning the violence, presenting the option that, in fact, Andy Ngo wanted this to happen.
So that people who are left-aligned will go, oh, and give themselves a way to say, what Antifa did was bad, but.
It'll give them that but.
Moving on, it's actually really interesting.
They essentially get to a point in the story where they say it's a left-wing narrative versus a right-center narrative.
It says, the right-slash-center and left narratives go beyond that central point to claim Saturday's events for their team.
In the process, they tend to distort the facts, trying to make it fit their worldview when it doesn't quite conform.
Now obviously, look, I'm reading Vox, V-O-X, which is left-aligned.
But they do something really interesting in this story when they make reference to concrete.
And this shows they are actually, whether it's intentional or not, presenting a false worldview.
It could be unintentional.
The writer of this is a left-wing activist.
My understanding is they're a left-wing activist.
They write, Portland police, based on a theory developed by one officer,
tweeted that the milkshakes being thrown by protesters may have been mixed with quick-dry cement.
There is at best flimsy evidence for this claim, which is hard to believe as a matter of sheer physics.
Parentheses, sugar slows the process of concrete setting.
Whoa, stop. That has nothing to do with anything.
Has nothing to do with the claim.
Has nothing to do with the evidence.
But we can see here that Vox has injected a left-wing narrative which once again provides an attack on the center and the right.
While still trying to be in an article that condemns the violence.
So here's the thing.
You want to talk about the right and the center.
You're saying there are three prevailing narratives.
The conservative narrative, the centrist narrative, and the left-wing narrative.
Antifa is left-aligned, and the writer of this is left-aligned, and the writer of this has presented weird framing that actually provides some small cover for Antifa.
Specifically, it doesn't matter if sugar slows the process of setting, because wet concrete
has a high pH.
It's alkaline and causes chemical burns.
No one was presenting an exo...
Nobody who was complaining about concrete said anything about exothermic reactions.
When concrete sets, it releases heat.
That's an exothermic reaction.
However, quick dry concrete also has a high pH, which is alkaline and can cause chemical
burns.
But importantly, even if that wasn't true, putting an additive into a milkshake like
concrete could just make it heavier.
In fact, most people, when they heard concrete was being added, thought the goal was to just increase the density to make it heavier when it hit people.
When in fact, it's potentially to cause a chemical burn.
They say there's flimsy evidence for this claim.
That's an opinion.
We can say that the police said they received information, a police officer said they witnessed someone pouring something into a drink which may have been quick-dry cement, and saw what appeared to be the remnants of quick-dry cement.
So, sure, call it flimsy evidence, it's your opinion.
Once again, this is an article by Vox that defends Antifa.
Well, obviously they go on to say that, you know, it's all wrong and everything.
We can see how there are many far-left individuals who actively try to delegitimize journalism because they don't like what people write.
In this instance, one person says, Andy Ngo is a far-right activist who writes bogus yada yada yada.
Why would Vox even present the far-left narrative on this issue when the far-left are the perpetrators?
That would seem to be a conflict of interest.
Now, I can talk about this, you know, for a while, but I'll move on from, you know, the Vox article.
They essentially try and run the narrative where it ends.
They run through the story and get to the narrative where they end by saying that Andy and the right will essentially use this to justify their claims.
There needs to be an Antifa threat, they say.
No, there doesn't.
And we'd prefer it if there wasn't.
But what, you know, so I think I've laid out my point specifically on this.
You get what I'm trying to say.
But let's do this.
In this story from the New York Times, this is from July 2nd, they say, what is Antifa?
Explaining the movement to confront the far right.
The assault on a conservative journalist in Portland, Oregon over the weekend has brought renewed attention to anti-fascist protesters whom he blamed for the attack.
This article might be the best example of how the media provides defense for Antifa even when they're forced to condemn the more extreme actions.
I believe that over time, As Antifa just engages in lower-level assaults and violence, they're ignored by the media, and it's frogs in a pot, right?
So you know the saying that the boil slowly happens, the frogs don't realize it's happening around them.
The attack on Andy Ngo forced the media to cover this.
In this story from the New York Times by Nicholas Vogel Burroughs, He actually cites a far-left extremist who wrote the Antifa handbook to define what Antifa is.
Certainly that makes no sense.
A journalist should investigate a group and figure out what their intentions actually are.
Why would the New York Times take a far-left extremist and say, tell us what your goal is?
You'll only then get propaganda.
They go on to claim their intention.
It actually says, look, supporters generally seek to stop what they see as fascist, racist, and far-right groups from having a platform to promote their views, arguing that public demonstrations of those ideas lead to the targeting of marginalized groups, including racial minorities, women, and members of the LGBT community.
But the story doesn't point out Even though they do make mention of Andy Ngo, that actually, they may actually point this out, but it's interesting that they don't actually challenge the notion.
If Antifa claims that's what they're doing, why did they beat up a gay Asian journalist, son of migrants?
It doesn't seem to fit with the stated MO of Antifa.
So why would the New York Times think it is appropriate to have the conflict of interest in writing an explainer about Antifa and to use an Antifa source to explain what they're doing?
Of course they're going to tell you nothing but Skittles and rainbows.
Everything's great and we're fighting the right.
That's our goals.
In reality, if I was going to define Antifa, I would say it's a decentralized far-left extremist organization Uh, comprised primarily of neocommunists.
Although there are many people in Antifa who would align as socialist, democratic socialist, and anarchist, many of the more militant actions we see are carried out by overt communists.
In the first story, the people who started the fire were part of, I believe, the revolutionary communist party, RevCom.
Now let's take a look at how the New York Times covers the Proud Boys.
Far-right Proud Boys reeling after arrests and scrutiny.
There are certainly many different New York Times stories about the Proud Boys.
This was just one of the first ones I put up.
But we can see that this story... Let's read a little bit.
They say, After his appearance in Manhattan led to a brawl, the founder of a far-right group, the Proud Boys, said it was little more than a fun, silly men's club that had defended itself against an attack by leftist protesters.
But two months later, as prosecutors move ahead with charges, the all-male Proud Boys group is in disarray.
Ten members have been arrested in connection with the violence, charged with riot and attempted assault as part of an investigation into their activities.
The Proud Boys have been widely condemned as a hate group.
Facebook and Instagram have banned the group.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled it a hate group.
An organization called New York City Antifa, whose members describe themselves as anti-fascists, has named the Proud Boys who were involved in the violence and posted details about their lives on Twitter.
So here's what's interesting.
Why would the New York Times cite Antifa actions against the Proud Boys?
They're clearly two, you know, conflicted parties.
They're parties that are involved.
They immediately cite all of this negative news about the Proud Boys.
In the New York Times story about Antifa, they don't mention that PayPal has banned numerous Antifa accounts, Twitter has banned numerous Antifa accounts, Patreon has banned Antifa accounts, and they also don't mention, as far as I can tell, that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have labeled Antifa actions as domestic terrorist violence.
The New York Times here apparently seems to be allowing them to define themselves, and at least in this story, the New York Times is allowing the left to define the right.
So to break it down, what we typically see in media, the media will say, here's an expert on the right, and that's what the right is.
Not giving the right a chance to actually explain what they think.
Then when it comes to Antifa, they'll say, here's a guy who is an active anti-fascist, and here's what he has to say.
Now I will add, it's entirely possible the New York Times has other stories on the Proud Boys that aren't as negative and other stories on Antifa that maybe are negative.
This is just a story that is recent in the past couple days, and it's how they're defining Antifa in the wake of this violence.
And then we can see the stories from a few months ago.
There are many stories about the Proud Boys, but typically the New York Times takes a negative view of the Proud Boys.
I think it's fair to point out Much of the media is left aligned.
And it's also fair to point out a critique of the right.
The right doesn't tend to do journalism.
They do commentary.
And when they actually do journalism, it's usually reappropriating journalism done by the major organizations, which lean left.
There are some organizations that are rational, moderate, Wall Street Journal, whose opinions lean right.
They're not the only ones.
But typically, we see a lot of media on the left getting the most views.
It's probably one of the reasons why we see on YouTube, there are many, many more centrist and right-wing aligned channels, although the left is pretty much the biggest.
Media leans left.
The reason I think this is, I've gone over this in the past, it's because brand marketing views the left as safe.
And I think this goes into a statement made by Andy Ngo, which I believe was a repeat of what Jordan Peterson said, something to the effect of, society knows when the right goes too far.
It doesn't know when the left goes too far.
And thus many people feel safe being on the left because the left has always been the more progressive and accepting.
Many people on the right in the past generation were viewed as stodgy and overly moralistic and imposing their will and being hateful.
But that's not a static position.
The right doesn't always have to be that.
The left doesn't always mean it's progressive.
What I think's happening now is we're seeing a shift where the left is becoming violent and authoritarian, as we can see here, and the right is actually kind of merging a bit with the center to become more libertarian.
Whether it's somewhat to the left or to the right, it's about freedom, liberty, and opposing the violence.
There are certainly fringe far-right groups that are violent.
Absolutely.
They are not equivalent to Antifa, by no means.
In fact, I believe the overt violence we see from the fringe far-right groups is substantially more evil, in my opinion.
But rare.
And these people aren't at the New York Times, and they're not in government.
But what happens with Andy Ngo?
We can see that the New York Times is left bias framed.
They will allow the left to define the right, and they will allow the left to define themselves.
That is a bias.
So when the attack happens and they're forced to condemn it, they still give protection to Antifa and act like it's not that big a deal, it's just one bad circumstance.
Because after all, how many people have Antifa killed?
That's the question they ask, which is completely irrelevant.
Antifa is bad.
They're extremists.
They beat innocent people.
What's truly worrying to me about all of this is at the end of the day, people are actually deterred by what Antifa does more so than the fringe far-right.
When you look at the actions of the fringe far-right, it is so rare.
I, as a journalist, don't take it into consideration when I want to go somewhere.
I really do not expect some fringe far-right individual to come after me, even though they really don't like me, especially considering my background.
I know for a fact that if I go out, I can expect a broken jaw, a broken tooth, or a brain hemorrhage from the far-left extremists.
That is an imposition on journalists.
It has a direct impact on an open society, free expression, and how our politics will form.
So if you want to talk about the lethal force of the far right, I'm more than willing to, and we'll all absolutely condemn it.
Only crazy people would support it, and it typically is crazy people who perpetrate it.
But on the left, you can see a tacit defense, a reluctant condemnation of the overt violence.
You can see these people being defended in government, on television, in the New York Times, in Vox, and they're there, and they're threatening you.
I don't think Antifa is ever going to end my life.
But they're not trying to.
They're trying to raise the cost to make it.
So I can't work.
So other journalists can't work.
They crossed the line with Andy Ngo and forced the media to step in and actually condemn them.
But in the end, the media still provides some defense by creating a false dichotomy and a false narrative.
Charlie Warzel, the New York Times.
This whole event should be seen through the context of what it is, an information war.
A number of people who go to these protests are looking for fights or to document them.
They're all live streaming.
When tensions boil over, it's meant to be ammunition for a culture war.
Somewhat.
Somewhat.
But Charlie Worzel is the person who tweeted, you know, Andy should have known better.
Right?
I guess he should have.
And therein lies the problem.
We all know what Antibus Intention is.
Slow, strategic, and raising the costs of doing work.
The far right is nuts.
They're lone actors who do crazy things for crazy reasons.
We condemn them.
But they get all the press coverage.
When it comes to the left, they're actively suppressing people from engaging in civics.
They are actively banning people from social media platforms.
They are in government.
They are in media, and they're roving around the streets, beating people, and they barely get any coverage because they have allies in media who run defense claiming it was the greatest thing to the career of Andy Ngo that he was attacked.
This video's gone on long enough.
I have a lot more I could have brought up.
I could probably make this video two hours long.
I have several more sources I'm not going to read into.
But I'll leave it there.
The issue at the end of the day is that unless there's a major shock to the system by Antifa, the media, the left, they'll continue to tacitly support it, saying, oh, but they're only fighting the far right.
No.
Their goal is to target moderates.
Andy Ngo is not far right.
They'll claim he is.
They want to create a false narrative so that people in this country think Andy Ngo actually deserved it in some capacity.
And that's what Vox has done.
They said, oh, you know, but Andy Ngo is part of this culture war.
He's a grifter.
That narrative doesn't need to exist.
Andy Ngo was written for the Wall Street Journal.
He writes for Quillette.
He's written for the New York Post.
He is not an extremist by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't even know if it's fair to call him a conservative.
This is the game.
It is an information war.
Antifa's goal is to increase the cost without damaging themselves.
It is more coordinated and it is more dangerous because they have mainstream and structural support.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
The next segment will be at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
I will see you on the next story.
You know, I don't really like talking about the prospect of a civil war because it sounds so insane.
It just doesn't seem possible.
But there's a bias in that, the optimism bias.
There's also the way things have always been bias.
People hear about the potential for a civil war and they think, no, it'll never happen.
And I'll say this, too.
One of the big problems is that the assumption is some kind of civil war would take the same form as it did in the first civil war.
But we don't know what it'll actually look like.
It might not even be like a civil war, but maybe a revolution.
It could be a complete fracturing of, you know, social cohesion.
It could be insurgency between extremist groups and the government, so three factions.
We don't know what it's going to look like.
But I will tell you this.
Take a look at this shirt.
Jack Masobic tweeted this.
Spotted in Philly.
I'm not gonna read what that says.
They're advocating for the death of Proud Boys.
This guy's wearing that shirt.
You see something like this and you have to wonder, when will it get to that point?
Well, take a look at Andy Ngo's situation in Portland.
Antifa beat the crap out of a gay Asian.
Why?
They didn't like his opinions.
That's really it.
That's really it.
Does Andy organize protests?
No, he just shows up and shares information.
We're at a point now.
Where the far left views the sharing of information as a political act.
You have the people in media doing so.
They call it mission-driven storytelling.
You've got now this news.
Two years ago, I believe it was two years ago, at VidCon, the president saying they work with anti-Trump activists.
They don't make news anymore.
It's all propaganda.
They say there's no such thing as objective journalism.
There is.
It's not perfect, but the idea of objectivity does exist.
I'll simply explain it.
If I see two guys fighting in the street, I can objectively say, that guy punched that guy.
If one of those people, you know, one of those guys is my brother, I cannot objectively tell you what happened because I have personal interests.
Personal interests are everywhere.
So, technically it's true, there's no objectivity in journalism, but that's making the assumption the individual is omniscient.
What happened, in my opinion, is that the left is using this as an excuse to manipulate people into thinking they must be activists and push propaganda.
It is their excuse for lying to you to encourage extremism.
I've got more things I want to show you, though.
Look, whatever civil conflict, whatever is going to happen, it's coming.
The escalation is clear as day.
The dominoes are falling over.
That's what it looks like to me.
You can go back in time and think about where everything started to where it is today, and it seems so obvious.
You're like, yeah, that's the obvious outcome.
And that's what I said.
Like, two years ago?
Year and a half ago?
This will only escalate.
It's gonna get worse.
At first it was people punching each other, now you've got a dude actually saying, like, that's literally telling people to go end someone else's life.
Walking around DC like no big deal.
Don't worry, there's more.
Ford Fisher, a journalist covering the July 4th event in Washington, D.C., tweeted this
14 hours ago.
"'Things turned conversational for a while until a person on the left-wing side headbutted
a right-winger, which turned the situation into a brawl.
When he responded by punching her in the face, she was arrested.'
So my understanding is that there were several instances of violence in which the left got
arrested, not the right."
Proud Boys- I believe no Proud Boys were arrested.
Left-wingers were, because you can see in these videos- I think there's a- there's better footage of it.
Check this out.
I'll come back to this.
Here's better footage, shall we?
Oh, that's really loud.
None of that.
Turn the volume.
You can see this person headbutted first.
It's kind of hard to see, actually.
So, the person on the left headbutts the person on the right, the person on the right punches back.
So, when you look at this, it's kind of like, yeah, so what, people are fighting.
But this is a 4th of July event in front of the White House.
And now, so listen, let me try and back up.
When you have Trump supporters holding a rally and Antifa shows up and they fight, it's kind of like, well, that's a really specific thing where someone planned an event and people showed up.
When you have a 4th of July celebration and people are just walking around with American flags and fights break out, we're now getting to the point where it's not organized events that are resulting in violence.
It's just people out in the streets on a day.
Tomorrow, there's going to be a free speech rally in D.C.
and Antifa is expected to show up.
I think things will get really bad.
Look at what just happened to Andy Ngo.
Now, actually, let's do this.
Let's go to the next image.
Marcus DiPaola tweeted this.
Communists burn a flag in front of the White House, toss it on a U.S.
Secret Service police who recoils in pain.
Another USS member comes in with a fire extinguisher and puts it out.
We actually have this video here from 4.
I believe this is the video footage.
It's hard to make out because you can imagine this stuff's all... Actually, no, this might not be the same thing.
Yeah, okay, this is a different incident.
Okay, this is a different incident.
Where, uh, a fight breaks out after someone burns the flag, and then a Trump supporter, I guess gets angry about the burning of the flag, actually rushes the crowd.
It's hard to make out.
But you can see this person wearing red that runs into the crowd and starts shoving people.
So, uh, I believe we have a statement here.
Ford Fisher says, here's the Secret Service statement on the Communist Party versus Proud Boys fight.
They say two were arrested.
I counted three, but I may be wrong.
And two officers are reportedly in the hospital.
To explain the discrepancy and how many got arrested, it's possible three people were initially detained, and one was let go, and two were arrested, but let's read them.
The Secret Service says, at approximately 5.30pm today, U.S.
Secret Service uniformed division officers responded to an incident that occurred on
Pennsylvania Avenue involving an individual who was burning an American flag outside the
limits of a permit that had been issued by the National Park Service. Two individuals were
arrested, one for felony assault on a police officer and malicious burning. So a
communist literally lit a flag on fire and threw it at a cop.
He got arrested for it.
Felony charges.
The other for obstructing a police investigation and resisting arrest.
My assumption would be a de-arrest attempt.
They call it de-arrest.
When the police try arresting someone, the far left will try and pull them out.
So, look.
This isn't, in my opinion, the most extreme instance of escalation.
minor injuries and the other was transported to MPD 2nd District for processing.
Two officers with the Secret Service Uniformed Division received minor injuries while attempting
to make arrests and were transported to a local hospital.
Secret Service were hospitalized by the far left and one of them got burned.
So look, this isn't in my opinion the most extreme instance of escalation.
I think the And You Know instance is probably the most extreme escalation we've seen in
a long time for two reasons.
The attack on a non-affiliated actor, they will claim Andy Ngo is now an affiliated actor,
meaning they assign him to the right even though he's just a journalist.
They're also physic, so the point here is Andy Ngo is not organizing with the Proud
Boys, he's not marching with them, he's not fighting with them, he's just filming.
But they've now said, it doesn't matter, you oppose us, you are them.
The lines are being drawn where there's no middle anymore.
It used to be that there was a place you could stand on in the middle, especially if you were a journalist.
Not anymore.
Following this, Journalists.
I'll do air quotes.
Journalists came out and said, well, he should have known better.
He's not a journalist.
How many verified individuals said he's not a journalist?
And therein lies the extreme escalation.
Now, this is moderate escalation.
It's like we're in an extreme space.
I'm not saying things aren't getting psychotic.
But this isn't the biggest escalation.
Some fights broke out, right?
But it is escalation.
And we're already in dangerous territory.
This guy wearing this shirt.
I ask you, where do you think this goes?
That's what I've been saying for the past week.
When Ocasio-Cortez says we've got concentration camps on the border, when the left and right live in two different realities.
You've got Holocaust survivors saying it's not a concentration camp, and some saying it is.
And then the left takes those sources and says, aha, we're right.
And the right takes the other source and says, aha, we're right.
Then these people come out and say, go kill the other people.
You now have active calls for murder.
This is it right here.
A woman on Twitter said, remember what we used to do?
Drag people out of their houses and beat them to death?
I guess we'll have to start throwing bricks.
Twitter allows it.
Two different realities are emerging, where neither side can actually reconcile their beliefs.
Let me move on and explain.
I highlighted this story a couple days ago, but I want to stress two big stories in the escalation narrative.
This is a Vox article from the first.
Vox.
V-O-X.
Left-wing.
It says, I'm a left-wing anarchist.
Guns aren't just for right-wingers.
The story basically says, hey, you can have guns.
Antifa is arming.
Why don't you?
In the story, they say it's about protecting marginalized communities.
Language that doesn't make sense to the right.
It's just left-wing propaganda.
It's a narrative that exists on the left, it doesn't exist on the right.
It's the alternate reality.
Where they're saying, you need to take up guns to protect marginalized communities.
What do they say all day and night?
They say the Proud Boys on the right are terrorizing marginalized communities.
That's literally what they say.
Now they're saying protect them with guns.
Here's the thing.
You have a right to own guns in this country, and you have a right to actually carry them to certain degrees, you know, different jurisdictions, different laws.
In some states, concealed carry is illegal without a permit.
It's kind of crazy.
Tend to be more rural states.
In some states, it's just basically illegal to have a gun period, which I believe is unconstitutional for the most part.
And like Illinois lost a case of, you know, years ago.
And now you can actually, I think you can open carry.
I'm not entirely sure.
So, look, you're allowed to carry guns, but I assure you, when you have these two narratives emerging, the far left is violent, the far right is violent, then both say, aha, it's you, they fight.
I will make one important point, a caveat, before we move on to the more terrifying... Actually, no, no, no, I'll make this point as we move into the next article.
Another article that I highlighted, Antifa is arming itself against a Trump crackdown.
Will leftist pro-gun groups deter political violence or inflame it?
Here's the thing, There was a story I read a long time ago.
I don't know if it's an urban legend, if it's apocryphal, if it was meant to be a lesson or if it was an actual news story because I was told this by someone and it was like 13 years ago.
But there was a news story somewhere where two guys were driving and I believe it was in Texas.
And this, again, I do not know where the source is.
This was like, you know, I was, I think I was like 20 years old when someone told me the story.
And basically, one guy rear-ended the other guy on accident.
The guy in front who got rear-ended was really, really pissed off.
He gets out of his car, outraged, yelling and screaming, like, what the hell are you doing?
The other guy in the back gets out of the car, because this guy is approaching his car, he doesn't want to be inside, I don't know why.
The guy in front has a... They're both open carrying.
So then, when the guy gets out of his car... Okay, so we'll call Guy A, the guy who rear-ended the guy in the front.
Guy A gets out, and he's calmer, like, oh man, I can't believe I rear-ended this guy.
Guy B is furious he got rear-ended.
Guy A sees this dude screaming and yelling, furious, and he's got a gun.
So Guy A puts his hand up and puts his hand near his hip, saying, hey, stop, don't come near me.
Guy B, who's outraged, sees him going towards his gun and grabs his gun, thinking the other guy's going to grab his gun.
That rapid escalation resulted in both of them drawing on each other.
So again, it could just be apocryphal, it could just be a story.
The point is, not that you shouldn't be allowed to carry guns, not that people who own guns are violent, but that sometimes people get angry and things can escalate.
When you look at these conflicting narratives, where both sides are like, the other side is evil, period, what do you think happens then, when you now have people actively saying, go kill them, and now you have Vox saying, get your guns?
I think it's pretty obvious where we're going.
It's not going to be, in my opinion, that this guy who says, go kill the other guys, shows up with a gun and starts firing on people.
These things have happened, mind you.
I think what's going to happen is, you're going to have redneck revolt, you're going to have oath keepers, things are going to get out of hand, and someone's going to draw, and someone's going to be like, hey man, stop, stop, stop.
They're going to have a gun, someone else is going to have a gun, and people are going to panic, and then it's going to escalate to that point.
Someone might throw a brick, Someone might throw a firecracker, and then you've got a bunch of people of opposing ideologies armed and pointing at each other.
And eventually, I believe we will see a shot heard around the world.
You know, some key moment where something happens with gunshots, results in a gunfight.
Here's the thing.
I could be wrong.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
But I gotta say.
All signs are pointing in one direction.
When the New Republic and Vox are straight up saying, maybe you should have guns, maybe the left was wrong.
Then you see people wearing these shirts.
I gotta say, man, I don't think you're gonna be able to tell me it's not gonna happen.
But here's the big main takeaway.
It is not.
It is not that You know, the issue isn't that the far-right and the far-left are focused on each other.
The issue is that the far-right has been pushed away and are fringe lunatics.
Almost all instances of far-right extremism are tiny groups of crazy people that everybody hates.
The example I often use, Steve King, okay, in Congress.
He made a statement about white nationalism in a positive light and was immediately removed from all committees.
Everyone denounced him.
On the left, Ilhan Omar does something similar.
They don't remove her.
They don't denounce her.
They denounce bigotry.
Here's what happens.
On the right, conservatives have no problem saying, we don't like those guys either.
On the left, they literally say, Republicans.
I kid you not, in the New Republic article it says, some of their members hope such efforts will at least make Republicans think twice before attempting a massacre.
When has a Republican committed a massacre?
Sure.
I mean, I'm not saying it never happened.
But all of the big stories we've heard so far are not Republicans.
There have been statements from many of the fringe right groups saying they tacitly support him because he's better than nothing.
That's it.
Or because at least he's a nationalist.
But they're not Republicans.
They're identitarians.
And the conservatives had no problem calling them out.
Republicans had no problem saying, get out of here.
The Democrats.
How many condemned Antifa?
How many are calling this out?
Herein lies the big problem.
Most Republicans that I know on Twitter are saying violence is bad, period.
But look at the high-profile people on the left.
Charlotte Clymer of the Human Rights Campaign saying the attack on Andy Ngo was the greatest thing for his career.
When did anyone on the right, a prominent Republican, say that violence was a good thing that benefited somebody?
It may have happened, but at least, if it did, it is rare.
Because even the highest profile Trump supporters have condemned violence across the board.
But the left has people at Kotaku, they've got people at the New York Times, they've got people at the Human Rights Campaign saying, hey, it was Andy's fault.
Or, this is good for him.
It helped him.
Here's what happens.
The far left is in the mainstream.
The far left is in Congress.
That's what's disconcerting to me.
Andy Ngo said, and actually I think this goes back to Jordan Peterson too, that society knows when the right goes too far.
But society doesn't know when the left goes too far.
Everyone in the mainstream, from the right to the left, knows when the right goes too far.
But when the left goes too far, what happens?
People defend it.
I think the real issue is that there's many people who have gotten jobs who are fringe identitarians, who are, you know, woke Democrats who are just burning everything down.
But I will tell you the most terrifying thing.
The Oath Keepers are not a neo-Nazi group by no stretch of the imagination.
They're an armed, you know, constitutionalist group, from what I understand.
I've interviewed them.
Very calm and, you know, they've got some controversies, but they're not crazy, you know, lunatics going around, you know, trying to wage war or revolution.
They're the Oath Keepers, swearing an oath upon the Constitution.
By all means, you don't have to like them.
They're traditionalists, but they are not a fringe group.
And I will give credit to Redneck Revolt as well.
Of the people I've seen from Redneck Revolt, they are not the crazy, fringe, psychotic antifa we typically see in the streets.
The videos I've seen from them is that they're actually well-trained with firearms, and they're actually really calm, and they try and keep things tempered.
I've also seen leftist gun groups and right-wing gun groups have a handshake and come together based on their enthusiasm for gun culture and safety, and they had good conversations while the left and the right were screaming, they were standing together.
So there is some good commonality between them.
I don't want to act like either side is a fringe nightmarish group.
What I do want to say, though, is that when the left views the Republicans all as one monolith, that the fringe far-right extremists who everyone hates are Republicans, they're going to show up to a Trump rally and attack people.
That's what they've done.
Now what's going to happen in I'm scared of, what I think is worrying, is that somebody will see this story about Redneck Revolt, somebody will see this story from Vox, and they will buy a gun, and they're not going to be a well-trained and calm, rational, you know, individual.
They're going to be an unhinged, terrified individual who panics and fires that first round, that shot heard round the world, which results in a gunfight.
What worries me is that Redneck Revolt will be on one side, the Oath Keepers will be on the other, a crazy person will fire a shot, and both sides will take cover, and things will go completely out of control.
No one will know who fired first.
It may not be that way.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I don't know enough about guns.
It's possible.
It's also possible that if something like that happens, both sides will immediately not fire because they are trained and they'll try and hold back to try and assess the situation.
But if you get one crazy person, in fact, you could even get a false flag.
Someone puts on a black mask and pretends to be Antifa.
Somebody puts on a Proud Boy shirt, pretends to be a Proud Boy, and just fires indiscriminately.
Then what happens?
The escalation is upon us.
And I'll tell you this, man.
After the attack on Andy Ngo, they are normalizing attacks on regular people.
And now we saw this.
People walking around in shirts, calling for murder.
Rhetoric that incites in this way?
We see where it's going.
So look, man.
There's an event tomorrow.
Right?
There's an event tomorrow in DC.
Antifa and the right are probably gonna fight.
And I hope it doesn't get really bad.
But now we've got two left-wing outlets saying, hey, guns are a good thing, go get your guns.
Gotta stop those Republicans, right?
That's what they're doing.
They claim that Trump is running concentration camps.
You will literally, I believe we will see La Resistance-type insurgency soon.
People are gonna try and liberate the camps.
Because they're saying, like, what would you have done in World War II?
I'll leave it there, man.
I could rant on this for a million years, so stick around.
Next segment will be at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all there.
You may have seen the viral video, or one of the several viral videos, of young people going into a store, taking a product off a shelf, doing something gross with it, and then putting it back.
The most prominent is this woman here, and you can see in this clip, she's licking the top of ice cream, and then she puts it back.
Now, it's kind of a crazy story, but apparently it's a trend.
There's a bunch of instances of people doing this.
In this one, it's got 14 million views.
This individual, I think it's... I'm not sure how to describe the individual, but they take mouthwash, put it back.
We'll go through all this.
There's also a guy who scoops out a handful of ice cream and puts it back.
This is actually really crazy.
20 years in prison for doing this, and it's becoming like a meme where young people keep doing it.
But I'll tell you what.
They've identified the woman.
People on the internet already know who she is.
They know her name.
I'm not going to publish any of those details.
The news isn't either.
But this has actually caused a massive recall of the products, and I can only imagine the other videos you just saw are going to do the exact same thing.
So let's take a look at the story and see why she's facing 20 years in prison.
Now, obviously, I don't think she'll get 20 years.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, just share the video if you'd like to support my work.
So I actually have a couple different stories, but let's read here from NBC News.
news.
Woman seen licking ice cream in viral video phased up to 20 years in jail, police say.
Texas Creamery Bluebell said all tin roof flavored tubs possibly affected in the malicious
act of food tampering have been pulled from store shelves.
A woman filmed licking a tub of ice cream and returning it to a grocery store shelf
in a viral video last week is phasing up to 20 years in prison.
The footage, which has been viewed more than 11 million times thus far, shows the so-far
unnamed woman opening a container, running her tongue across the ice cream and laughing
as she places the violated dessert back in the freezer in a branch of Walmart in the
city of Lufkin, eastern Texas.
Police said on Wednesday they believe they identified the suspect after detectives had obtained surveillance video placing a woman matching the suspect's description in the Lufkin store on June 28th around 11pm.
They are waiting to finally verify her identity before issuing an arrest warrant.
Police also wanted to speak to the man she was with, who is thought to have filmed the incident and can be heard encouraging the woman to lick it.
She could face a second degree felony charge of tampering with a consumer product.
The Lufkin Police Department said in an email statement to NBC News, the charge comes with a 2 to 20 year prison term and up to $10,000 in fines.
Now here's the thing.
I- I- It's likely she has no criminal record.
She thought it was a stupid gag and it was funny, not realizing the massive expense and threat to public safety that would occur from her doing this.
I do not believe she will get 20 years in prison.
She'll probably get a slap on the wrist.
But here's what people don't understand.
Bluebell had to recall everything because she puts it back and leaves.
They don't know what got affected or how, so they have to remove all of them to make things worse.
Initially, if they don't know where this is, they might have to recall literally every single tub from every single store in the country, which is going to cost a ridiculous amount of money.
She tampered with one ice cream.
One.
But because people can't find it, it causes a massive, you know, a massive, uh, I guess ripple effect.
My understanding is the police did find it, but let's read on, because I want to talk more about this bizarre phenomenon and how social media is disgusting.
They say investigators are also in discussions with the FDA and additional federal charges could be made.
Our detectives are working to verify the identity of the female suspect before a warrant is issued for her arrest on a charge of second-degree felony tampering with a consumer product.
As that portion of the investigation continues, detectives are focusing on identifying the male in the green shirt behind the camera seen in images of the two entering the store together.
Police added that detectives will continue to work through the 4th of July holiday on the case.
The search to determine exactly where the incident took place sparked an investigation spanning from San Antonio to Houston.
Bluebell Creamery, the local manufacturer of the ice cream brand The Woman Licked, has called the incident a malicious act of food tampering.
All tubs containing the mix of creamy vanilla ice cream with swirls of chocolate fudge and dark chocolate-covered roasted peanuts have been removed from the store's shelves as precaution, the company said.
The specific carton believed to be compromised was found among the lot.
In an earlier statement, the company explained that its cartons are frozen upside down in production, which creates a natural tight seal by freezing the lid to the tub, meaning consumers would notice if any tampering occurred upon opening the fresh tub.
I gotta say this, man.
I'm- I'm basically... I'm never gonna- Okay, so hold on.
Watch this clip.
For those listening on the podcast, this guy walks up to a freezer.
He then grabs a carton of ice cream, opens it, scoops out a handful of ice cream and starts eating it.
Someone else then does the same.
Looks like it might be a woman, but I don't know if there's a woman there.
A woman is there.
He then puts it back and throws the lid back on top.
Here's the thing.
This one's been viewed 12 million times.
In this instance, nobody's going to grab the ice cream with no lid and a huge chunk missing out of it.
The woman who licked the other tub?
That's actually screwed up, because some people might not notice it's been licked, or they might not realize the lick means anything, and now they're literally licking someone else's spit, which could result in, I don't know, disease and unsanitary conditions, period.
Apparently this dude got a visit from the police and it looks like he probably just got a slap on the wrist
Probably because they can see the product was it's just shoplifting basically right?
Here's another thing that's going viral that I want to address this individual
this is disgusting
Walks up, grabs a bottle of Listerine, cracks it open, swigs some, gargles it, and then spits it back and puts it back on the shelf.
This, to me, looks staged, however.
And then they walk off and do like a weird little strut.
It's 14 million views on this one.
Here's the original.
Let's refresh this because I think it's got way more.
This one, I believe, should have like the most.
No, this only has 12.2 million views.
Or at least on this one particular video, it's got nearly 30,000 retweets.
Check this out.
I think this one's fake, because you'll notice all of the Listerines, they're sealed.
They've got plastic on top.
And this person grabs a bottle that isn't sealed.
Meaning to stay- So here's what may have happened.
They may have cracked the seal, then put it down, and then staged the whole thing.
They may have bought it and done it first.
But this apparently is becoming a meme.
You know what, man?
The internet has created a weird culture of just lawlessness, insanity, and extremism.
Somebody did this, and they thought it was funny.
Somebody else did it.
So I wonder- I honestly don't know which one happened first.
Probably this chick licking this.
Man, I gotta say, watching this picture is just infuriating.
Here's what really bothers me about the ice cream one.
It says, Blue Bell Creamery, Tin Roof.
You can see the woman Lick it, and then put it back.
The reason this is so egregious is that somebody wouldn't notice it was licked.
But it's also like, why the hell don't they have plastic on top of things in the first place?
And more importantly, who's raising these psychopaths to do this?
These people go online, they see this behavior, and they're like, oh, I know what I want to do.
I want to cause a health crisis because it's funny.
There have been a lot of videos.
It's not, you know, the people talk about YouTube radicalization.
They talk about the problems of YouTube.
It's not a YouTube problem.
It's a people problem.
People see things online, and then they want to do it too.
We see pranks being taken too far, and this is just another instance of people on the internet being really dumb.
You know what, man?
We, I don't know why, But it reminds me of that saying, you know, hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times.
You look at how everything has been so nice over the past several decades, it really does seem like we've been living in a golden age since the last world war or whatever.
Where everything's been kind of good.
There's been conflict, but for the most part, the economy is expanding, technology is expanding, humans, like Americans, are ridiculously fat.
Everything is great in America.
So what happens is, I'll tell you this, one thing that's really weird about two of these viral clips are that it appears to be males acting like females, strutting up and swaying their hips as they do it, It's really, really strange.
I think this is a symbol of, like, I don't want to, like, look, I got no beef if you want to walk around and act however you want, for sure.
But it's interesting how it's a specific demeanor among young people that engage in this behavior.
It's almost like we are in a very irresponsible time.
There's no responsibility.
There's no purpose.
So you're just getting, I don't know, insane asocial behavior.
They don't care about the safety of others.
They just want attention.
They act weird.
They imitate each other.
It's very ostentatious.
It's almost like they're peacocking.
They're acting in very extreme ways so that people can notice them.
Without responsibility, without purpose, this is what I think you get.
So I made a video on my main channel, it's actually the preview video, where I talk about how it seems like the right side, whatever you want to call it, anti-SJW, has a lack of responsibility.
So they're bored and looking for purpose.
The left side has, like, they've found purpose but without meaning.
So you have two groups, one that's overly obsessed with solving problems that don't exist, and one that doesn't have a real problem.
When you look at the anti-SJW side, it seems that many of them are outraged at, you know, there's a lot of people who are just outraged across the board, but there's a lot of people who realize that the regressive behaviors of their targeting, it's not a real problem, so there's boredom.
There's video games, they're not getting jobs, they're not leaving their homes.
This is what you get when you have people who just don't have anything to do.
No responsibility.
Wealth.
You know, Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, whether they realize it or not, even if you work at McDonald's.
So this is what you get.
Young people starving for attention, doing ridiculous things, so that people will watch them, and they'll get shares.
Now, I'll say this.
The first woman, and I won't make this one too long, the first woman is facing 20 years in prison on a felony charge.
Better believe she regrets that stupid prank.
It's almost like, you know, there's a YouTube video of a kid, or it was a YouTuber in Spain, who put toothpaste in Oreos and gave them out saying they were mint and people were eating them.
He was giving them to homeless people.
He got charged.
You now have this person laughing, ha ha ha ha, as they do this.
It's disgusting.
Will this person face the same charge?
Will this person just get shoplifting?
thing. So I'm curious, will this person face the same charge? Will this person face the
same charge? Will this person just get shoplifting? I don't know. All I gotta say is, man, there's
very few things that make me genuinely angry, and these things make me really, really angry.
Like, when I see people doing stupid pranks on YouTube, I'm like, I get it, it's a dumb prank, like a jump scare.
When I see people actually spitting and doing disgusting things to food, and then other people are at risk of buying it, and it causes massive ripple of just, like, chaos through, like, consumer goods, like, damn.
So, you know what?
I don't know if these kids should get in trouble.
This guy got visited by the cops.
They probably just threw it away because they could tell which one it was.
But this, you know, whether or not this is a prank, the mouthwash one was just staged, doesn't matter.
It doesn't.
Because you're not gonna be able to tell.
You know, I guess they're sealed, so you're fine, but...
The big problem is that... I'm not gonna buy ice cream.
Oh God, it's so infuriating.
I'm never gonna buy ice cream again, unless it's got a plastic seal on top.
I don't even know how I talked about this for 13 goddamn minutes.
I'm done.
This is disgusting stuff.
You know, I didn't really care to talk about this, but it's got millions of views, so there it is.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you there.
Willie Brown says no 2020 Democrat can beat Trump after the debates.
And I completely agree.
I'm going to dare say I'm going to say it.
The Democrats are some of them.
Some Democrats are literally campaigning in Mexico.
I'm going to do another segment after this to talk specifically about them campaigning in Mexico, but I had to break this one up because we've got a lot to go through.
The Democrats are in complete denial.
They are chasing after a woke left.
I've made a ton of videos about this, but there's a lot more to go through.
And what I want to kind of do in this video is I want to highlight some more opinions have emerged from centrist, moderates, and high-profile personalities on the left saying, Democrats, what are you doing?
Because they can't win.
Let's start by reading the statement, and then what I want to get into is the idea of redpilling.
It's really funny to me that people are like, haha, Tim has been redpilled.
Uh-uh.
I literally haven't been, and I can prove it.
And it's actually good news for those that think they are redpilled, because what this really means is that it's not really a pill, but a platform.
There is, you know, the right, there's the left, there's the center.
The center is falling apart, which means people have to, you know, like, jump to one side.
But what it really is, is that the left is just floating away off into the distance to push for ridiculous policies that no one else agrees with.
And the people that were once standing on that platform that is the left aren't anymore.
And I don't know where we are.
We're politically homeless.
But let's see why former, I believe he used to be a mayor, let's see why he thinks the Democrats can't win.
Former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said that no Democratic candidate in the 2020 race is capable of beating Trump.
Brown's political analysis appeared in his San Francisco Chronicle column on Saturday, in a piece titled, Bad News for Democrats.
None of these candidates can beat Trump.
Brown admitted that not even his ex-girlfriend, Senator Kamala Harris of California, could beat Trump in a race today.
Saying, Harris got all the attention for playing prosecutor-in-chief, but her case against former Vice President Joe Biden boiled down in some ways to a ringing call for forced school busing.
It won't be too hard for Trump to knock that one out of the park in 2020, Brown wrote.
Trump must have enjoyed every moment and every answer in the Democratic debates, because he now knows he's looking at a bunch of potential rivals who are still not ready for primetime.
Brown dated Harris in the 1990s as the future senator was getting her start in politics.
Brown, then Democratic Speaker of the California State Assembly, appointed Harris to her first significant political office on the California Medical Assistance Commission in 1994.
Harris missed about a fifth of the medical board meetings, which took place twice a month.
She left the board in 1998.
in 1998.
Yes, we dated.
It was more than 20 years ago.
Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was assembly
speaker, Brown wrote in a column in January.
So here's what I want to do.
Mayor Willie Brown, a former- I believe he was a mayor?
I could be wrong.
Why am I calling- I'm just so familiar with hearing of him as a mayor.
But Willie Brown is saying nobody's going to win.
I think we all get it.
I don't think we need to beat a dead horse on this one.
I'm going to do another segment on this coming up shortly, where I go into great detail about the census and citizenship and what the Democrats are doing.
But I really want to talk about the idea of redpilling.
And look at some new opinions based on, there are a bunch of op-eds in the New York Times, a ton, slamming the Democrats for going far left.
There are now more opinions developing from those opinions and the conversation emerges.
Redpilling is this interesting concept where people think like all of a sudden you've now woken up to what's happening, right?
It's like, look, the left has being woke and the right has being redpilled.
They both basically mean the same thing.
In the Matrix, you take a red pill, and you can see reality for what it is.
On the left, you are now woke, as in you've woken up to what's really happening.
The reality is, I don't think people actually do get red-pilled or woke.
I think, actually, you can become woke, and that's, in my opinion, more of an indoctrination into some kind of weird cult, which I've called it for a long time.
I got some funny stories here.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to show you this graphic.
Before we dive into it, TimCast.com slash donate.
Head over there if you want to support my work.
PayPal, crypto, physical address, many ways to support what it is I do.
But of course, share this video because YouTube doesn't suggest my content the same way they used to.
It's this whole new thing that YouTube is trying out.
So, if you guys think my content is worth listening to, please share it.
What you're seeing here is a graphic I've shown in many different forms a lot.
And I have talked about this a little bit, but I want to go into detail about what I think is happening on the red pill, wokeness, left and right.
Here we can see this very strange article from the New York Times, which tries to paint the Republican Party as now far right.
So if you scroll up, you can see here it's like, oh, look how far right the Republicans are.
They say this, wow, look, the Republicans so far away from the median.
What this is doing is comparing America to Europe.
We are not like Europe.
We are very different from Europe.
They say the median party is over here.
Many people on the left tried to act like we should base our politics off of Europe.
That means nothing to me.
We're not Europe.
We're a different country with different laws, a different constitution, a different size, a different culture.
Notice, the Democrats are now to the left of the median in Europe, which is pretty crazy because Europe is pretty far left.
And the Republicans are far right, they describe it.
But let's talk about this in the context of America.
You want to know where I am on this graph?
I'm like right here.
So for those that are listening on the podcast, you can't really see this.
There are two lines, a red line and a blue line.
In 2000, there was a decent spacing between the groups.
In 2004, the Democrats moved a little to the right.
In 2008, the Democrats shifted a little to the right, but the Republicans also shifted a little to the left.
This was the era of Obama, and a pretty strong unity between left and right for the most part.
The Republican Party from 2000 to 2016 has moved a little to the left, a little to the right, and a little back to the left.
From 2012 to 2016, Republicans have moved slightly to the left.
That means with Donald Trump's election, he is actually further to the left than Mitt Romney was in 2012.
How they're now claiming the Republicans have gone to the far right is absurd.
But what you can see is the Democrats have flung so far to the left, it is not an issue of being red-pilled, it is quite literally an issue of the left leaving the left.
The left is no longer liberal, and those who are on the left, who voted for Obama, who are aligned more so with Obama, have been left behind.
I would imagine, if you can't really see it in the podcast, I apologize, but from 2008 to 2012, a massive jump to the far left.
Somewhere in between there is where I am.
So here I am, minding my own goddamn business, and I look over to the Republicans and I'm like, they're too far away from me for me to actually consider as a viable voting option.
But now consider this.
The left has moved so far to the left, the Republicans are closer to me.
So I am, and always will be, probably, a center-left, social-liberal type.
I have not been red-pilled.
There has not been some great awakening where my politics have suddenly changed.
I didn't one day wake up and say, oh my god, look what the Democrats are doing!
I now realize the Democrats have always been bad.
That's not the case.
What's actually happening is the Democrats have left many of us behind.
Now we're called centrists.
And it's really weird.
I was never a centrist!
I was to the left of Barack Obama!
And I was supporting Bernie Sanders, even, in 2016, which probably puts me further to the left than I realize.
But the Democrats, from Congress to what's acceptable in media, has gone insane.
So the way I explain it, um, in a recent video, is that people, again, they'll call it redpilling.
That people have somehow woken up.
There's a famous incident, um, Lacey Green, right?
Prominent feminist for a long time.
Made a video about red pill versus blue pill.
And she wanted to talk with people who were anti-SJW and try and find that conversation and that unity.
Very bold move.
She was immediately labeled all of the worst things in the book.
Because she was dating someone who was anti-SJW, she got attacked for it.
To me, that's crazy.
But this is significant because even going back as far as I've known Lacey, I have referred to the regressive left as a cult.
They believe things.
It's very, very much like a religion.
They have original sin, right, in the idea of privilege.
They have dogma, rules.
They're not based in logic, but more so in faith, an interpretation of reality.
They have faith-based, you know, their entire world is based on faith, meaning they don't believe in objective reality.
They believe specifically that truth is controlled by those in power.
Thus, they push things that make no sense.
They change definitions.
It very much is the religious left.
I didn't come up with this.
It was an interview I did with Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose.
They were the ones who did the Sokol squared hoax.
They target grievance studies.
And it was Peter Boghossian, the three of them on a panel, I believe, talking about intersectionality as a non-theistic religion, which they are.
So, if you're woke, you have literally been indoctrinated into a religion.
If you're red-pilled, you're probably someone who at some point realized there was a rising massive religion on the left.
The reason this is significant, and the reason I bring this up, Understand that the people whom I claimed to be red-pilled did not have a great awakening.
They did not take a red pill and then all of a sudden see reality.
The world is very much the same for me as it has always been.
I am still right here around where Barack Obama used to be in 2008.
My politics did actually move a little... I was actually way further left before 2008, and I slowly started moving more towards where Obama was.
I have not gone further to the right, by no means.
Obama deported tons of people, was very strict on immigration, more so than I would have been.
I've made numerous videos saying I think we need a path to citizenship for today's undocumented immigrants, but then we need to set some hard limits on any future immigration.
That's actually kind of to the left of Obama.
The point is, people like me, people in the center, and people who were traditionally on the left, were standing here when all of a sudden one day- I shouldn't say it like that.
Our world has stayed, for the most part, the same.
My friends' opinions haven't changed, they're very apolitical, we play video games, we hold the same views, we haven't moved, and we haven't woken up.
We're just watching the rise of a cult.
Crazy people who believe crazy things and want to do crazy things.
Okay?
Antifa.
The media defense of Antifa.
It is a religion that is spreading.
I call it a cult because I'm trying to be mean on purpose, but I can walk that back and say it is a religion.
They'll deny it.
It is.
It is a non-theistic religion.
And I've seen the religious stuff on the right, and now I see the religious stuff on the left.
So let's talk about the importance of the idea of red-pilling versus being woke.
Those who are woke are indoctrinated to a religion.
Those who are red-pilled, typically, are people who have held the same beliefs.
Freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, liberty, respect, equality.
They haven't changed their positions.
They're just pushing back on their religion, plain and simple.
I had another article I was going to pull up, but I'll leave it there, because I try to keep these segments kind of short.
And I want to talk now about what's going on with citizenship and the Democrats, so stick around.
That story will be coming up in a few minutes.
The Democrats are literally campaigning in Mexico.
I'm not exaggerating.
Now, I don't want to say... Okay, maybe THE Democrats is a bit hyperbolic.
A couple Democrats, literally a couple, have campaigned in Mexico, and I have no idea why.
But all of the Democrats are at least campaigning for non-US citizens, and it's really confusing.
It's very confusing.
I am by no means a staunch nationalist.
In fact, I've told people I'm a determinist globalist, or I don't know what the right way to frame it is.
I believe globalism is inevitable due to cyber war, the nature of cyber war, the vulnerabilities of cyber cybernetic infrastructure, and trade and communications.
I believe it is an inevitability.
However, I don't believe we're at a point now where we're going to snap our fingers and have this global utopia, so it's probably important we maintain a balance in immigration and protect the borders of the United States.
So, I'm a centrist, for the most part.
Here's the thing, though.
Democrats, as it stands today, are campaigning for illegal immigrants to not be deported, are campaigning for healthcare for illegal immigrants, And are rejecting a citizenship question on the census.
I just don't get it.
I don't know if you're following the story on the citizenship question.
Trump wants the census to ask if you are a citizen.
And?
Why not?
Don't you think it would be important for us to figure out who is or isn't a citizen?
Kind of makes sense, right?
Like, if you're not paying taxes, or you're working under the table, or your employer's breaking the law, Citizenship is not some, like, controversial thing.
At least it wasn't for the most part of my life.
I got a social security card and a birth certificate, right?
If I want to get a job, I check off I'm a citizen.
Why can't we do that for census?
I've never heard a good answer from Democrats.
Take a look at voter ID laws.
I've never heard a good answer as to why they oppose voter ID.
It literally makes no sense.
I need an ID to do basically everything.
I go to a restaurant.
I want to get a beer.
They ask for my ID.
Voting is way more important than that.
I kid you not.
I shaved.
I went to the movies.
They asked for my ID to see an R-rated movie.
I'm like, dude, what?
I'm not 17, man.
I'm 33.
It happens.
Maybe because I'm part Asian, I look younger than I really am.
The thing is, Democrats tend to oppose voter ID laws if they say it's racist.
That's not an argument.
Like, I'm from the hood.
I'm from the south side of Chicago.
Everybody had an ID in the internet.
Like, you're not making a good argument for me.
It's confusing.
So this makes me say, what?
I don't understand what you're doing.
Now Trump wants the census to ask if people are a citizen.
There's some really interesting... I guess, whether or not Trump succeeds in getting this, because it's been blocked by the Supreme Court, whether or not the census actually asks this question, I think Trump has done something that's a net positive for Trump and for nationalism.
What this says to me, all of this, it's like, I don't think Democrats actually have any idea what they're doing or why they're doing it.
They're trying to pander.
I have no idea.
None of it makes sense.
They oppose Trump for the sake of opposing Trump.
Look at this.
Cory Booker actually helped illegal immigrants return to the U.S.
after they were deported under the Migrant Protection Protocols.
It's a photo of him in Mexico to meet some asylum seekers.
Okay.
Why, though?
They can't vote for you.
But here's something interesting.
It all comes back to the citizenship question.
Trump is now saying he's considering using an executive order to get the citizenship question on the 2020 census.
I've talked to a lot of people, and they say, Tim, it's because illegal immigrants vote.
Well, I'm sure some do sometimes, but I'm not convinced it's significant.
Staunch Trump supporters will say it's in the millions.
Trump has said it's in the millions.
I don't believe that's true.
I do believe illegal immigrants vote, and we have seen some information from reputable sources claiming that on the voter rolls, there have been even tens of thousands of undocumented or illegal immigrants, in which case, it's possible they voted.
In one circumstance, a woman had a driver's license, and she voted when she wasn't allowed to because she was a legal resident, and she actually got in trouble.
That's kind of screwed up, right?
It was some woman who had a green card, she voted, and she's facing prison time?
Come on now, some old lady who made a mistake.
Let's just say don't do it again.
Prison time, to me, that's absurd.
But I do not believe Trump wants the citizenship question on the census to affect voting.
One person said to me, It's so that he knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country and may or may not be voting.
I'm like, no, no, you're making a jump here.
The first and only thing it will do is allow the government to know how many illegal immigrants we have, but people on the left say immigrants in general will avoid answering the census because they're scared of, you know, repercussions from the government.
I do not believe that is true of legal immigrants.
I believe anybody who is here legally with a visa or a green card has no problem saying, I am not a citizen.
I've been to foreign countries.
I have visas for foreign countries.
I have a 10-year visa to a South American country.
If I was there and someone said, hey, you know, are you a citizen of Brazil?
I'd say, no.
I'm here on a 10-year.
I got a 10-year visa.
It's good for six months at a time.
I can come back, you know, six months out of the year.
I wouldn't care.
To the people I know who have a permanent residency in foreign countries, they also don't care.
I don't think that's legitimate.
I think people who are legal immigrants would have no problem saying, like, here's who I am, here's where I live, here's what I do, and no, I'm not, you know, a citizen.
What it will do, however, is change the structure of the districts in Congress.
And this, to me, is very, very interesting in how it'll play into the hands of Trump.
So let's read this.
Fox News says, President Trump said Friday he's considering using an executive order to place a citizenship question on the 2020 census, as the administration faces an afternoon deadline to say whether it will proceed with its push.
We're thinking about doing that.
It's one of the ways we have four or five ways to do it, Trump told reporters when asked if he was considering an executive order.
We can do the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision from the Supreme Court.
Basically, what's happening is he has to say now whether or not the question will be on the census, but he's being obstructed by the courts.
By doing this, they can put the question on the census before the court ruling.
It's all legally murky.
We'll see if he gets away with it.
If it's legal... I shouldn't say gets away with it.
We'll see if it's legally upheld.
But this may buy time for the census to include the question.
Trump said think about it.
Fifteen to twenty billion dollars on a census and you're not allowed to ask if someone's a citizen.
Adding that Attorney General William Barr is working on the issue.
The court ruled last week that the reasoning provided by the administration that it would help them enforce the Voting Rights Act was insufficient.
It sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration in what was seen as a significant blow to the administration.
After the rebuke, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said his department would print the census without the question, seemingly indicating the administration had dropped the controversial issue.
But Trump later said that reports that they had dropped the issue were fake, and on Thursday said the question was so important, and that the Justice and Commerce departments were working very hard on this.
On Wednesday, a high-ranking DOJ lawyer told a federal judge that the administration has not abandoned efforts to put the question on the census, saying that there may be a legally available path open to the administration.
The DOJ faces a 2 p.m.
deadline to respond to a judge's order to decide whether the administration will try again to get the question on the census.
So, I'm filming this after 2 p.m.
We'll see what happens, but Trump has said they're going to do it.
Now here's what gets interesting.
The push for a citizenship question has been fiercely opposed by Democrats who say that immigrants may not want to respond and be counted in the census.
This would result in official population numbers that are lower than they truly are, which in turn could yield less federal funding and fewer congressional seats in districts with high immigrant populations.
Those districts tend to favor Democrats.
An executive order could also face significant pushback and could fail in the Supreme Court.
One source told Axios that it may allow the administration to shift the blame for the ultimate failure of the push on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
But Trump on Friday said he had a lot of respect for Roberts.
I have a lot of respect for Justice Roberts.
He didn't like it, but he did say come back, so we'll see what happens.
This is really interesting.
The Democrats conflate illegal immigrants with immigrants.
I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the full benefits of what citizens receive.
I do believe illegal immigrants are entitled to certain rights under the constitution and some immediate benefits to protect life.
It's a complicated problem.
But when it comes to government programs that are above and beyond immediate needs, like hierarchy of needs, like access to food and other things like this, should we be providing certain resources to illegal immigrants?
The answer is, well, I would say no, but it's hard to know for sure what and when.
The Democrats say they want to provide health care to illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, as much as I would like to, I don't think we can.
I do think we have an obligation.
to prevent loss of life, which means if there's an illegal immigrant and we have emergency services
available, I believe we are morally obligated to save their lives. It is a conflict and a conundrum
because then illegal immigrants are putting a strain on our already strained health care system.
So what happens is that if they can actually track illegal immigrants or they can exclude them
saying they're not citizens, therefore the district will be of a certain size,
It means the shape of districts in Congress will be dramatically different.
It will provide Republicans and Nationalists with strong resources towards, for one, deporting illegal immigrants.
I don't know if they'll use a census to actually deport people.
But I will say, illegal immigrants will be much less likely to fill out a census form if they're asked if they're citizens.
They already probably do avoid filling it out out of a fear of government intervention and deportation.
But this to me is very interesting and telling.
It's hard to know how to appropriate federal funds.
Immigrants are entitled to many of the same funds as citizens if they're permanent residents.
Illegal immigrants, not so much.
And this, I think, is where the Democrats come in to conflate the two.
They say, oh, immigrants won't do it.
I disagree.
That makes no sense.
If you're a legal resident, why would you be afraid of filling out a form?
Maybe they will be.
Maybe they're scared of Trump.
Maybe they think Trump will take away their green card and permanent residence.
It's hard to know for sure.
What I will say, however, The citizenship question is going to play a massive role in empowering Republicans in the future if it makes its way through.
I don't know exactly what will happen, but I will say with one final thing.
It really, really does feel like Democrats are not campaigning for American citizens.
We can see that they're vowing to decriminalize illegal immigration.
Some of them are campaigning in Mexico.
They want to provide health care to non-citizens.
It does not sound like they have the interest of American citizens at heart.
And the whole thing confuses me.
If only American citizens can vote, isn't this country for Americans and not for people outside the country?
You can immigrate here, you can become a citizen over time, and then you will be entitled to those same privileges and otherwise.
And I certainly believe legal immigration is the correct path forward, and I welcome all people anywhere in the world to come here legally.
Okay.
And what that means is when you apply, there are some criteria where you won't be allowed to come.
But I believe everyone has the opportunity to come here legally so that we can have a robust and healthy and diverse society.
Great things.
Illegal immigration, however, bypasses our laws, violates, you know, the rules and the social contract of our nation, and they reap benefits to which they didn't pay into.
To put it simply, if today we all put in a dollar towards a pizza party, a week from now someone shows up and says, oh, I'll put in a dollar too.
We say, we've been putting in a dollar every day for a week, and you're going to show up now without putting in the same amount of money and get our pizza?
It's not so much as that they aren't paying taxes.
It's that they haven't paid into the system thus far.
It's complicated.
I gotta say, it does feel a lot like Democrats don't really care what Americans have to say.
I'm gonna defer to the opinion published in the New York Times, where one writer said, Americans feel like they're strangers in their own country.
I'm not surprised Trump won, and I think he'll win again.
Look, I'll leave it there.
I don't really have a closing thought, but it is what it is.
Let me know what you think about the citizenship question.
Shouldn't this country be for citizens?
Whatever.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
As predicted, the Democrats incentivizing illegal immigration, or at least protecting it, is resulting in a massive wave of African migrants trying to get the American Dream.
Before we talk about the African migrant situation and the migrant crisis, let me tell you what the American Dream is.
Because these people, bless their hearts, completely understand what it is.
And I actually have tremendous respect for them for understanding what the American Dream is.
At no point, at least as far as I can tell, was the American dream to grow up in a suburb, go to college, and then get a high-paying job and have a family.
The American dream was that you can be poor and there's upward mobility.
There still is.
The American dream was that you could work 80 hours a week, put your kids in college, and they would move up the social ladder.
There are many places in this world where when you're born poor, that's the end of it.
You will be poor.
But in America, if you make it here, you can be a migrant, open a small convenience store, have your entire, you know, eventually bring your family over.
You will all share a studio apartment.
Five, six people crammed in a studio.
But eventually your kids will have a middle-class life.
That's the American dream.
Not to be a wealthy billionaire.
Not to be a rock star.
To just make it.
To be middle class.
To have a family.
To have a White House and a picket fence.
But at some point, young people in this country believed...
And still do.
The American Dream was to take out massive loans, then go to college, and then you'd have a high-paying job.
I'm sorry.
Being born in America literally is the American Dream.
These migrants who are trying to come here understand what the American Dream is.
Their country is not nice.
America is nice.
When you come here, you can work hard, even if it's at McDonald's, flipping burgers, and you will make a decent wage, albeit not the best, based on American standards, but way better than where they come from.
Isn't that a dream?
Could you imagine working some really awful job doing terrible labor for pennies on the dollar?
You come to America, you flip a few burgers.
The easiest job you've ever had?
Making ten times or more as much money.
I still think we can do right by our lower income workers in this country, but it's still, for these people, they're willing to make less than minimum wage when they come here because it's more than they got in their home countries.
Unfortunately, therein lies the problem.
We can't just allow everyone to come in because they will displace those jobs, and it will lower wages for the people who are here.
There is a legal process and not everyone can have the American dream because there's only so much resources and the economy can only grow so quickly.
I believe it is possible we can reform our immigration laws in a way that allows it to expand more rapidly by allocating towards development and infrastructure and things like that, but I'm not sure how to do it.
What I can say is The Democrats don't seem to actually care about those who already live here.
Not all of them, because I do like Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, but many of them.
Many of them are, I pointed this out in the last two segments, Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker literally campaigned in Mexico.
That is not for Americans.
And that will not make the American Dream persist.
Many people believe the American Dream doesn't exist anymore.
They're wrong.
It does.
It just requires being smart and working hard.
And you can be someone who's a high school dropout from the South Side of Chicago who becomes successful.
Or you can find a way to actually make your own company.
One of the other problems is that you have a lot of people who aren't entrepreneurs, who don't try to make money in the economy.
They try to get a job.
The American dream was never to just get a job.
The American dream was to make it.
You can whittle little sticks into figurines and sell them on a street corner.
From Nigeria and Cameroon, they fly to Ecuador, and then make their way up through Central America into Mexico, and then try and come to America.
They say the migrants vying for entry at the U.S.
southern border are mainly Central Americans.
But growing numbers from a handful of African countries are joining them, prompting calls from Trump and Mexico for other countries in Latin America to do their part to slow the overall flood of migrants.
It's really funny.
Many people on the left are saying that Trump wants the detention centers to be cruel on purpose.
They call it deterrence.
If migrants hear that you will be in squalor, you will be in a concentration camp and your children will be taken away, they won't want to come.
This flies in the face of what's actually happening.
Who?
Which group?
Which political faction is claiming things are awful?
Right now?
The Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez says they're concentration camps.
The left is calling them concentration camps.
They flipped the narrative.
And you now have migrants being told it's going to be bad by the Democrats.
It's not Trump who's trying to deter them.
CBP put out a video showing how nice the facilities were.
If anything, this reversal is now beneficial to the migrants who think they're going to come to a facility and get crackers, you know, a fresh glass of milk, a toothbrush, and a working water fountain with potable water.
The deterrence narrative, to me, is just incorrect.
The reality is, the migrant centers are actually not very nice.
For the most part.
Okay?
And that's because Democrats obstructed.
But so long as the Democrats keep defending the rights of illegal immigrants... I shouldn't say defending the rights.
They certainly have their rights.
Their human rights should remain intact, and they are protected under the Constitution.
But so long as the Democrats promise things, promise a path to citizenship, promise healthcare, more and more people will come thinking, now is my chance for the American dream.
It's getting worse.
For a while, it was some Central American countries.
Now it's spreading as far as Ecuador and even Africa.
People in Africa who can fly to Ecuador are not so poor that they're in that need of, you know, they're in that desperate, uh, they're not desperate.
Listen.
If you have thousands of dollars to buy a plane ticket to fly across the world, I'm pretty sure things aren't that bad.
How long would it take even an American to save up the $2,000 you would need for a trip like this, or the $3,000 you would need for a trip like this?
A minimum wage worker is not going to be able to save up that money, so how do they do it?
It's because America is better than where they are, they do save it up over time, and then they decide to come here to improve their condition.
Let's read on.
They say as more Africans learn from relatives and friends who've made the trip that crossing Latin America to the United States is tough but not impossible, more are making the journey and in turn are helping others in their footsteps.
Experts say this is from Reuters.
Reuters is not partisan.
They're saying straight up.
That when people come through this journey and they make it, it encourages more people to come.
The crisis will only get worse.
They say Trump's threats to clamp down on migrants have ricocheted around the globe, paradoxically spurring some to exploit what they see as a narrowing window of opportunity, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.
This message is being heard not just in Central America, but in other parts of the world.
Data from Mexico's Interior Ministry suggests that migration from Africa this year will break records.
So you know what?
I'm not going to blame Trump for being strict, but they bring up a good point.
Right now it is believed you can make it.
Trump is saying he's going to crack down and shut it down.
So now people are rushing full speed to come here.
I don't think that's Trump's fault.
Trump needs to say he's going to do it, right?
What is happening is that Democrats are pushing back against him.
And thus, people are thinking, you've got, imagine this, it's like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or whatever, whichever movie, where the thing is closing, and Indiana slides underneath and grabs his hat.
But now imagine, actually there's probably better movies for analogies, the wall comes down and someone grabs it and they're holding it saying, hurry, hurry, it's gonna close!
That person holding it is the Democrats.
Trump is closing the door, and they're running as fast as they can to get here, and the Democrats are trying to hold it open so they can get in.
When people hear there's someone holding the door, they run full speed, and look how it's spreading!
Look, man, I believe all of these people have a right to come to the U.S.
legally.
Legally is the answer.
No matter where you're from, fill out the forms and do what it takes.
My understanding is we don't even have a meritocracy-based system, and the Democrats have said that is unfair and racist.
Other countries do.
So you have to apply, and it can take a long time.
But I'll tell you what, man, I have worked with people who are migrants from Nigeria.
Okay?
I worked for American Airlines, and there are people from all parts of the world who migrated here legally, and they were proud to have done so, and they were legal residents, some had become citizens.
It's not impossible.
You can do it.
You can.
But the legal process is there to protect everybody, and make sure the American Dream can persist.
These people who are coming right now in response to what's happening in our press, and in our politics, are exploiting the system, taking advantage of it, they're displacing people who actually want to come here legally, and they're displacing true asylum seekers.
They know.
They can come and claim asylum and they will be able to stay in.
One thing Trump has done to curb this is the migration protection policies which says if you come If you're coming to claim asylum, but not from a country that borders the U.S., they can place you back in the other country.
So typically, the policy refers to Central American countries coming through Mexico.
Trump says, okay, wait in Mexico, remain in Mexico policy.
The same is true, I don't know if this applies to Africans, but I want to stress this.
We'll wrap up on this story.
I'll read the end.
But you have to realize, people who are flying across the Atlantic Ocean to try and come here, are not seeking asylum.
If you fly from Africa to South America, you are not in danger anymore.
The left then claims, but those countries are still dangerous.
Okay, great.
What's your answer?
Literally everyone from Colombia can come to America?
It doesn't make sense.
If Honduras is dangerous in general, then aren't you arguing for literally every person in Honduras to come here?
It doesn't make sense.
The story ends by saying, To lessen the load on Mexico, Mexico and the U.S.
plan to put pressure on Central American nations to do more to prevent asylum seekers, including African migrants, from moving north.
For the moment, however, more Africans can be expected to attempt the journey, and the journey is dangerous.
They want to do something with their life.
They feel they lack a future in their country.
The journey is dangerous, and people will lose their lives.
So something has to be done.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment tomorrow at 10.30am.
The podcast will be every day at around 6.30pm on all podcast platforms.
