Leftist Media Think They Exposed Trump But STILL Get played For Fools
Vox's Ezra Klein Basically Confirms Trump Is Playing "4D Chess" After MAJOR Media Manipulation. In an article for the Vox, Ezra Klein writes that Trump's tweets are meant to force the Democrats to prop up Ocasio-Cortez and the other far left Democrats in order to make all the Democrats look like far left socialists.Many people on the right and in the center agree, this was a Trumpian "4D Chess" move. A recent poll from Axios shows that most people detest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez so Trump wants to make sure she remains the center of attention.Trump effectively got Nancy Pelosi to reverse course and give AOC and others a massive platform.But the truth goes one step beyond this. Although its funny to think Trump is playing "4D Chess" the idea is just a silly meme. Then you realize what Trump actually did. For the past several years the Republican President has been able to trick the media into covering his tweets instead of real breaking news.This time Trump pulled off a major "two birds with one stone" while tricking everyone not once, but actually twice.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There's been an ongoing flame war between Donald Trump and the far-left progressive Democrats.
Initially, Nancy Pelosi started slamming Ocasio-Cortez and the other far-left Democrats, saying, don't tweet and things like that, because it was making them look bad.
And it kind of did.
Pelosi slammed them, saying all they have is their Twitter following, and in the end, they only get four votes.
Donald Trump chimes in with this tweet, saying they should go back to their countries, you know, fix the problems they have there, then come back and tell us what worked.
And all of a sudden, viral hashtags, people are calling the president racist, and then Nancy Pelosi comes out in defense of the far left.
Now, my initial reaction was, oh my god, Trump, you couldn't just let the Democrats tear each other apart?
But this was, in my opinion, on purpose.
I believe now we can safely say it is a majority opinion, dare I say it, a near confirmation of Trump playing 4D chess.
For those that aren't familiar, the concept of 4D chess, it's a meme that means Trump is doing these things for a reason.
He's not simply an idiot tweeting idiotic things.
There is an end goal.
Now I fell for it.
The first thing I did was I tweeted out condemnation of Trump's tweet saying, oh my god, Trump, what are you doing?
This is a stupid tweet, etc.
Not realizing the long con.
But don't take my word for it.
The update we have now is that Vox.com, Ezra Klein, the founder, prominent leftist, agrees with this story.
Trump versus the squad.
But here's the best part.
Now, Ezra Klein has written up this big narrative saying this is why Trump is tweeting these things.
He is forcing the Democrats to prop up these women front and center because a poll recently showed that swing voters do not like them.
He wants to make sure the Democrats put them on a pedestal, but I will tell you this now.
There's more to the 4D chess.
So here's the thing.
It's 4D chess because it's one dimension above, right?
You've got like multiple layers.
But here's the thing.
Ezra Klein still can't see what's happening.
You might think Trump was intending to force the Democrats to prop up the far left to make them look bad.
But I assure you, I will show you evidence to suggest Trump is even playing a longer con here that I find rather shocking.
And I've already showed you what that long con is.
I kid you not.
It's going to be a great bit of suspense because I will reveal to you how you have overlooked the real issue that Trump, what Trump is actually doing.
It's already in this video.
When you, when you see it later on, you are going to go, oh my God, Trump, he has played these people like a fool.
Even Ezra Klein, who thinks he can see what Trump is doing, has been played for a fool.
So let's read a little bit about what Ezra Klein has to say.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course the best thing you can do, share this video because YouTube is deranking independent commentary and I rely on you to get the message out if you think my content is worth being heard.
Let's see what Ezra Klein writes.
He says, Trump versus the squad.
Trump reunited the Democrats to further his narrative.
Over the past few days, Trump waded into the spat between Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib.
The squad.
The fight between the Democratic leadership and the group of progressives was getting out of hand with accusations of racism and increasing inflammatory sniping from anonymous aides.
Trump, in a blaze of tweets, neatly united the Democrats at a moment when their divisions threatened to deepen its schisms.
Now, instead of fighting with each other, House Democrats are voting to censure the president for racist remarks.
Perhaps Pelosi owes him a gift basket.
But wait!
They write, Ezra writes, in unifying House Democrats against him, Trump unified them around the squad and raised their profile.
The four women are getting even more coverage this week than they were last week.
Exactly what Pelosi was trying to avoid and exactly what conservative media has been trying to achieve.
Ezra Klein coming out with the 4D chess confirmation.
They were trying to stop AOC from tweeting and being front and center.
And Trump just forced them to prop them up.
Now when I heard that, I realized I was wrong.
And I made a video the other day, Trump played the media like a fiddle.
But I assure you, there is more to this story.
Trump is even one step ahead of this narrative.
I kid you not, when I started reading this story, okay?
True, this is legit.
I immediately sat back when I realized what he was doing and I just went, oh my god.
And I got up and I ran into the other room and I immediately started talking to other people like, look at this.
And they all just started laughing.
Ezra Klein thinks he's uncovered the true motive behind Trump's tweets.
But he hasn't.
Trump has even played Ezra Klein for a fool.
I said that, but let's read because I know you're all just waiting to figure out what he did.
Those on the podcast, I'm sorry.
You can't see what's happening.
But for those that are watching this video, I will stress, I have already showed you the trick that Trump has successfully pulled off.
And you are going to see it.
And when you do, my god, the suspense.
I hope you're sitting in suspense right now.
Let's read.
Because the context really is important, I apologize.
But I have to give you the context before I reveal Trump's true motive.
At least my opinion of his true motive.
Ezra writes, There are two ways of thinking about this outcome.
One cuts American politics into the traditional Republican-Democrat divide.
In this telling, Pelosi and the Democrats are Trump's foremost antagonists.
And in bridging their divides, he weakened himself.
The other views American politics through the lens of demographic change and the white identity politics it triggers.
In this view, by uniting Democrats in defense of the Squad and against his racist attacks, Trump rescued a narrative crucial to his political appeal and the reactionary politics he represents.
He says, let's back up.
The controversy started with a series of calculated comments by Pelosi.
We know this.
I kind of brought it up already.
Trump then unifies them.
We get it.
But check this out.
He says that in February, Media Matters analyzed Fox News coverage and found that Ocasio-Cortez, then a brand new member of the House, received four times the mentions of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a separate study.
They found Fox News mentioned AOC more than 3,000 times in a six-week span.
Watch this supercut.
It's dizzying.
Now let me chime in on this.
My initial reaction to AOC's win was positive.
I praised her.
The video still exists on my second channel.
She has gone on to show herself to be narcissistic, egotistical, and just downright mean and a gaffe queen.
So I have criticized her.
But I want to stress, while you can point out, it is true.
AOC derangement syndrome does exist.
Okay?
There are people who will criticize her even for the good things.
So I have praised AOC for wanting to end private prisons.
Completely agree.
I praised her when she said she would team up with Ted Cruz to end the lobbying pipeline.
So credit where credit is due.
I don't criticize or hate people.
Well, I don't really hate a lot of people.
But I don't criticize people for the sake of criticizing them.
I do it when they're worth being criticized and I will praise them if they do it right.
That includes Trump.
That includes AOC.
But yes, many outlets are just always outraged by her.
But I want to make sure I stress, it's not Fox News.
Look at all media.
Everyone was talking about her.
So it's not like conservatives immediately latched onto her to try and smear the Democrats.
That's what Ezra is kind of trying to imply.
I don't know, maybe he outright says it.
But what was happening is, the media was propping her up, so there was a response from the right to tear her down.
That's just how the media works.
The same is true for Trump.
Let's read on.
There's a reason conservative media focuses relentlessly on AOC, and to a lesser but still disproportionate extent, Tlaib and Omar.
Vilifying non-white female members of Congress electrifies their audience is a way that vilifying, say, Rep.
Richard Neal, the powerful but bland chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, does not.
The strategy of Fox News and much of the conservative media is to activate white threat in a browning America.
That is conspiracy theory nonsense from left-wing editarians who can only see race.
Plain and simple.
Because when you realize there are very prominent non-white conservatives who say the same things like Candace Owens, you realize the narrative doesn't quite make sense.
But of course, they will call Candace a grifter, and to a certain extent she is worthy of criticism.
I totally disagree with her flag-burning stance.
But you have to understand, there are gay, black, non-white, minority, Asian, conservatives.
It is not just a bunch of white people.
It is a lot of white people, don't get me wrong.
But it's not all white people.
So the narrative doesn't make sense.
Why is it that a conservative, non-white individual will criticize AOC then?
If you think it's about white identity politics in a browning America, that makes no sense.
But we've heard the identitarian narrative from people like Ezra and his ilk that it's internalized racism and misogyny and whatever nonsense.
Well, I disagree.
I think it's much more simpler than that.
We don't need conspiracies, Ezra.
We don't need you to create a conspiracy theory about the- the white lash and the fear from white people.
I certainly understand.
That exists.
The alt-right is a thing.
But the reality is much simpler.
When- when Pete- was it Time Magazine puts AOC on the cover?
Then people are gonna challenge the idea that she's some perfect candidate because she's a gaffe queen!
First of all, I qualify as non-white, and I will criticize her, so no, I have no concern about the expansion of mixed race mixing in this country.
In fact, I enjoy it.
I'm very proud of my mixed race family and what they fought for in this country.
So let me just push back on your conspiracy theory for a moment and point out there is real principled opposition to what these people are doing.
Ocasio-Cortez is a gaffe queen who claims things like a $21 trillion accounting error could pave 60% of healthcare that makes no sense.
She chased away, or at least helped to, led the charge in many respects, to end Amazon coming into New York, something that even de Blasio wanted.
So yes, there is real reasons to criticize her outside of this idea that she's a Latina.
That's absurd.
I certainly don't care.
I grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood to a mixed-race family.
Don't discredit my concerns over her nonsense.
And absolutely, I opened this video by mentioning I criticized Trump from the get-go.
Please, take your conspiracies elsewhere and get to the heart of the argument.
Here it is.
Let's jump to the heart of his argument.
He says, This is the context not just for Pelosi's comments, but for the weird poll that Democratic officials apparently leaked to Axios to emphasize the damage Ocasio-Cortez was supposedly doing to the party.
The poll was of non-college-educated white men, and the post-publication controversy has swirled around whether it's appropriate to call this group, which went heavily for Trump, swing voters.
But more telling was the framing of the poll by whoever leaked it.
The Axios headline read, Even though the results didn't include any data to that effect, what the poll did show was that 74% of the respondents knew of AOC, and 53% knew of Omar.
How many other House Democrats have that kind of name recognition?
And that's it.
Ezra Klein ends there without giving you the full context of why Trump is doing this.
He says, if all voters hear about his AOC, it could put the House majority at risk.
An anonymous top Democrat told Axios, she's getting all the news and defining everyone else's races.
Ezra Klein conveniently left out half of that poll.
I kid you not.
He actually had to snip the end of one poll and then duct tape two together to give you this point.
All it shows is people know who they are.
That's not true.
I have the poll right here.
You wanna know what it does show?
It shows that while 74% of people recognize AOC, only 22% have a favorable view.
of people recognize AOC, only 22% have a favorable view.
And while 53% recognize Omar, only 9%, not a typo they write, had a favorable view. Why, Ezra
Klein, did you omit the second half of the data point?
He didn't...
Axios didn't quantify this by recognition.
They literally quantified the AOC point by recognition to favorability for both candidates.
But of course, Ezra Klein didn't include that.
He also didn't include socialism is toxic to these voters.
So why did Trump just force the Democrats to prop up in a press conference these women?
Because he wants to make sure that's what America sees, so they reject it.
Now I want to do something special.
I want to reveal to you, now that you have the full context, what I believe to be the true intentions of what may be second-level fourth-dimensional chess.
While it's true, Trump's tweets did put the media back on track to criticize him, put him in the spotlight, while making these foreign THE Democrats.
Like Ezra Klein contends.
I showed you something in the beginning of this video, which I believe is the true, true reason that Trump tweeted.
Now, it's two birds with one stone.
But let's go back to the homepage.
And I want to ask you now, for those of the podcast, you can't see this, so I apologize.
But for those on YouTube, take a look at this front page.
And do you notice something?
First, what's front and center as Vox's top story?
The biggest image you can see is the squad, the progressive Democrats, for one, doing exactly what Trump wanted based on Ezra Klein's own opinion.
But now take a look at the bottom left of the screen, right next to my beautiful face.
The Trump administration is dramatically restricting who can seek asylum.
The new regulation will force those traveling to the U.S.
southern border to seek asylum protections in another country first, though the rule is likely to be quickly challenged in court.
And there it is.
Two birds with one stone.
Vox was played for a fool.
They are here talking about a flame war.
Why should anyone care that Trump and these four women are bickering at each other on the internet when Trump just instituted a policy that will end asylum for Central American migrants and many others.
Basically every country that would have to pass through another country to come here.
Let's say you're an African migrant.
You gotta fly to London.
Or Spain before you can fly to New York?
Ah, you stopped in a third country, no asylum for you.
Trump has done this repeatedly.
They know he does this.
So let me say this.
First, we have Ezra Klein saying straight up, Trump is playing a game here.
He's trying to force people to look at these women.
And then not only does Ezra Klein on Vox put this big old photo of the squad doing exactly what he claims Trump wanted, I think we can see the true motive.
He then relegates the true, big, major breaking news story to the bottom left section.
At least it made the front page.
On other sites, it didn't.
Berlian was talking about it, and I was shocked.
This is a huge story.
Trump just said no to asylum to all of these migrant caravans.
Why isn't this front and center?
They want to call Trump a racist?
Fine, bring up the asylum story, right?
Nope.
It doesn't happen.
Why?
Because Trump has gone through a string of tweets.
Now, here's the thing.
Here's why I believe we can see Trump's true second-degree four-dimensional chess beyond what Ezra Klein says.
If Trump wanted to make sure that all we did was see these four women, he'd need but one tweet.
In that one tweet about these women going back to their countries, even though they're all American citizens, Just with that alone, he shifted the narrative.
Why is it then that Trump keeps tweeting, so sad to see Democrats sticking up for these people.
So this is funny.
Watch, watch, watch.
Donald Trump tweets on the 14th.
So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our country.
You know, calling Nancy Pelosi racist, etc.
This was him seemingly into the narrative of propping up AOC and others.
Then Trump tweets this.
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four progressives, but now they are forced to embrace them.
That means they are endorsing socialism, hate of Israel and the USA, not good for Democrats.
When I saw this the other day, I went, wait a minute.
Trump wouldn't just come out and reveal his trick.
That makes no sense unless it wasn't Trump's trick.
Now again, the only reason I'm saying this is likely, my opinion, is because Ezra Klein himself has stepped up and said Trump did this on purpose.
But when I saw this tweet, it made me think Trump is trying to make sure this is the narrative.
He wants the narrative to be this.
Why?
Why is he tweeting over and over again, over several days, even today?
Look, he says the Democratic congressmen have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician today, this morning.
Trump won't stop tweeting about it.
He's already gotten them to circle the wagons around the far left.
The administration is seeking to end asylum for Central Americans and many other migrants that would pass through a third country.
I covered this story on my channel because I'm not insane.
I saw this story and said, this is possibly the biggest story.
Where was Vox?
Oh, don't worry.
They got a little blurb here on the bottom left.
My God.
This is the tweet.
Trump is coming out and saying he's doing this on purpose, and that got Ezra Klein to then write the story about it, saying, aha, there it is, Trump confirmed it.
I believe even Scott Adams tweeted to checkmate in response to this tweet from Trump.
But it made me think, why would Trump then say he's doing it?
And I started thinking this, maybe he wasn't really trying to do it.
Maybe he just made a dumb tweet, and this was him trying to save face.
But then I thought about this.
He needed only the one tweet to accomplish that goal.
So he's tweeting over a longer period of time because he's doing, I mentioned this yesterday on my other channel, he's dangling his hand over here with these silly tweets and the media is obsessed and over here he's signing legislation to say no asylum for those from Central America.
It's allowing him to pass as much, to get as much time passed in this new cycle so that eventually people will completely forget he just made this change.
When Trump Did the moratorium on travel from the Seven Nations.
There was a wave of protesters.
ACLU came out, and with all of the media attention, he was challenged relentlessly.
By doing what he's doing now with this string of tweets, he has effectively distracted everyone.
And did Nancy Pelosi come out and say, we will seek to stop this?
Well, perhaps.
I don't want to act like she didn't, but I can say this.
The narrative isn't there.
The story we're seeing is that Nancy Pelosi wants to censure Donald Trump and condemn his xenophobic tweets.
Trump has done it again.
He does it all the time!
It's mind-blowing to me that he does this so much, and they just don't see it.
And now we have it front and center.
Vox.com.
Big ol' story right here.
Look at this!
Look how big, just...
And in their little bottom corner, the real policy move.
The real change to this country.
The real change to the border debate.
And they don't care.
Now here's what I said in my video yesterday.
I know this is a bit derivative of the video I did yesterday, as Trump played the media like a fiddle.
But I feel like this is a bit of the confirmation, seeing that even Vox has relegated this massive, major breaking story to the bottom little left blurb.
I mean, again, it is the front page, so I'll take it.
It's better than nothing.
But look what they're talking about.
Trump's done it.
He's convinced them to cover some nonsense that has zero impact on this nation's policies.
They're gonna condemn him for saying mean words, and they're gonna call him a mean word back.
But you know what I think this reveals?
As I stated in my video yesterday, Vox, the Democrats, they don't care about refugees or asylum.
They care about a narrative that gets them elected.
Trump gave it to them.
Trump gave them what they needed to say, we're not the bigots, he is.
He knew exactly what they wanted, he fed it to him, and it allowed him to make a real policy change.
So here's what I'll say.
Ezra Klein believes Trump's tweets were strategic.
Period.
But I think he fails to realize why, like what the true goal was.
So the final thought to reiterate.
This string of tweets over the past several days continually keeps the media distracted and gets the House Democrats to then challenge Trump and ignore this major policy change.
Is Trump playing 4D chess?
Well, I certainly still don't want to say yes.
I'm being a bit facetious when I say confirmed.
But I gotta admit, when even Ezra Klein claims that his initial tweets were meant to distract and to rally support for the squad, that on its own shows that Trump is being strategic, and even Ezra Klein, and the left thinks he's doing it on purpose.
I mentioned before, David Pakman even said, don't take the bait.
He's trying to distract you.
And they did.
And they will.
Because again, final thought, they don't care about anything other than what's the most valuable, like, thing to latch on to.
They could come out and say Donald Trump changing the asylum rules is xenophobic and racist, but guess what's more important?
Trump saying a naughty word.
Think about it.
They could just as easily say everything they're saying about his asylum change.
But they don't.
Because they'd rather just hop on their high horse.
The far-left Democrats love the press.
They love the attention.
They're narcissistic egotists, and they love it.
So they'll take it.
They would rather the story be about them than the migrants.
And don't you forget it.
And that should be your final takeaway.
Stick around.
Next segments will be coming up YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
for those in the podcast.
The order is a little different.
But let me know what you think in the comments below or leave a review and I will see you all in the next story.
I don't know what form it will take.
I've been saying this for the past couple years that I believe we will see some kind of civil conflict.
Now I've had the conversation over and over again about a second civil war.
The reason I don't like that phrasing is that many people will then get this vision of two sides marching towards each other in like clearly defined lines.
So what I've said is, I think we can expect, like, insurgency.
Mostly from the far left.
Now we've seen sporadic fringe, far right, whatever you want to call it, violence.
And I say far right in reference to traditionalism, people who are like, die hard, the world must be this way, etc, etc.
But in terms of an actual civil conflict, we need organization.
So fringe wackos doing fringe wacko things doesn't really... I don't know.
It doesn't... I'm not going to predict any kind of civil conflict because one person did something nuts.
With this story about Willem van Spronsen, though, we can see the organizational or ideological support.
First, from Sean King.
In what may be one of the most disgusting, dangerous, and irresponsible posts anyone can make, but you know what?
I don't think he cares.
Nor does Twitter.
He's made numerous posts now, supporting overt acts of terror, violence, extreme violence, and Twitter has not taken his posts down.
Why?
One of his posts is from weeks ago!
So first, let's take a look at what Sean King said.
Now, we're going to talk about the potential for civil conflict.
Now, I don't have the tab pulled up, but head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a bunch of ways you can do it.
More importantly, share this video if you think it's important because YouTube probably will not.
They've changed the way they share content and, you know, I gotta say, maybe it's kind of a good thing.
They're trying to, you know, ratchet down the I don't know, these kinds of conversations.
Perhaps it's all a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Twitter, Facebook, they're not doing it.
They're making things worse.
Okay, so here's what's happening.
Sean King tweets that... I'm not gonna read it.
I'm not gonna read what he says.
I'm gonna paraphrase it.
He calls William Vance Bronson the first martyr, saying he was attempting to liberate imprisoned refugees.
That's a lie.
These people are not refugees.
There is a distinction between economic migrants and refugees.
Not to say that any of them should be in prison.
That's not the point.
The point is, he is manipulating people.
He is a sick, twisted individual.
This is one of the most terrifying things I've seen.
Sean King has 1.1 million followers, and he is driving people into madness.
He says his hero is John Brown, the white abolitionist who led the raids on Harper's Ferry in 1859.
This is what our country has come to.
He goes on to say, presenting the final letter from William Vance Bronson, who, keep in mind, was a terrorist who threw firebombs at a federal facility.
And listen, if you want to have an argument about the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, we can argue all day and night.
We can talk about the philosophy of one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Fine.
This is different.
This man was throwing firebombs at a facility holding migrants, meaning he was going to burn down the building containing the people he claims to want to save.
That is not freedom fighting.
Freedom fighting would be showing up in the middle of the night with bolt cutters and trying to break in, not burning it down and killing everyone inside.
But of course, Sean King won't tell you that.
He says he was shot and killed by law enforcement as he attempted to attack a for-profit refugee detention center.
Refugee.
They don't understand the distinction between those who come here seeking jobs and those who are truly refugees.
Those who are seeking, you know, who are fleeing violence.
There's no reason you can't make a life for yourself anywhere else.
But if you have someone threatening you, sure, you're a refugee.
The U.S.
is not systematically detaining refugees.
He says it's a beautiful, painful, devastating letter.
And then he says that he's not crazy in action is.
Sean King is now saying, not only is this guy not nuts, which he is, he's telling people it would be crazy to do nothing.
He then goes on.
He says this is where Willem was murdered this weekend.
His actions will be called terrorism and people will call him crazy, but neither are true.
His mind was very clear.
No, it wasn't actually.
He lost custody of his child and his friends said he was suicidal.
Sean King is a dangerous sociopath who is trying to inflame tensions to break everything down and get people hurt, including the migrants that are in these facilities.
He says he is now arm-in-arm with John Brown.
These camps must be shut down.
Amazing.
Now, it was, uh... So listen.
These posts are about a day old.
Okay, so maybe Twitter doesn't take them down because they're about a day old, right?
Which means you've got to report them, then Twitter's got to review them, and then take action.
Sure.
Should Twitter take them down?
You know, honestly, it's a tough call because where the line is between inciting violence and advocating overt acts of terrorism versus free speech, no, it really is tough, right?
Is Sean King in his right to cheer on a violent terrorist who tried to kill migrants who are detained in this facility?
Well, I don't know.
And I know there's gonna be people on the left saying, you wasn't trying to kill the migrants.
Listen, You want to talk about hyperbole?
Call it whatever you want.
If you throw firebombs at propane tanks and cars and try to burn down a facility holding migrants, whether you wanted to or not, you did try to kill those migrants.
Okay, so maybe they don't take this post down.
It's only a day old, but there's another post from Sean King.
I've highlighted this before.
From the 29th of June.
So what is that?
18 days ago.
18 days ago.
Let's call it two weeks, because I could be getting my numbers wrong.
Two weeks ago, Sean King called for overt acts of terrorism.
And Twitter did nothing.
So you know what?
I've been saying for years now, we will see some kind of civil conflict.
And guess what?
Look, I'm not making hard predictions.
Okay?
Because you can't.
So I don't want to act like, aha, I predicted everything was correct.
No.
But I've made soft predictions.
Like, when Ocasio-Cortez comes out and says these are concentration camps, they're not.
We would then see some lone, crazy individuals attack them.
We did.
Okay, that's a soft prediction.
I don't know where, when, I'm just saying.
You tell, you cast out to millions of people, this is, you know, World War II Germany, and what do you think they're gonna do?
They're gonna rush out, guns a-blazin', and this guy did.
Now, he could have been, you know, distraught over his kid.
I don't know what his motivations were.
His friends apparently told numerous, uh, uh, the Seattle Times, I believe, that he was, he was suicidal.
Sean King tweeted on the 29th of June, He goes on to say that people should act now by any means necessary.
camps should be liberated. We can't and should not wait until 2020 with the
hopes that we defeat Trump to free these children. He goes on to say that people
should act now by any means necessary. What does that mean any means necessary?
He says that people should liberate them now by any means necessary.
And then someone tried.
Someone took his advice.
And what did Sean King say afterwards?
He said, good for you, good job, you're a hero.
That's what he said.
He praised him.
He called for violence and then praised him.
How is this man still on Twitter?
I ask you.
It's because Twitter is full of it.
I don't care about the argument about bias against conservatives, okay?
You want to ban the Proud Boys because they were fighting in the streets?
Fine, go and do it.
But this is a man with a million followers telling millions of people to go commit terrorism.
That is horrifying.
And it's making people lose their goddamn minds.
And I'll tell you what happens next.
Sean King can put these tweets out, writing a story for The Intercept with nearly 2,000 retweets.
And then someone does it.
Someone in that letter, check it out, in this letter, he mentions concentration camps several times.
That's Ocasio-Cortez's rhetoric.
And she refused to denounce it when confronted.
A reporter confronted her walking through the halls and she said nothing.
Nothing.
Because these people want it.
So here's what we see next.
Malcolm Nance tweets, warning, I have seen a number of Trump supporters openly talking about armed civil war and cleansing of liberals on Twitter.
Report these threats immediately.
Bluster turns into violence.
It's not just talk, it's contemplation.
Malcolm, where were you when Sean King two weeks ago called for violence?
I don't, I'm not going to condone anyone calling for violence.
This guy's got problems too, and he should be reported for sure.
He says, not to worry, the people are waking up, dusting off their guns and preparing to remove the deep state that has overtaken our country.
He goes on to say a revolution is on its way.
The Dems want one and it is on the way.
Okay.
That's not nearly as bad as what Sean King said.
But yes, there are a lot of people on Twitter, left and right, that are ramping up the rhetoric and calls for violence.
And that's what Twitter is.
Twitter is a radicalization machine.
But I'll tell you this.
Malcolm Nance is probably an ally for Sean King.
And he probably agrees with him.
And this is the problem.
You've got people in the center, even moderate liberals, people like where I lean.
And they ask, why is Tim always talking about the left?
Why is he always talking about Ocasio-Cortez?
Well, because a dude just went nuts and attacked a federal facility.
Because when a crazy person does something crazy, everyone condemns them.
Everyone.
When a fringe, far-right, whatever you want to call it, extremist, everyone condemns it.
The media runs non-stop and everyone says, yup, this guy was a monster.
Let it be known.
But what happened when this guy goes out to the ICE facility with firebombs?
Sean King praises him.
The media doesn't even call him a terrorist.
They say a man was shot and killed.
Protesters show up within about a day supporting him.
And where's Malcolm Nance?
Nowhere to be seen.
Because these people like Sean King are so quick to point to the right and shriek Nazi over and over again.
And then when people go out and commit violence, they say, good for you.
That's the problem with the left today.
Okay?
It's not all of the left.
There are certainly individuals that I think are good people.
Big, high-profile personalities.
I'll name them.
Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kalinske, David Pakman.
Great.
Great progressives, people on the left.
Now, they're much more staunch on the left, focused on Trump.
But here's the thing.
They're not going on, you know, Jimmy and Kyle Kalinske and David aren't going on YouTube and shrieking Nazi over and over again.
They're just talking about Trump's policies, foreign policy, and issues like that.
You know, David Pakman has been critical of some intellectual dark web types, but that's really it.
That's great.
Be critical.
Engage in moderate, you know, debate and conversations.
But what about Malcolm Nance?
What about Sean King?
What about CNN?
MSNBC?
When they only talk about one thing.
When they claim that Trump is a leader to these fringe far-right extremists.
He's not.
What happens then?
These people are radicalizing other people.
Check it out.
This is a story I've highlighted before.
Let me zoom in for those that are watching on YouTube.
It's from the University of Missouri.
Moderates are losing their voice.
Twitter is amplifying the fringe far left and right.
But here's the thing.
Twitter bans the fringe far right.
So what we get are conservatives who have no problem condemning violence, moderates who are shut out by both sides, The passive liberals, as defined by Hidden Tribes, nowhere to be seen.
And the fringe far left is free to run about and do their thing.
Think about it.
The Proud Boys got banned just as a blanket ban.
They said, okay, the Proud Boys are gone.
Even if the individual broke the rules or not, they didn't care, they just banned them all.
Sean King is openly advocating for overt acts of terror and praising a terrorist, and Twitter has not banned his account!
You see where this leads.
When you allow the left to do this, I'll tell you what's gonna happen.
We're gonna see insurgency.
We already are, okay?
This guy's showing up.
First, there was a guy trying to bomb a statue.
Now, we got a guy at the federal facility.
I believe it's fair to say there will be more.
There's gonna be some massive event in, I believe, one month from now in Portland.
That may be, potentially, a shot heard around the world.
We have no idea.
It's gonna be a huge confrontation between left and right in, I believe, in Portland.
So, it's hard to know exactly what will happen, but I will say this.
The insurgency is going to waken white working class voters.
They're going to be terrified.
We're seeing stories about the Pledge of Allegiance being banned.
Stories about the American flag being pulled down or placed by a Mexican flag.
We're seeing Sean King go on Twitter and advocate terrorism against federal facilities.
I think Trump is going to win, hands down, 2020.
But here's the other thing.
I was wrong in the 2018 midterms.
I thought, because of all this, we were going to see the Republicans sweep again.
I was like, dare I say it, maybe even a supermajority.
They didn't.
They did take some seats in the Senate, which is more indicative of the presidency than anything.
But here's the crazy news.
The New York Times published data showing that Trump's base mostly didn't vote in the midterms.
What does that mean for the Senate?
It means that in 2020, when Trump's zealous supporters come out to support their president, they will be voting in the Senate.
Well, maybe not the Senate.
Maybe some.
I'm not sure who's running on Senate, what their schedule is.
But Congress.
The New York Times said the Democrats don't have a voter turnout advantage.
They're supposed to.
They won't.
Because white working class voters are expected to turn out in record numbers.
It means the Democrats could lose the House.
It could mean that in 2020, not only does Trump win re-election, but it results in the House, the Senate being firmly in the hands of the Republicans.
Now look, I hate making predictions, but I will say, like, I don't know how you can ban the Pledge of Allegiance and pull down the American flag without scaring Americans into voting for the more nationalist president.
I don't know how you convince the apolitical individuals who don't care for voting that they should vote for Democrats based on Democrats wanting to give illegal immigrants healthcare.
Obama couldn't get universal healthcare done for Americans.
It was too expensive.
Ocasio-Cortez has been criticized because she has no plan to pay for it.
And now the Democrats have skipped over how they pay for Americans' healthcare, straight to give to healthcare to other people?
I gotta say, I do not see how Trump loses.
Economic forecasts, the incumbent advantage, his approval rating, the waking up of white working class voters, according to the New York Times.
But I will say this, I'd be a fool To claim I know it will happen because I was wrong in 2016.
So the data points in one direction.
But again, the data pointed to Hillary winning too, so I have no idea.
But I don't want to make this video half an hour long, so I want to make sure I get to some other stories just very quickly.
This story is from foreignpolicy.com.
2017, March.
This was before Charlottesville.
Will we have a second civil war?
You tell me.
What are the chances of another civil war breaking out in this country in the next 10 to 15 years?
They say that they reached out to some experts.
I asked a group of smart national security thinkers that question the other day over my wild boar burger at Austin's Dai Do.
That sounds pretty good.
Wild boar burger later.
Maybe I'll get that.
Enjoy a nice meal before... When everything goes south, you will not have luxury foods.
You will barely have water.
Let's read on.
I was surprised that the range of answers ran from 5% to 95%.
I would say the consensus was about 35%.
What do you think are the chances?
Please email yada yada yada.
Speaking, uh, then, okay.
Well, so we'll skip over that.
Now we have this story.
From January.
Russian official cancels U.S.
visit saying 2nd American Civil War is underway.
There was a quote, I think I might have it pulled up or something.
That said, the Civil War doesn't start with guns, it ends with guns.
And we are in the Civil War today, and we are seeing the point where guns break out.
So who knows how long it will take, but we've seen people with guns.
Militias are training.
I kid you not.
Militias are training.
We have footage that will be coming out soon on Subverse.
It might be a doc showing the various factions.
But we've got a far left.
We've got guys showing up to ICE facilities with AR-15s, unregistered, ghost AR-15s.
Vox.com, high-profile, NBC-funded, put out a story saying stop making Second Civil War clickbait, but then a couple weeks ago put out a story saying leftists should get guns to defend their communities or something like that.
What do you think comes next?
In this story, From June of last year, almost a third of U.S.
voters think a second civil war is coming soon.
What led them to believe this?
And I think it is the extreme polarization of politics in general.
The Democrats are going far left.
They're rallying around policies Americans can't get behind.
But more importantly, there is a massive and growing racial divide, and that is going to be scary.
It is.
You've got media constantly berating white, you know, talking about white privilege and white people.
You've got the New York Times hiring a woman who posted overtly racist tweets for years and they defended her.
There's a clear double standard.
Racial lines are going to be a huge component in the second civil war, civil conflict, whatever you want to call it.
But back to my... I want to go to my original prediction.
I don't think I got to that point.
I want to make sure I finish this off.
Either we will see an overt right wing vs left wing style insurgency in battles across the country, we've been seeing increasing violence, or we will see the left insurgency A lot of causing Americans to call on the state to protect them, an expansion of federal powers and a massive decrease in civil liberties and a rise in federal and state power, police patrolling streets, etc.
That authority is going to shock people and may lead eventually to the complete and total downfall.
Let me just end with the final thought.
Sean King.
How is he still on Twitter?
I ask this seriously.
They have banned other accounts for glorifying this man.
Why is Sean King still on Twitter?
Twitter is biased.
And I hope, when Twitter, I don't know if Twitter is going before Congress, I don't think they are, but I hope our politicians call them to task and highlight this specifically.
This was an attack on a government facility.
I was reading something recently that said apologies don't work.
When you apologize, it actually fans the flames of anger and outrage.
And that kind of let me down.
I don't know what the data is.
It was something I read in passing.
It may or may not be true.
But it wasn't an opinion piece.
It was like looking at empirical data.
And, um, I don't care if it's true or not, so don't quote me and act like it's real.
Just take it at its opinion value, right?
I believe, anecdotally, from what I've seen, when you apologize for some wrongdoing to the PC outrage mob, you are giving them evidence you did something wrong, and you know it.
They then take it and see, aha!
And they still go after you.
There is no apology, and that is a nightmare.
Okay?
This is a terrible world to live in.
We should be able to live in a world where you can say, hey man, you know, I shouldn't have done that, I feel bad, and I'm sorry.
And then people should say, hey, spot on, because you apologized, we can move on.
It doesn't work that way.
What we actually get is, oh, so you admit it!
And then they come after you even harder and say, your apology is meaningless!
Or they'll call the apology fate.
It was recently that Scarlett Johansson claimed she could play anyone she wanted.
She's an actor, and actors pretend to be other people.
If she wants to play a dude, she can play a dude.
If they want to cast her in the role of an Asian woman, I really don't care.
The same is true for the other way around.
You want to have a black actress play Ariel?
It's the last thing I care about.
I'm more concerned about, are you going to change the story and make it better?
Look, let me say this about Aladdin.
They made several changes to Aladdin that made it not as fun.
I didn't like it.
It was alright.
It wasn't that good.
So that's what I'm concerned about.
The last thing I care about is the race of the actor.
You know, Robin Williams was a white guy and Will Smith is a black guy.
Are we gonna get upset about the genie?
No, I guess the genie's blue, so it doesn't count.
But no, I mean, who cares?
Seriously.
If you want to, whatever.
Well, Scarlett Johansson lost a movie role because she was going to play a trans man.
She then comes out and says, I can play whoever I want.
She gets torn to shreds.
And then she apologizes.
Why haven't these people learned?
The apologies do nothing.
They do nothing.
Now we have this story from the Daily Wire.
ScarJo lands in hot water with the PC crowd.
The most important bit from this article, I believe it's from Michael Knowles, is that Twitter is not real.
And for some reason, the left doesn't get it.
That's where they live, on Twitter.
Well, I have friends who are on the left who don't pay attention to Twitter for the most part.
They're on Instagram.
Most people, like Instagram is the more preferred network.
Let's read the story.
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, the best thing you can do is just share this video to help spread the word because I rely on you guys if people are going to find out YouTube is deranking us, etc.
Let's read.
Knowles, I believe it's Michael Knowles, writes Scarlett Johansson is in hot water because she suggested that actors can pretend to be other people.
And this is now politically incorrect.
Actors, the people who pretend to be other people, they can't do that anymore.
She said, you know, as an actor, I should be allowed to play any person or any tree or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job.
She said this quote to As If magazine, and this is obviously true.
And I want to add a quick side note, because if you've been following the story, they're now claiming that people are upset over Ariel being played by a black woman, but literally no one cares, okay?
Okay, I meant that figuratively.
Like, most people don't care.
Conservatives don't care, moderates don't care, liberals don't care, but the far left is going, Take that, bigots!
And everyone's like, no, nobody cares, man.
Like, dude, mermaids aren't real, they're fish.
My favorite takeaway from this, though, is...
I apologize, because I can't remember who tweeted this, but it was hilarious.
They said what everyone is missing in the Ariel debate is that she would be pale on the front and dark on the back to protect her from predators.
Because that's what fish are colored like, because that's... it's funny, right?
Because, you know, when you look up at the sun and it's a camouflage kind of thing.
Anyway, I don't know.
I think it was hilarious.
But yeah, nobody cared.
We keep getting this fake outrage.
It's this really weird bubble of, in my opinion, it's a form of...
It is a psychosis.
It's a delusional state brought on by being surrounded by, I guess, mirrors.
So you can't see out of the room.
Actually, this is a really good analogy.
The left are in a hall of mirrors where they can only see each other.
And so here's what happens.
Somebody says, hey, did you hear that conservatives are mad about X?
And they go, haha!
And they'll start laughing about it to each other.
Jack Dorsey pointed this out, that liberal journalists were only following liberals, and conservative journalists follow both.
There's actually data from Gallup, I believe, that shows conservatives get 60%, 65% of their news from conservative sites, but around 30 to 35 from liberal sites, whereas liberals get like 95% of their news from liberal sites.
So they're in a hall of mirrors where they can't see anything outside of it.
Guess what?
Nobody cared.
But I'll tell you this, the puppet masters, the people on top who know this, keep sprinkling in these fake stories of racist outrage, and they all start high-fiving each other.
Meanwhile, everyone outside of that bubble is like, dude, I have no idea what they're talking about.
Quite literally, no one cares.
In fact, people are advocating for the right for people to play anything they want.
Well, let's get to the point where Scarlett Johansson reaps the benefits of an apology.
So, uh, here we go.
What did Scarlett Johansson do?
She apologized.
It was this totally perfunctory apology.
She goes, I recognize that in reality, there is a widespread discrepancy among my industry
that favors Caucasian cisgendered actors, and that not every actor has been given the
Did you guys watch Family Guy?
been privileged to. I continue to support and always have diversity in every industry,
and we'll continue to fight for projects where everyone is included. Beep boop beep boop."
Okay, I don't, she didn't really add, she didn't say that.
Did I say the current daily politically correct slogan? I know it'll change tomorrow,
but did I get it right today? Please don't ruin my career.
She may as well have said that last part.
You guys watch Family Guy? There was an episode where Brian, the dog, writes a self-help book
called Wish It, Want It, Do It. And it's kind of funny considering Seth MacFarlane recently came
out begging the Democrats to get together, like to unify because they're fighting. But anyway,
Brian Griffin writes a self-help book. In it, it's just like a bunch of jargon and mumbo jumbo,
and it's got a bunch of blank pages. And as he's writing it, him and Stewie are making fun of the
idiots who would buy it. So the book sells really well, and he gets invited onto the real time with
This is fiction by the way, I'm just pointing out like a funny story, a funny, you know, side story.
In it, He's being made fun of by Ariana Huffington and Bill Maher.
They're like, this is drivel.
It's manipulative.
And then finally Brian breaks down and goes, just tell me what you want me to say.
I'm such a huge fan.
I'll say whatever you want.
And that's what I hear whenever I hear an apology.
Please, I'm so sorry.
I have no idea what I did.
Why was it offensive?
I honestly don't know.
You were just talking about how we should have a black 007.
And so I said, okay, can I do that?
And then you were like, no, you're white.
And then all of a sudden now everything's offensive.
What do I do?
Please tell me.
And welcome to 2019.
That's why apologies make no sense.
Listen.
Uh, Lashana Lynch, I think her name is, is set to take the mantle of 007.
She won't be James Bond, that's my understanding.
And I did talk about this in the other episode, other, other segment.
And we have the, the, you know, activist for social justice saying like, woohoo, yeah, you know, black woman playing 007.
And I'm kind of like, oh, that's a, that's a cool way to, to, to transfer the title.
Like they're going to do a new character.
I honestly don't care if it's a black woman.
Like that's a, cool.
Is the story going to be good?
Is, Lashana Lynch was pretty good in Captain Marvel.
I got to admit, not a big fan of Captain Marvel as it was, but I thought she did a really great job.
So I'm interested, right?
So, they simultaneously say that's a good thing, but that Scarlett Johansson can't play someone else.
The only thing they're actually saying.
They are hiding their beliefs behind this idea of equality.
They don't care about equality, they care about power.
That's the thing.
It doesn't matter that Scarlett Johansson is, you know, a white woman.
It doesn't matter.
Like, listen, she's a female, right?
Couldn't you argue that it's sexist to tell her she can't play another character?
Oh, you're trying to hold a woman back?
No, she's super powerful and wealthy, and she's white.
Therefore, they say, you are not entitled.
They pretend there's principles behind what they're saying.
They say it's like, it's about, you know, power plus privilege, and they act like there's a structure behind social justice, but there isn't.
It is chaotic.
I don't want to say it's chaotic evil.
Okay, but some of it is.
Actually, you know what?
I'm gonna go there.
It is chaotic evil.
There's no rules.
It's just strictly about taking people down for self-gratification.
It is to get people to feel pain, no matter who they are.
They don't care what you believe.
They don't care if you're a good person.
They don't care what you've done.
And it reminds me of...
It's not all chaotic evil, okay?
But it also reminds me of something I brought this up recently too in Game of Thrones.
When, um, what's her face?
Daenerys?
She goes to the city where there's slavery and she executes all the nobles.
And then some guy comes in and he was like, but my father was fighting to end slavery and you killed him.
He was a good guy who agreed with you.
Why would you do that?
And that's what you get.
When you don't act on principle, you act on feelings and say, I just want it to be this way.
I feel this way.
Well then, you get unjust and asymmetrical enforcement.
None of it makes sense, and apologies won't work.
So let's read a little bit more.
Michael says, I'll give you just a little bit of insider information.
In a previous life, I was an actor, classically trained.
Worked professionally as an actor.
One thing I learned, actors pretend to be other people.
It's not real, and what actors do is they create characters.
All right, we get it.
You're an actor.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
The point is, there are articles popping up right now.
There are tweets from people saying, oh, she's apologizing now.
Cry me a river.
She's, you know, she takes away roles from Asian women and trans women.
She is no one, you know, blah, blah, blah.
It didn't matter.
The apology doesn't matter.
Listen, Craig Newmark, all right, the founder of Craigslist.
I want to pop over real quick.
I didn't think I could do like a full segment on this, but Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist,
he said, Outrage is profitable.
Most online outrage is fake for profit.
That's why apologies don't work.
They're not supposed to work.
They're not really angry at you.
They just pretend to be.
I guess I am.
I am partially outraged by the outrage, right?
So, you know, I'll put it this way.
I'm not like I'm not super angry about what they do, but here's the reality.
Do they really care that Scarlett Johansson was doing this?
They don't.
They don't.
That's why when she apologizes, they don't back down.
The outrage is intended to generate clicks, traffic, and make money for these people, and build followings for these people, and we all know it.
It's really difficult, then, because calling out the outrage is outrage in itself.
So, hey look, I'll be the first to acknowledge my role in the outrage cycle, but I will say this.
I sincerely find it disconcerting that people are pretending to be outraged on the internet for brownie points.
I am not pretending.
This culture, cancel culture, is destroying society.
It's making the Democrats go insane.
It is just complete insanity.
So, um...
I will add one more thing to this just because I don't think I'm going to do a full segment on this story from The Guardian, but when they're talking to Craig Newmark and they ask him about what he means by outrage culture, they ask him about Fox News and he refuses to give an affirmative response because the reality is The Guardian does it all the time.
Fox News does it sometimes.
The Guardian does it sometimes.
CNN does it sometimes.
Everybody is doing it because they're all being lit on fire and collapsing.
And there you go, right?
It's just people pretending to be angry.
So I'll tell you this.
Finally, one last thought.
When you apologize, they will not accept your apology.
Because being outraged is what gets them clicks.
So no matter what you do, they must remain outraged.
You apologize?
Oh, that's a fake apology!
Now you're insulting us to make- Oh, there's nothing you can do.
They will always be angry.
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
To a certain extent, Twitter and Facebook are worse because of the instant share feature.
Nightmarish, nightmarish, just awful places.
I don't know what you do about it, but stick around.
I got another video coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m.
And we're going to talk about the outrage machine and how it displaces real news and real policy.
Welcome to politics in 2019.
Where Donald Trump can obfuscate his actions by saying naughty words on Twitter, and instead of covering the news, they will say, Trump said mean things, let's not talk about policy, let's talk about mean things.
And if you're listening on the podcast, you heard it already, so it's a different story coming up.
I will see you there.
Free speech activist Lindsey Shepard has been permanently banned from Twitter because she disparaged a trans person after being disparaged.
So let me just not bury the lead.
The story here is that Lindsey Shepard was being harassed by a trans person, so she harassed back and got banned for it.
The reason I did the air quotes for those that are watching is because it was just bickering online.
It's what we hear, you know, we see all the time.
Someone insults someone, they insult them back.
Well, Twitter has created a special protected class that you can't insult.
And thus, many people, even as a joke, have now claimed they have special pronouns so they can get people banned.
And apparently, it's worked in the past.
Like, some trolls claimed they had special pronouns.
And when left-wing social justice activists refused to use them because they knew it was like a ruse, they got banned for it.
Let's not bury the story.
Let's see exactly what happened with Lindsey Shepard getting banned from Twitter.
The Postmillennial writes, a source has confirmed the ban is permanent.
Excuse me.
One of Canada's most outspoken free speech advocates, Lindsay Shepard, has been permanently suspended from Twitter.
The suspension comes after a jousting match with a notorious trans woman named JY, who has been accused of predatory behavior towards children and making frivolous human rights complaints.
The post-millennial reached out to Shepard, who said, I got suspended for two tweets, although they didn't tell me exactly which tweets were the problem, so I'm giving my best guess.
Last night, JY tweeted that I have a loose That is a quote that is not from me, just so you know.
Like, it matters.
But he still has a tight private area.
In reality, they say that JY still has male genitals according to the proceedings
of a current human rights tribunals he's been testifying in.
And in reality, she says, I had a C-section and a six pound, 10 ounce baby.
That is a quote that is not from me, just so you know.
Like it matters, they'll claim quotes from other people are from me because that's how the game is played.
She says, I replied that this is something, this is something a man who has no functional
romantic relationships with a woman would say, but that I guess that describes him pretty well.
Then Yaniv mocked a reproductive abnormality I have.
And so I replied saying something I'm not going to read because she disparaged him in a way that.
I'm not going to get in trouble for reading her quotes, but you're not allowed to do news on YouTube the way anyone else is.
Just keep that in mind.
So basically, she then disparaged him in a way that misgendered this individual.
Her?
I have no idea what's going on at this point, so you know what?
I don't even care.
She says, I deleted the comments I made this morning, but found out was suspended in the afternoon.
Shepard is also a columnist for the Post Millennial, told us she is concerned about her inability to respond to Myth's Truths now that she is banned from the platform.
Well, I am most concerned about the lies that can now be spread that I cannot counteract via Twitter, for instance.
I saw an account tweeted that I have sock puppet accounts.
No, I do not have any accounts other than New World Hominin.
But I can't correct that misinformation anymore.
They go on to say that Shepard first came to public's attention during the Wilfred Laurier controversy, in which she sued.
They say that Shepard's saga continued with a $3.6 million lawsuit against Laurier.
The two professors who originally falsely accused and bullied Shepard have launched a countersuit.
More recently, Shepard testified in front of Parliament's Justice Committee, claiming that individuals who shouldn't be caught up in online hate legislation will inevitably get caught up in it.
So I'm not sure if it matters all that much, you know, that she got banned, because while I'm not trying to diminish who she is and what she does, it's just another day, another banning.
Guess who wasn't banned, though?
Who wasn't banned is Sean King, who put out a tweet two weeks ago calling for overt acts of terrorism, and then later came to praise an individual who committed an act of terrorism that he encouraged.
Twitter, Did nothing, for the most part.
What we know now, there's an update on this story, so I'm tying these together, trust me.
We know now that Sean King quietly deleted the tweets praising the terrorist.
I don't know why they don't call him a terrorist even at the Daily Wire, but he was.
Here's the thing.
It's possible Twitter made him do it, right?
So it's possible someone flagged the tweets and then Sean King was forced to delete them like they did with, you know, Farrakhan and everybody else.
But I want to say something.
Why is it that Lindsey Shepard can call someone an ugly fat man and get banned permanently?
But you can have Sean King literally endorse terrorism and tell people to commit those acts and he gets a slap on the wrist.
Are you nuts?
It is mind-blowing.
You know what, man?
There's very little that I think should be removed, but incitement to violence and overt praise of terroristic acts and calls to arms are probably something that should be removed.
Pretty sure it's illegal.
So why is it that an insult that is completely legal gets you banned, but an illegal act is fine?
And this is what I said to the Twitter people when I was on the podcast with Joe Rogan.
Um, to repeatedly cite the same thing.
I said, it's, it's, it's, look, it's grains of sand in a heap.
You'll ban Milo and, and say, oh, but he was directing his followers when he wasn't.
But then you'll have someone, uh, praise and endorse and call for terror, and you'll go, slap on the wrist.
Don't worry about it, you get three strikes and you're out.
Sean King committed a crime as far as I'm concerned, in my opinion.
I don't know if he, look, okay, let me walk that back.
I don't know, I think what he did is bordering on criminal because he was inciting people to commit violence against federal authorities.
You'll get a lot of people saying, oh, it's just freedom of speech.
And that's an interesting point.
Like, you have a right to say that you support certain things, but he said we need to do things by any means necessary.
He said that.
And then someone did.
Like, at what point are you going to be like, that was your fault?
Okay, let's read a little bit of this story.
Daily Wire writes that on Monday, Black Lives Matter leader Sean King praised a self-identified far-left Antifa member who tried to attack an immigration detention center in Tacoma.
Over the weekend, King lionized the armed attacker whom the Daily Wire will not name.
Sean King called him the first martyr.
But there's a more important point that I want to bring up.
So I get it.
If you saw the story, I covered this in the morning.
Sean King has not deleted them.
Let's get to the news.
They say that Uh, this was posted by King in his first but now-deleted tweet, saying that this guy's hero was John Brown, etc.
They go on to say that he also noted the man wasn't crazy, but in action is, seemingly suggesting that others attacked detention centers too, but this tweet was also deleted.
In the activist's final tweet, which was also soon deleted, King said that this is where this man was murdered, etc., and that these camps need to be shut down.
So, praising and calling for more.
So, the tweets were deleted.
I believe he may have been forced to by Twitter, but I want to stress one thing.
These were two threads that each had, I believe, three tweets in them.
That's six strikes.
Six strikes.
But Twitter probably gave a special pass to Sean King for whatever reason.
And they're not biased, they claim.
There's no evidence.
Uh-huh.
But here's the important context I want to get to with comparing this to Lindsey Shepard getting banned.
Not only did he call for, um, for overt acts of terror, but in the past, he had asked his
followers to send him private information on an individual.
Now Twitter claims apparently that calling on your fans to collect or release public
information doesn't violate their doxing rule unless you do it.
So you can tell someone to break the rules for you and then when they do, they get in
trouble and not you.
That's absurd.
You know why?
Because then what you do with your million followers is tell a million people to, to
dock somebody, someone with a brand new sock puppet, one follower account posted, and then
Congratulations, you bypassed Twitter's rules.
So let's read.
They say, according to a report from the New York Times, a statement from authorities that the attacker was armed with a rifle.
We get that stuff.
They go on to say, King has a habit of firing off unsavory or patently false tweets on his massive Twitter platform, and then later deleting them.
In April, the noted race hustler wrongly connected a white man to the tragic murder of seven-year-old Jasmine Barnes, who was black.
King claimed racial malice, of course, and the family of the man King wrongly connected to the killing was immediately flooded with threats.
The Daily Wire reported at the time, quote, In a now-deleted post, King asked his followers,
What more can you tell me about Robert Cantrell?
We've had 20 people call or email us and tell us he is a racist,
violent a-hole and has always been.
Just tell me everything you know.
This is allowed on Twitter.
This guy had nothing to do with it.
King falsely labeled him, and this is targeted harassment.
He has smeared him, he insulted him, and directed his nearly 1 million followers to harass this guy.
Why hasn't he been banned?
This is why Twitter is such a trash platform.
It's complete garbage.
I don't think Jack Dorsey has anything to do with Twitter at all at this point.
I think he's a figurehead and he does nothing.
I don't know who's running the show, but they are being protected.
They are being kept out of the press, and Jack is absorbing all of this, and this means Jack is providing cover, whether intentionally or not, to those who are allowing Shaun King to harass individuals and call for terror.
When will it stop?
When will there be a federal investigation?
And I'm not talking about, like, you know, antitrust or whatever.
I'm talking about Shaun King calling for terrorism.
I'm talking about Antifa being allowed to exist on the platform, and then Lindsey Shepard being banned for calling someone an ugly fat man.
Oh!
That's what she did.
That's what she said.
She said to someone, you're an ugly fat man.
Ah, but she got permanently banned because of it.
Twitter is such complete garbage.
Complete garbage.
The Daily Wire notes, the man arrested for the killing, in reference to the Robert Cantrell story, was a 20-year-old black male, as noted by CNN.
But of course, Sean King has repeatedly done this.
Smeared innocent individuals, falsely accused people, and then called for terror.
And he is allowed to keep doing his thing.
So when they ask you, what evidence say you that Twitter is biased against conservatives?
Well, it's not so much conservatives.
Lindsey Shepard isn't a conservative, I don't think.
It's an ideological bias.
Support our narrative or else.
Sean King.
My god.
I'm just gonna leave it there.
I'm done.
I got a couple more stories coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you shortly.
I'm just finding this out now, but I had no idea.
Apparently, Donald Trump is racist.
Did you know this?
I had no idea.
I mean, it's not like it's been said a million times every single day for the past several years.
I mean, I'm only just hearing the left call Trump a racist for the first time.
We have this one.
I don't know who this guy is.
Vegas Tenel?
Is that his name?
If you're supporting Trump, you're a racist at this point.
I didn't realize that people are only just now calling Trump supporters racist.
Wow!
It's almost like no one for the past several years was literally saying anybody who supports Trump is a racist, and the MAGA hat is like the new Klan hood.
Apparently, today was the day people decided Trump was racist.
So here was my response.
Unfortunately, they've really overplayed the racism thing.
Everything is racist.
Nancy Pelosi is racist.
Owning a dog is racist.
They've even claimed the concept of time is racist.
Math is racist.
It's the story of the left who cried racist.
No one cares anymore.
It's a damn shame.
Racism exists.
It's a bad thing.
And we want to be able to call it out and make a better future for everyone where we can all live equally.
Meaning we have the equal opportunity to exist in this world.
Some people will have more than others and nothing we can do about it.
Equity is a pipe dream and it makes no sense because you can't quantify the value of an individual based on their race.
So anybody arguing for equity is a racist.
But you know what?
So what?
Saying racist doesn't matter anymore.
They've beaten... Let's go through this real quick.
I've got a story I want to go through though.
First, Nancy Pelosi is racist.
How did that come to be?
Well, in this story about the Twitter flame war.
Nancy Pelosi told AOC not to tweet.
AOC then said she only ever singles out the four women of color.
As if that was the only reason she calls out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
But let's talk about dogs being racist.
Yes.
A story was written that dogs are the tools of gentrification, a tool that white people use to drive people of color from their neighborhoods.
And then the concept of time.
Boy, do I have a story about this one.
When I was in North Dakota, someone told me that keeping a schedule was colonial thinking.
Because people of color and Native Americans don't have schedules.
Which is insane.
And I said, what are you talking about?
They keep schedules in Asia.
Like, everybody has a schedule.
You gotta wake up and you gotta go do work.
And he's like, no, no, it's like when the sun is high, you know, they do things, it's free.
And I'm like, listen, man.
If you think that other races don't know what time is and don't quantify, like, at what point of the day they have to keep a schedule, you're a racist.
But again, what's the point of calling someone a racist because everybody's racist and nothing makes sense?
And, you know, so here we are now.
Trump is a racist again.
And we have this op-ed.
It's from AZ Central.
If you can't condemn Trump's racist tweets, we can no longer be friends.
Opinion.
As an immigrant, I've heard the go-back drumbeat for years.
How can conservatives stand idly by when Trump tweets as much?
Well, you know what?
I can't.
I called him out.
And you know what?
I'm not surprised no one else is anymore.
Something really bad happens when you call everyone racist all the time.
The word starts losing its meaning.
There are regular people in this country who aren't engaged in politics.
You call the president a racist.
They hear you, and they go, ooh, that's worrying.
Is the president racist?
And then the next day, 10 people call him racist, and then 100, and then 1,000, and every single day, everyone's calling him a racist nonstop for everything he does.
And then eventually, they were like, hey, honey, what happened in the news today?
No, someone called Trump a racist.
Same old, same old.
Am I right?
That's right.
Just another silly day in the American media.
They act like this is the moment.
Like this is the thing.
Where they haven't been... It's like they think they haven't been calling him a racist over and over again for the past several years.
You think I'm going to care now when you call him a racist?
Dude, you called him a racist years ago before he got elected.
You claimed he was worse than Hitler.
I- I literally don't- It just- It's- It's all meaningless at this point.
So can we be friends?
I don't want to be friends with you!
I- I see- Let's re- Let's read what this person has to say.
President Donald Trump didn't invent bigotry.
It's always been there, just beneath the surface where America's collective conscience could pretend it didn't exist.
Immigrants like me know it, because we've endured the incessant go-back drumbeat from the moment we set foot on American soil.
Every generation of immigrants has endured it.
But the Africans, the Irish, the Chinese, uh, wait, what?
From the Africans, the Irish, the Chinese, to the Mexicans.
How you gonna call Trump racist and then cite Ireland?
Trump is racing against Ireland?
Isn't he Irish?
Part Irish?
I don't know what his ancestry is, actually.
But Trump propelled bigotry into mainstream America.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist, as Republicans collectively tried to do on Sunday, after the president's attack on four non-white congresswomen.
With few exceptions, conservatives remained silent.
Those who spoke up have little or nothing to lose, politically speaking.
Oh man, this is just, it's just, I don't even care to, I don't even know I'm talking about it to be honest.
I don't care, you can call Trump whatever you want because you've called him everything in the book and we're quite literally at the end of the story of the left who cried racist.
I don't care.
I'm just completely over it.
And of course you still have people saying Trump isn't racist or whatever and I'm like, I don't even know anymore.
All I know is I'm completely desensitized to it.
You can't say it every single day and then expect this story to have an impact.
She, uh, I believe, is this a woman?
Uh, yes.
Elvia.
We've known for years that Trump didn't get to the White House alone.
The Republican Party put him there.
Republicans, even those who at times appear to be sensible conservatives, put him there.
They're our neighbors, our co-workers, our doctors, our bank tellers, and yes, some of them even call themselves our friends.
Why were these conservatives collectively silent over Trump's racist rants?
You know his tweet, I've covered this story extensively.
He says, why don't they go back to the countries who, they say, so interesting to see progressive Democratic congressmen who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe.
The worst.
I think it's funny to point out that the governments in Europe too, where the white people came from, are also in disarray.
And you could probably say the same thing to white people in this country.
Why don't you go back to the Netherlands, France, Germany.
France is a great example.
Why don't you go figure out how to fix that, fix that Macron?
Because you got, what are we at, like 40 weeks of protests at this point?
I have no idea, maybe not 40, 30 something.
So that was, that was the argument that, like, I think it was Kellyanne Conway was saying, like, not where they were from, but where their ancestry was from.
So they go on to say, never mind that three of the four non-white congresswomen who have been feuding with Pelosi were born in the U.S., Omar was born in Somalia, but is a U.S.
citizen.
Democrats' rebuke was appropriately swift, but Trump's tirade achieved something else.
It distracted from the increased criticism over the conditions of immigrant detention facilities.
Oh, hey, wait, hold on.
Are they now realizing what I've been saying over and over again?
Trump was distracting everybody from ICE?
What they don't get Yes, Trump's attack inflicted pain.
It plunged a dagger into an already bleeding heart of a nation of immigrants where people of color aren't welcomed.
It plunged a dagger into friendships, acquaintances, neighbors.
Can we look into a Trump supporter's eye and not say anything over his or her silence, even if that person is otherwise friendly?
It plunged a dagger into efforts of anyone who had held out hopes of finding common ground in this toxic political environment.
There's a weird box here.
Are they really?
I don't think they are because I'll say this.
The conservatives who remain silent over Trump's disparaging remarks and his policies against
non-whites may think they're getting away with it, but they're fooling themselves.
Are they really?
I don't think they are because I'll say this.
How many times can you call someone a racist before they finally just stop listening?
Okay, the 63, 60 million or whatever people, million, who voted for Trump are not all racist.
We can pepper in a few percentage of people who probably are, but for the most part they're not.
So what do you think happens when you scream over and over again, racist, bigot, Nazi, etc.?
Eventually they stop listening.
And then something really dangerous happens.
The president can actually say something overtly racist.
I'm not saying he did, I'm saying he can.
And people are going to say, I just don't care anymore.
That's the story of the boy who cried wolf, quite literally.
That when you keep screaming over and over again, eventually people say, enough!
I don't want to hear it.
And I personally don't.
I called out Trump's tweet.
I didn't like it.
I said it was bad.
I said I wouldn't vote for the man.
Then someone showed me that Trump was doing this strategically.
Well, I can criticize Trump for using this rhetoric, be it nationalist or racist, whatever you want to call it.
There's arguments for it, there are.
It was part of his strategy to distract the media.
We can say his tweets were racist because he was targeting women of color and saying, go back to your countries, and that's typically used to point to immigrants.
Or we could argue it's nationalist because he's actually saying, go to a different country, and it's not about who their race, it's about the country they came from.
From a fact-based, you know, from looking at it, it's actually a nationalistic argument, but I understand why people would call it racist.
I would also understand why no one will care.
The left, why would the left even care if you call Trump a racist?
You're not telling anyone anything they haven't heard before.
Someone on the left being told Trump's a racist, they're gonna be like, and?
And someone on the right being told Trump's a racist, they go, oh, this story again?
Just to say, another day in the media, I guess.
And there we, and there we're left off.
The story of the left who cried racist, and nobody cares anymore.
So, now people- I don't know who this guy is, but he's saying if you support Trump, you're a racist?
Yeah, whatever.
Like, I certainly don't support Trump, and never will.
That was the point I made in my original tweet.
But you are not going to change the mind of anybody.
Literally, this does nothing.
So, congratulations.
We are now at a point where nobody cares.
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes, stick around, I will see you shortly.
Well, I decided to do a segment on the Craig Newmark story anyway.
For those who aren't familiar, in the end of my segment, on one of the segments I mentioned this story from The Guardian, Craigslist's Craig Newmark says, Outrage is profitable.
Most online outrage is faked for profit.
It is.
Absolutely.
And it's driving everyone insane.
Now first, let me start with my personal outrage.
This story from The Guardian is It's just one of the worst stories I've ever read.
The one thing I hate most that makes me more outraged than anything is just really, really awful stories that don't get to the goddamn point and fluff it up with crap no one cares about.
Here's the story and how you titled it.
Outrage is Profitable.
Most Online Outrage is Fake for Profit.
You know what I want to read when I click a story like this?
I want the first paragraph to say something like, in reference to X, Y, and Z, so-and-so said X.
Oh, and then provide me the context.
So you know from this video I'm going to be criticizing the media, specifically about fake outrage.
But allow me to be outraged because it's one of these stories where it starts by talking about how he lo- quote, we lo- we're low on bird seed now, that's a crisis.
Why yes, Craig Newmark certainly loves birds in his Roman Mosaic 18th century- I don't care about this!
At all!
What- what- what- this is ridiculous!
You know, I've seen so many news stories, and one of the reasons I didn't want to do a story commenting on this issue...
is because of how bad the story is.
There's so many writers who do this.
You'll click the story, and it'll say something like, Trump does a backflip, and you'll go, oh, that's interesting.
Then you open up the story and it goes, it was a dark and stormy night.
The stars in the sky, clouds, just passing the moon.
I looked over to my friend and said, my God, is that Donald Trump in the distance?
We looked to the hills.
Yeah, I get it, okay?
I don't care about you writing a story.
Just say, today Donald Trump at a meeting did a backflip.
Here's what happened.
Thank you.
So we actually have to scroll down past his love of birds.
Thank you, Guardian, for letting me know this.
I get it, it's a profile on Craig Newmark, but... They talk about how Craigslist caused massive damage to the news industry.
This is actually a pretty important context, because as news media started dying off, they couldn't afford real journalists anymore, so they started hiring rage-bait writers.
They couldn't sell ads and classifieds anymore, so rage became the product they sold.
We're now in a world where everyone is trying to make you as angry as possible to make money.
It's a nightmare.
I do recognize that on an individual level, I certainly play my part in this, and I don't mean to, and many others don't mean to as well.
But I want to differentiate between me as an individual and a company.
Look, I'm a dude with opinions.
I express my opinions to you and everybody else.
I certainly am not shy when it comes to talking.
So when I'm hanging out with my friends, I talk about this stuff just as much, like most people do.
And that's how I approach what I do.
I see something and I'm like, oh man, I want to talk about this.
It's different when you have a news organization that crafts a business model around telling specific stories to make people angry to make money.
Because in that instance, they're not real opinions, and they're not people actually trying to have a conversation.
They're a faceless machine trying to manipulate you to make money.
And Craig Newmark is right to call him out.
Now, he's been called many names because many in journalism believe he destroyed the media.
When Craigslist came out, classified ads shifted away from news organizations to Craigslist.
But let's get to the point.
Craig Newmark says, I'm mostly concerned about the way social media platforms can be weaponized, that they sometimes forget to provide informed consent regarding the use of your personal data.
And that's really important too, outside of the rage bait stuff.
But check this out, he says, Newmark has previously observed a trustworthy press is the immune system of democracy, prefers not to use the term fake news.
Perhaps it has been tainted forever by Donald Trump, he reasons.
Some people have said fake news is news that I don't like.
So I will talk about misinformation or disinformation, and that is often either false news or false witness, either weaponized information or just carelessness.
If it's carelessness, you can tell someone.
Hey, you got it wrong.
Here's the evidence.
If it's disinformation, they don't care.
They will just publish it again.
Meanwhile, when you point out the problem, they might decide that you're a target for harassment.
Yes?
There's an individual at NBC who has a personal grudge against me, and so he has weaponized the news platform to smear me with fake information, and it even made it to the Today Show.
Fake news.
Here's what they do.
They use framing devices, right?
Let's say you make a video where you say, I think these flat earthers are insane.
They believe the world is flat.
That's nuts.
You have now given the media the opportunity to say you have pushed the flat earth conspiracy.
They didn't say you were Flat Earth.
They said you pushed the Flat Earth conspiracy.
Well, that's arguably true.
You talked about it, meaning that you presented the information and one could arguably claim you pushed it.
It's disingenuous.
It's intellectually dishonest.
You're manipulating someone.
That's not really what happened, but you can claim it and you can't be sued for it.
Our information ecosystem is in complete disarray today, and it's a nightmare.
This is what these lowbrow activists at media do.
You could go to a Trump rally and say that you supported the groundskeeper.
Like, I provided the groundskeeper support in holding up a wood beam as he tried to pull out some trash.
And then they can then say that you provided support to Trump at a rally.
You get it?
It's totally out of context.
Yes, because Trump had hired a groundskeeper for his rally, and you provided support to that groundskeeper.
You were providing support.
And then they can make it seem like you provided him and his policies.
It's all manipulation.
But there's more.
Fake outrage.
He goes on to say, there's an entire ecosystem at work, he continues, that can enable a falsehood from the obscure reaches of the web to jump onto millions of TV screens with dizzying speed.
He is talking.
I'm going, I'm just going to pretend that he's talking about me.
Some activist took a snippet from some stream where I said I didn't believe Seth Rich was the leaker, and I said, eh, give it 55 to 65 percent, because Fox News had put out a story saying it was true, that evidence suggested it, and I was saying I don't believe it.
Take that out of context, and some cartoon avatar Twitter account with 10 followers can then post that video to which NBC can go, Aha!
Tim Pool pushed the conspiracy!
Proof.
So, the video of me saying I don't believe it becomes proof that I did push it.
That's how the game is played.
Obscure nonsense from the far reaches of the web made it to the Today Show.
Congratulations, NBC.
Your writer with a grudge was able to weaponize nonsense trash From a random account with no followers, and you put it on the Today Show?
So when Trump calls them fake news, what am I supposed to say?
Yeah, that's fake news!
It's completely out of context, and it's messing with the minds of people who aren't journalists.
I don't expect you to actually do the digging to understand the world.
That's the job of journalists.
But here we are, with Fake News on TV.
Let's read on.
How can it be stopped?
People in mainstream media can just do things like fact-checking.
Isn't it funny that we now have a story from The Guardian where they basically admit journalists don't fact-check?
They don't.
They literally just cite each other and they never bother to find the source.
My- You know what, man?
I'm going to be hiring people to do a fact-checking thing and maybe we'll start really soon.
But man, I just gotta say, the fact that people, these journalists, will just read an article and then rewrite it without finding the source material is nightmarish.
He goes on to say, they could be giving airtime or space to people they know routinely disinform, and they can just avoid amplifying disinformation.
The new journalism centers he is funding are considering whether journalistic ethics codes should explicitly say don't amplify disinformation.
If this sounds like a swipe at Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, Newmarket ducks an invitation to be critical.
I love that The Guardian asks them if it's Fox News, because Fox News has done a way better job than many other outlets.
The Guardian has writers who routinely pump out fake news, as far as I can tell.
They've tried smearing me because I've interviewed people.
Congratulations, Guardian.
You're worse than Fox News, okay?
Fox News has horrible segments on TV.
Don't get me wrong, they did an anti-evolution segment.
But when it came to Mines.com, you may have noticed above my head, there's a Mines.com thing popping up, Vice tried claiming it was a Nazi haven.
Why?
Because some people had accounts, and they were banned right when they were reported.
But Twitter and Facebook, which openly allow people like Sean King to post terroristic incitement, that's fine, but they're gonna smear Mines?
Fox News does a story And it was right.
It was accurate.
So I love how they try smearing Fox News in this.
Look, I'm not a big fan of Fox News, for sure.
But I gotta say, Guardian, you get no special favors.
Now here's the funny thing.
The story, which basically takes this very simple interview where he talks about fake news and outrage culture, stretches it out to talk about birds and Elizabeth Warren and other nonsense no one cares about.
He says, I spent some time in Edinburgh last year.
I don't care, Guardian.
That's another reason why I hate the news.
I want information that's relevant to the real world, that can help me understand what's happening.
I want to know what Craig Newmark has to say about fake news and outrage culture.
I don't care that he was in Edinburgh and likes birds.
Can we move on?
He embraces nerdiness.
Don't care.
I got lucky and made money.
I don't care.
Talks about his hobbies and how he made Craigslist.
We don't need another story explaining how the formation of Craigslist happened, okay?
What we need to know is journalism.
Newmark says he cares about journalists.
He feels strongly about the issue because journalists lose jobs, and that's accelerated this year.
We get it.
He goes on.
So does he think he is unfairly demonized by journalists?
And does that rankle?
I also don't care.
I don't know if they actually go on to really talk about the problem of news anymore.
It's just a big waste of time.
But let's just read the final thought and I'll wrap up here because we're about done.
He says, indeed he remains convinced that the internet is still positive for humanity.
It allows people of goodwill to get together and work together for common good.
Bad actors are much louder.
They make for more sensational news, and we're seeing a period of that now.
The US, in a way, is lucky.
Bad actors interfering with our elections may have had some success, but their success is not complete, and it means that people of goodwill are fighting back vigorously.
I'm gonna leave it there because I find this article insufferable, but Craig Newmark is right.
