The Left Is Embracing Fascistic Ideology, Vox Entertains "Socialist Nationalism"
The Left Is Embracing Fascistic Ideology, Vox Entertains "Socialist Nationalism." Perhaps Vox just made a silly gaffe in suggesting that "Socialist Nationalism" could work, or perhaps they were seriously suggesting that we try what the Germans did, which would be insane.While the gaffe is funny the encroaching fascistic tactics and ideology is not. While far left groups tend not to be nationalist themselves they do endorse a global community perspective which is not to far off from what we saw in WW 2.2020 Democrats have even been embracing some of the more fringe ideological beliefs which can only lead in one direction. While social justice is a good thing to strive for the people who end up pushing the hardest use authoritarian means to get what they want. In the end they adopt a world view of "no truth only power" where they will call everything offensive in an effort to advantage or power.Our society seems to know when the right has gone too far but can't seem to be at all concerned when the left goes too far. If we don't actively call out the ever encroaching left wing identitarianism then nothing will stop it.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Well, it could be, because at least some elements of the left have been openly embracing fascistic philosophies.
That is me paraphrasing anarchist anthropologist David Graeber.
That is not my opinion, though I do agree with him, and I think I have a lot of evidence to suggest that he's actually right.
What's worrisome about this growing trend on the left is that it tends to be high-profile and well-funded individuals who are actively pushing fascistic ideology.
Now don't get me wrong, it's very different from the fascism of World War II.
But we are seeing strange parallels.
A lot of people like to compare today to Weimar Germany.
I think it's silly when you consider there are a million differences and only a few similarities.
But we can see that whatever is happening on the left in terms of ideology has some rather terrifying similarities.
For one, we just saw a guy show up to an ICE facility with firebombs and weapons And where is the media?
They don't care.
They're not talking about it.
In fact, people like Sean King are openly praising this and calling for more.
When fringe crazy people on the right do something, everyone condemns them.
The left doesn't.
While I certainly think elements of the right need to be criticized, and they have been, it seems like the left is just getting away with pushing open fascistic philosophies.
Now, I'm not going to just stop here.
I've got evidence, and I'm going to break down how I see this and why.
Now here's the thing.
These are mostly anecdotal bits of information.
It's part of the stories that I've read recently.
I will present to you my argument.
Don't just take my word for it.
You need to really dig into this yourself.
And I want to stress, this is the perspective of one individual who reads the news all the time.
I have always said, when you look at the fringes of the left and the right, although they're not the only ideologies that exist, our country knows when to call out the right and even conservatives do.
The left doesn't.
In fact, Vox.com is actually talking about a theoretical socialist nationalism.
I kid you not.
And that's what got me inspired to put this video together and call out The fascistic philosophies embraced by many high-profile and well-funded left-wing activists and organizations.
First, Vox.com is funded to the tune of $200 million by NBC.
They are very prominent.
And in this article, titled, Trump and the Dead End of Conservative Nationalism, they actually, at one point, talk about... Well, I'll just read it for you.
They say, who national conservatism casts out?
Nationalism by its nature excludes people.
Raising one's nation above others begins with defining what that nation is and who belongs in it.
It's theoretically possible to have a liberal nationalism, even a socialist nationalism they claim, that welcomes foreigners interested in joining the nation's ranks.
The last president's rhetoric about what Americans have in common and how immigration strengthens the country strikes me as a species of liberal nationalism.
I'm gonna call this a gaffe.
But what's interesting is the response to it.
I kid you not, we see over and over again, when people point out that World War II Germans were socialists, we hear, that's not true, ask a historian.
When in fact, they technically were.
Although, it was a different kind of socialism, it was.
It was ideologically motivated, but used capitalistic structure.
So, in an academic sense, or semantically, you could say it wasn't socialism, There's an argument that it was.
It was intended to be, but they wanted to be efficient.
Now, I'm going to break all of this down, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent commentary, so I rely on you to help spread the word.
This is an article that openly criticizes Trump and national conservatism, specifically referencing a conference on national conservatism.
I believe it was just an oversight, that they actually entertained the possibility of socialist nationalism.
But, unfortunately, it's now sparked the conversation where we're hearing people say that national socialism in Germany wasn't real socialism.
They've actually gotten to the point where they're defending World War II Germany because they want to actually present a feasible socialist national system.
Now, in this article, they make reference to Amy, I believe her name is Amy Wax.
Let me see if I can pull up her name and what they claim about her.
So, scrolling up, the reason she comes up is because they essentially took an argument she made out of context.
I'm bringing this up for later reference.
I will come back to this in the end of the video, but trust me, it's important.
They essentially say that Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania was arguing for a white nation, essentially trying to make the case that conservative nationalism is based on race.
They didn't.
It's interesting though.
But let's move on.
I want to go through a series of thoughts and ideas talking about the encroaching ideology of fascistic ideology on the left and how I think it's actually rather worrying.
I want to stress, Vox has called Tulsi Gabbard conservative for being anti-war.
That's also very interesting. And this goes into the idea that Vox.com is not necessarily,
they're casting themselves as opponents to the anti-war sentiment espoused by Tulsi Gabbard,
who's absolutely on the left. That's important when you consider that when they're talking about
socialist nationalism, they're not necessarily just talking about a utopian country that takes
care of its citizens, that people can join. They're talking about being at odds with the idea of anti-war.
But let's get to the core point here, which is not this.
I need to pull up Ford Fisher.
Ford Fisher tweeted this.
With all due respect, Vox.com, what the hell are you talking about?
National socialism has been tried.
I'm not sure literally a single historian would agree with Vox's claim that there can be a nationalist socialist ideology welcoming foreigners.
His response was, "...real Nazism hasn't been tried yet," is an extremely bad leftist talking point.
He says, I don't want to point fingers at people replying to this status, but I think Vox seriously goofed on their analysis here and needs to apologize slash edit it and move on.
And I think that's true.
Ford accurately points out that neo-Nazis in the U.S.
try to paint themselves as socialists.
Why?
Well, if we go back to the actual history and look at some academic sources, they were.
It's just not what people are advocating for right now in terms of economic policy.
But I think they're splitting hairs.
Take a look at this book.
European Business, Dictatorship, and Political Risk, 1920-1945.
Edited by Christopher Kobrak and Per H. Hansen.
A section of this book is really interesting, they say.
First, they go on to talk about the nationalization of the steel industry and National Socialist policies.
They then say, Whereas the details of National Socialist economic policies were never very coherent, as Gerald Feldman put it, the Nazis were anti-capitalist enough to be threatening to private enterprise and property, but flexible enough to take advantage of the efficiencies of capitalist enterprises.
One common theme runs through the treatment of business in the Nazi period.
The steady erosion of the distinction between private and public good.
Politics triumphed over economics.
Common good over private.
Accordingly, entrepreneurs were supposed to invest for the benefit of the community of the German people, and to support Germany's war policy, And that's why they called it socialism.
To paraphrase, you were free to spend money and invest as you saw fit, so long as it adhered to their ideology.
Does that sound familiar?
They mention it was also to support the war policy.
That's why I brought up Tulsi Gabbard in the beginning.
They set themselves essentially as opponents to her policy, saying that the one-time progressive star has alienated many of her early supporters over her conservative stances on Islam and foreign wars.
Stances on Islam and foreign wars.
Tulsi Gabbard is notoriously anti-war, mostly anti-regime change war.
That is not a conservative position.
Most Americans oppose war.
Why is Vox placing themselves at odds, saying that she's alienated progressive support, while simultaneously entertaining the possibility of a socialist nationalist state?
Now, again, I don't want to make the claim that, you know, they did that on purpose.
I think they just, they might not be aware to what they're actually pushing.
But going back to that book, and I'll come back to this article, We can see.
That's the intent.
You want people to invest in things that are for the common good, and that support war.
What does Vox do?
Think about all of these woke movies and video games, where you have people injecting politics into comics, movies, gaming, etc.
Sports, even.
When they remove the grid girls, friends, you know about this story?
There are beautiful women who wear, like, sponsored clothing, and they're on the grid for Formula One racing, I believe it was, and they remove that.
The argument isn't—it's not propaganda.
It's business for the common good.
And that's one thing we see happening on the left with these woke regressives.
It is rather fascistic.
It's very much in line with the politics and economy of World War II Germany.
World War II Germany, at least according to the source, and by all means challenge my source, because I'm not doing a deep dive over 10 years to research this.
I've just pulled up one academic resource.
By all means, I could be wrong.
Points out the socialism of World War II Germany wasn't based on the state controlling everything.
It was based on all of the people being aligned with the common good of the state and choosing to invest.
Essentially, they had the efficiencies of capitalism with the ideological drive of socialism.
that effectively the people were acting towards the social good and they were expected to invest in that direction.
Noting that they actually did nationalize... Let me read this.
They said, This was the main reason why Herman Goering established in 1937 a National Steel Trust and coerced the steel industry into a minority partnership of the newly established, you know, Herman, Goering, etc, etc.
The point was, you could be free to run your business as long as it adhered to the common good.
So someone asked me, is it not propaganda when you see these woke movies pushing this narrative?
And I'd say the answer is no, it's not.
While sometimes it could be propaganda when they have identitarianism, left-wing identitarianism, in movies, the real intent is to make people spend money and develop products towards an ideology instead of profit.
And there are some good things about that, like when people buy environmentally conscious products, but we're talking about a fringe race-based ideology.
So I now want to jump over to what's disconcerting in terms of the encroachment of this ideology.
Take a look at this article from the New Statesman.
How Teen Vogue became a champion of democratic socialism.
I ask, why?
They say, a title renowned for fashion tips is nurturing a new generation of left-wing activists.
Overt, identitarian left-wing activists, where some elements are embracing violence and being defended by the media, it's all rather disconcerting.
I'm not here to hold up a sign saying the end is nigh.
I'm simply calling out these specific instances where I think bad things are happening.
I'm not saying that the entirety of the left is overtly fascist or anything like that.
I'm saying there is an element of fascism encroaching on the left, and it's not my opinion.
It's sourced from an academic, and I believe I have it here.
David Graeber.
David Graeber is described as an anthropologist.
He says sometimes I occupy things.
He says, I see anarchism as something you do, not an identity, so don't call me the anarchist anthropologist.
Well, I apologize if I did, but people have referred to him that way.
He clearly takes issue with it.
He was one of the prominent figures during Occupy Wall Street.
In fact, he and I were both featured in Time Magazine's 100 together for the influence we had during Occupy.
That's literally Time saying they believed we were two of the most influential people in the world at the time.
He said, Why is fascism on the rise?
Maybe one reason is because certain elements of the left have adopted philosophies, tactics, and sensibilities once universally rejected because of their historic association with fascism and normalized them.
I want to stress this point, but I will come back to it.
I now want to take a look at what the news statement is saying, and I want to highlight the encroachment on something like Teen Vogue.
It makes no sense for Teen Vogue to be pushing socialism, does it?
Take a look at these articles.
How I can critique capitalism, even on an iPhone.
Who is Karl Marx?
Meet the anti-capitalist scholar.
Four big takeaways from Bernie's speech on democratic socialism.
They say in the last six months, the website has reached 5.21 million people across the world, with 45% of visits originating in the US.
This is just an example of the encroachment that I find rather disconcerting.
Why is a teen magazine pushing overt socialism?
Why is Vox.com presenting this idea of socialist nationalism?
It was tried.
It really didn't work.
It created an outgroup.
Now, we can point out that World War II Germany's politics were very specific and pro-white identitarian.
What we're seeing from these groups is anti-white identitarian.
It is still race-based policy.
It is still rooted in much of the similar ideology.
They're just pointing the finger at different groups.
In the end, it's very similar.
All of these controversies—Comicsgate, Gamergate—one of the core criticisms is that politics is infecting industry, and people are saying, leave your politics out of my game, out of my movie, out of my comic, etc.
The intention is to make people purchase products or invest in products with an ideological bent.
We then see rainbow capitalism and pinkwashing.
That's when these big companies put rainbow flags all over the place.
Because they're not telling you they have a good product.
In fact, the most alarming examples of this would be the Gillette ad, where instead of telling me what their product was, they go on to say that men shouldn't be so toxic.
Why is a razor blade telling you about common good for the public and ideology, instead of explaining to me why a razor is good?
Why is Nike talking about why a flag is offensive?
It all falls in line with an encroachment over this ideological economy.
Instead of running a business for profit, they're trying to run a business for ideology.
Many people have said, get woke, go broke, and while it's funny, it's not inherently true.
There are just certain circumstances where it does happen.
But in the end, if the ideologically driven, you know, if the left-wing identitarians have their way, it won't matter what does or doesn't work.
They're forcing this on people.
Through corporations.
I do want to stress, it's not like these ads from Gillette are the first time someone's made a culturally conscious ad.
Culturally conscious ads have been around for a really, really long time.
It also may be true that the only reason I'm seeing this now and thinking we're seeing a problem is due to the fact that we have direct access to information.
It's entirely possible that GamerGate, ComicsGate, And we're just seeing it all at the same time because of social media.
However, I do feel like there is reason to believe that we are looking at an ever-expanding fascistic philosophy of the left that is increasingly dangerous.
And again, I will stress, while we can always point the finger at the right, Jordan Peterson and many others have said, our culture knows when to call out the right, and it's probably because of World War II history.
We can see it and we can say, enough.
But we're not seeing it on the left and it needs to be called out.
Let's move on to the more interesting things.
In this tweet from David Graeber, someone responded, saying this is some bogus dead-end stuff, evoking quote, the left in this way, with no regard to specificity, but just one loose polemic, is a spiked online kind of rhetoric.
I get that people are mean to you online a lot, and I'm sure that S, I'm sure that's S, I'm covering up a swear for those that aren't familiar with how I do this, but this isn't a basis for discerning contemporary fascism.
Graeber responded, can't read very well can you? The passage said, certain elements of the left.
So the only one invoking the left with no regard to specificity is you. Actually,
I'm talking about Nietzschean, quote, there is no truth, only power, strain. But you can't write a
whole history in one tweet. Essentially what David Graeber is pointing out is that there's an element
of the left and forgive me, David, I'm getting you wrong.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic in this.
I'm trying to take this seriously and present real sources.
There is an element of the left that believes there is no truth, only power.
And this is exemplified in a lot of different ways.
One of the things we've seen with those that are pushing ideology into movies and games is that they're simultaneously offensive and inoffensive at the same time.
You can't seem to figure out what is the right thing to do.
You never know if something you say will be offensive today and not offensive tomorrow or vice versa.
Because there is no truth.
It is just a means to gain power.
So let's move on to some examples.
First, this story from the Daily Beast.
Why young men of color are joining white supremacist groups.
What?
When this article came out, many of us said this makes literally no sense.
How could people of color join white supremacist groups?
That's the basis of a Dave Chappelle skit that's meant to be absurd.
This is clearly not logical.
It makes no sense.
They say Patriot Prayer's leader is half Japanese.
Black and brown faces march with the Proud Boys.
Is the future of hate multicultural?
I'm starting with a light example, but trust me, I have more.
We can clearly see that when they mention the phrase white supremacist, they're not talking about what is true.
They're just framing something in a way to gain power.
They want you to believe that patriot prayer is white supremacist even if people of color lead the group, and that is the important distinction.
While you could certainly make the argument that there are internalized racists, people who are not white who still join actual groups like the Klan, The issue here is that Patriot Pair is being led by someone who is mixed race.
Certainly, people who are white supremacists aren't going to march behind someone like this.
But no, the truth is irrelevant.
What matters is the smear and the power.
Now, that's my argument.
You can argue they're just stupid, fine.
But I do have more examples.
And this is one of my more favorite recent examples.
And this is a page called Gamer Ghazi on Reddit.
We can see here on the right, they facetiously describe themselves as SJWs.
These are the group of people typically aligned with the fascistic left.
Now I say fascistic because they're not necessarily nationalists.
Or, for the most part, aren't.
They tend to be globalist, and so there is a difference.
But they do, at least according to David Graeber and others, embrace certain fascistic philosophies, like, there is no truth, only power.
And the best example is seen here on this page.
These two posts.
One post says, Lashana Lynch will be introduced as the new 007 in Bond 25.
The post just above it, Scarlett Johansson clarifies Rub and Tug comments were taken out of context.
This is interesting because one story talks about a black woman who is going to be taking over the role of 007, historically a white male.
And in the post about it, they actually kind of cheer the idea on.
One commenter says, black female 007, oh there's going to be some incredible rage from the right on this, grab some popcorn people.
Essentially.
If you look at the comment threads, you can see something that's entirely predictable.
They cheer when a black woman is being handed a historically white role.
But what happens when Scarlett Johansson says that she can play whoever she wants as well?
Well, they openly criticize her.
They say, you shouldn't do this.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Even though, fundamentally, it's the exact same thing.
Now, of course, they'll argue that it's different because of different races.
But the issue here isn't whether it's white privilege or not.
The issue is the principle of can someone play a role if the role of the character isn't the same race or identity, etc.
Clearly, when it comes to minority characters playing white roles, they're okay with it.
And when it comes to white characters playing minority roles, they're not okay with it.
The issue here?
There is no truth.
Only power.
The goal is, will it empower our ideology?
And if it does, it's acceptable.
It doesn't matter what is true.
The question would be asked.
Is it okay for one person to play a character in a show, movie, or otherwise if that character is of a different identity?
Yes or no?
They can't give you an answer to that question.
Because there is no answer.
There's no, there's no... I mean, honestly, I believe the principled answer is yes, of course.
Anybody can play anybody.
If Ariel's gonna be black, I don't think it matters at all.
I think we're engaging in fiction.
But of course, there is no truth.
There's only power.
Their power to push you down and attack you and get corporations behind them.
And here we can see the encroachment of the fascistic philosophy.
They don't embrace truth, only their power, and they have corporations pushing an ideological economic shift.
The companies saying, It's not about the product and what the product does.
It's about the ideology.
And thus, Nike will remove a shoe because one person claims it's offensive.
But trust me when I say I have more examples.
This one's rather light, but I've highlighted it in the past.
Why are people calling women Wimixen and why the word is causing outrage?
Now, let me explain what Womxn is.
It's W-O-M-X-N.
Many people associated with the identitarian left have replaced the E in women with X, saying it's more inclusive.
However, both words are simultaneously offensive and inoffensive.
In this article, they clearly state the word is causing outrage, and it did.
However, the word was created to stem outrage over the exclusionary nature of women.
Quite literally.
We see a situation where there is no truth-only power.
Think about what happens.
You walk up to somebody or in a group and you say, I'm going to use the word Wemexin.
W-O-M-X-N.
Because it's inclusive of women of color and trans women.
They can then push back on you and say, that's bigoted.
How dare you bend the knee?
You did wrong.
Apologize.
There is no truth.
Is it offensive?
I don't know.
They claim it is and isn't at the same time.
I'll tell you this, though.
If you use it or don't use it, they will wield power over you.
That is the end goal.
What they want to do is force you into submission.
There's no way to know what is true and what isn't.
But let's get to the more devastating, more contemporary examples.
This story from Snopes, July 2nd.
Did Obama build cages that house immigrant children at US-Mexico border?
True.
The Obama administration, not Trump administration, built the cages that hold many immigrant children at the US-Mexico border.
This is a more contemporary example, where we saw recently, Justin Bieber said, Trump, can you free these children from these cages?
The narrative being pushed by high-profile individuals, by companies like Fox, well-funded, you know, venture-backed media outlets, is that Trump is caging children.
The truth doesn't matter, only what gives them power.
Look, you can criticize the right for a very similar way.
Don't take this video as an excuse that I'm saying the right doesn't do it.
That's a mistake.
Whenever I criticize the left, you invariably get these people saying, but what about the right?
I'm like, I don't care.
What about them?
Okay, call them out when they do this.
We do.
That's the issue.
We know when to call out the right because we have history behind us.
We need to know when to call out the left for this.
And right now the left is acting like Trump is the one who started this, when in reality it seems like Trump is the one who's ending it.
A recent report saying 95% of children have been released from these facilities.
In the end, what do we get?
We get a left claiming Trump started it when in reality the truth is it was Obama.
Where were they when Obama authorized the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA?
Some of the activists were there, don't get me wrong.
Where were these same people?
I'm talking specifically about the people who didn't protest then.
Where were they when Obama created the kill list, the disposition matrix?
Nowhere to be found.
But they're certainly here to protest Trump because they don't care about the truth.
Now, it's not the day-to-day activists, the Democrats.
These people are being led on, they're being taken on a ride.
It's the warmonger left.
It's the people like Vox that would claim Tulsi Gabbard is a conservative.
Because she opposes war.
Because I can only assume they support it.
They want the war machine, so anyone who dare come out is gonna get knocked down.
And a lot of progressives, legitimate progressives, recognize this.
People I respect, like Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kalinske, and David Peckman.
I think they're good channels.
They're independent channels, however.
While you might not agree with them, they tend to do a good job in defense of free speech, when need be, although I disagree with them on some issues.
They will absolutely point out Tulsi Gabbard is not conservative for opposing war.
So, while I think it's rather silly, that Vox will entertain socialist nationalism, I still think it's important to point out and be concerned.
It's disconcerting, to say the least.
We should be concerned by what's happening here.
Never should we allow someone to make an argument that real national socialism hasn't been tried yet.
They try pushing this on Twitter all the time.
No, the Germans weren't really socialist.
What we're seeing is something similar.
Ideological economies Saying war is conservative.
And now, let's move on to a few more issues where the truth doesn't matter.
First, is the OK sign racist?
Cubs fans' hand gestures sparks outrage and confusion.
We saw this story.
What did we get?
A guy was playing the circle game.
What's the truth?
He was probably just playing the circle game, where if you see the OK sign, he gets to punch you.
What's the power?
They exert power over you because they have dictated it is offensive now, and thus the moral ideological industry has removed someone who spends money at their business, thus the reinforcing of the ideological economy.
But remember early on I mentioned that woman, Amy, what was her name?
I believe it was Amy Wax.
Amy Wex.
They smeared her in this Fox piece and now we can see the story from Daily Mail.
It all comes full circle.
Outrage as Penn professor suggests America is better off with fewer... I'm not going to read that quote.
I like to take it out of context.
The university asserts she is free to express her opinion.
They argued... They took her argument out of context because the truth doesn't matter.
Only power.
Amy Wex was making a point.
Her point was that Because the first world is predominantly white, there is an inherent problem when you bring in first world immigrants versus third world immigrants.
If you want people to uphold liberal democratic institutions like the constitution, I'm not talking about liberalism on the left, I'm talking about freedom and classical liberalism.
If you want to uphold that, you have to recognize that most of the First World is white.
She was actually presenting that as an obstacle, at least according to Yoram Hazony.
Regardless of the position, she certainly denounced white nationalism.
But of course, the truth is irrelevant, just power.
There are now calls to have her fired because of it.
This is probably one of the best examples that brings us right back to the article from Vox where they entertain the idea of socialist nationalism.
I want to stress, these are anecdotes, this is not data, this is my opinion, this is me seeing select instances that I cannot determine the veracity of.
The girth of the problem.
I'm not saying tomorrow it's the end of the world.
I'm not saying it's evidence that, you know, they're taking over government.
I'm just saying the problem exists.
It may be miniscule.
As David Pakman told me in an interview, in our conversation, he feels that these are edge cases.
Perhaps.
But I would argue that NBC is funding Vox, and I will end now with the more important point as to why I disagree.
This is a Twitter thread I've pulled up over and over again.
Zach Goldberg said, here's holy effing S number one.
His tweet was, spend some time on LexisNexis over the weekend.
Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you.
But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say holy effing S. And what does he show?
If it was in the podcast, here's what we can see.
Number of news articles mentioning diversity and inclusion spiked, skyrocketing around 2013.
The next one.
An image.
Articles mentioning whiteness.
Once again, a hockey stick around 2010.
Let's close this.
Moving on.
Let's go to number four.
Number four is unconscious bias.
Again, a hockey stick.
Essentially, what we're seeing from this Twitter thread is what says to me we are not looking at edge cases.
We're looking at a real problem.
Where far-left activists, socialists, who have now, for some reason, entertained socialist nationalism, have been embracing fascistic philosophies, at least according to David Graeber, and we can see that they're pushing for an ideological economy, which is essentially what the World War II German socialists had.
It was an economy based on the common good.
We can see all of these articles exploding in these references.
I don't believe it's an edge case.
I believe it is an ever encroaching problem that then presents itself in very dangerous ways.
My final thought.
Sean King.
1.1 million followers.
Openly encouraging extreme acts.
Openly.
And then after he does, about a week or two later, someone does it.
In Washington.
You're gonna have to look this one up.
Tacoma.
At an ICE facility.
Sean King's response?
To openly praise the action and, once again, call for more.
The left, our society, doesn't know when enough is enough.
The media isn't calling it out.
He still has a job.
He hasn't been banned from any platforms.
Alex Jones was certainly wiped out.
Because our society doesn't tolerate when the right steps over the line.
A lot of people will defend Jones.
They'll say that he was being facetious, that he was joking.
It doesn't matter.
The point is, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
said Jones spreads fake news and calls for violence.
So does Sean King.
At what point will we recognize the left goes too far as well?
My final thought on the matter, to stress, to a great degree, these are stories I have focused on over the past several months to a year.
It doesn't mean it is the biggest problem in the world.
It doesn't mean there is no problem with Trump.
I am simply pointing this out.
I assure you the response from many on the left who will try to defend this ideology will be to say, what is the right doing?
What about this group?
What about that group?
By all means bring those up because I believe that extremism regardless is dangerous and bad.
I'm just growing ever worried that we don't seem to be doing anything about the ideological expansion of fascistic philosophies and identitarianism on the left.
And we've then seen organizations like the ACLU openly embrace identitarian and racist policies like what's going on with Harvard, the discrimination against one of the smallest minorities in the country, Asians.
We need to judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
And so long as we have these instances not being called out, And we have serious problems.
So they'll say Tim Pool is right-wing.
It's not true.
My politics fall squarely center-left.
I am a moderate.
I'd probably agree with Joe Biden's stance on expanding the Affordable Care Act, fixing it.
And I gotta admit, that does sound rather appealing, though I'm not a fan of Joe Biden because they're more corporate elitists.
So that leaves me in a weird position.
But of course, they will try to discredit me.
They'll say Tim Pool is clearly right-wing, or, you know, they'll take pictures of me doing an interview to try and discredit me.
That's fine, I don't care.
None of that discredits the points I've brought up right now.
So I encourage anyone on the left who disagrees, by all means, make videos, challenge me, I'd love to be proven wrong.
But what we're seeing with these graphs from Zack Goldberg is that something is happening, a massive ideological shift, and it's rather worrying when you see the examples of the truth not mattering.
That's what scares me.
I want to make the world better.
I want to solve these problems.
But so long as no one calls out the nonsense, it will only get worse.
Of course.
There are people on YouTube and on social media that do call them out.
Unfortunately, among this group of anti-SJWs they might call themselves, among this group there are a lot of people who are grifters, who simply jump onto whatever opinion, if it means it's going to make them money.
I recently saw something, I might make a video about it, this woman, Alinity, picked her cat up over her head and tossed it over her, and everyone's outraged, and I think it's so damn silly.
It's a cat.
She tossed it three feet.
Have you ever seen a cat outside?
So, yes, I do see instances where people have faux outrage on both sides.
But one of the big problems is that the mainstream media, which is supposed to be a watchguard to protect us from the encroachment and the abuses of power, isn't doing it.
Where was the media coverage of this man in Tacoma?
How much coverage did we get of those Covington kids?
Some kids standing on a staircase, smiling at a guy playing drums, and it was the end of the world to the media.
Unfortunately, what I find truly disconcerting in all of this is that having worked at Vice and Fusion and having worked with other organizations, this ideology is in the media organizations.
Period.
So when you try to bring up a simple point about whether something is or isn't true, they will come for your throat to take you down.
They will lie and they will smear.
And that's what happens when I call out the media all day and night.
Don't you forget it.
There are many activists in journalism.
We know this.
They hold these views and they believe there is no truth, only power.
They openly say they are driven by, quote, mission-driven storytelling.
The president of Fusion told me, just side with the audience.
We can see it.
The economy is being driven by ideology, not profitability.
And again, I'll stress, there are good things about that.
I personally try to buy recyclable, renewable products, environmentally conscious products.
But the end result is...
Does your business promote profit?
That is the capitalist system.
Does your business promote the common good?
That is the socialist system.
Just because you use currency doesn't mean you're not engaging in a socialist ideology.
It's complicated, and you're going to get a lot of people pushing back saying, World War II Germany was not socialist.
But they were ideologically driven.
They were driven by the common good.
They just had the right to choose how they allocated their resources, so long as they allocated towards something that benefited their party and ideology.
And that's what we're seeing now with Nike.
It's what we're seeing with Gillette.
It's what we're seeing with movies.
We're seeing the expansion of an ideology infecting products.
And we've seen it for about 10 years now, coinciding with the rise of these articles in the news expressing this identitarian worldview.
So, it may be fun to entertain the idea of get woke or go broke, but it's not a guarantee.
I'll end by saying that.
Is it silly to point out that Vox is entertaining socialist nationalism?
I think so.
A lot of people are going to point the finger and say, aha, they're advocating, you know, okay, okay, okay.
Chill out.
However, Vox made a huge mistake here.
And if this kind of rhetoric is allowed to increase, you will see this fascistic ideology expanding.
Because, I want to stress, World War II Germany wasn't about maintaining their borders.
Many people will smear Trump trying to draw parallels.
World War II Germany wanted to create a massive global German state.
So think about the idea of people who hold fascistic ideologies who are also globalist in that they don't believe in borders.
They want open borders like the democratic socialists.
All of it is worrying me not because I think they have anything in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Or because of the same thing, but because there are certain similarities towards extremism and towards things that will result in violence and harm and economic collapse.
It needs to be called out.
I'll end this video here, possibly one of the longest videos I've ever done.
Let me know what you think.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6pm.
By all means, comment below, rebut my points, tell me I'm wrong, I'm all ears.
I will see you all in the next segment.
Last night, Donald Trump tweeted about speaking with Kanye West to get his friend A$AP Rocky out of jail.
He said, I will be calling the very talented Prime Minister of Sweden to see what we can do about helping A$AP Rocky.
So many people would like to see this quickly resolved.
Now, my understanding is this is the most liked tweet from the president.
Probably because it has to do with Kanye West and A$AP Rocky.
I don't know the full story about A$AP Rocky.
I did dig into it a little bit.
I've actually reached out to some contacts to try and figure out what's going on, but nobody's gotten back to me.
And for obvious reasons, it's a very sensitive issue, and they're trying to make sure that A$AP doesn't remain locked up.
My general understanding is that he was being followed by some guys in Sweden.
And they got into a fight.
A$AP got arrested.
It's way more complicated than that.
Trust me, I don't have the full details.
But this video is not about A$AP Rocky's fight.
It's about the subsequent tweet from Justin Bieber, who has called on the president.
He says, I want my friend out.
I appreciate you trying to help him.
But while you're at it, real Donald Trump, can you also let those kids out of cages?
80,000 retweets.
And this is really funny.
The reason it's funny is because this tweet is from this morning, July 20th at 12 a.m.
And we have this story from the 18th.
Two days ago, Trump administration has reunited 95% of migrant children with their families or sponsors.
So we'll look into this.
But what I really want to get at with this video is kind of the pipeline of misinformation and how celebrities perpetuate it.
It's not that I blame Justin Bieber.
It's that high-profile people in this country don't know what's going on in the news.
I don't expect Justin Bieber to know that two days ago, a report came out saying the kids, 95%, are back with their families.
I don't expect him to know that.
And thus he puts this out, and now you're gonna hear everyone repeat it, not realizing It's almost resolved.
Almost.
Look, I get it.
There's a lot of problems.
I don't want to act like it is.
And it is complicated because maybe the kids were reunited with their families and they're still in cages.
Also, when they say cages, it's a loaded term.
It is a dog whistle, right?
I want to say this too.
Dog Whistle has become bastardized by the left.
It literally just means virtue signal, like it means phrasing that can only be understood by a certain person, or it's tribal terminology.
In this instance, saying kids are in cages is a predominantly left-wing talking point.
And so, that doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's a framing device, right?
And they accused me of the same thing, using right-wing talking points, whatever.
It's meaningless.
The point is, it's not that he's wrong to say it.
It's that he's clearly getting his information from one faction, and he hasn't actually seen the updated information.
Once again, I don't blame your average person for not knowing this.
It's not Justin Bieber's job to read the news every day like it is mine.
Justin Bieber makes music, and he's a celebrity.
He sells stuff.
He's a, you know, marketing tool.
I don't mean that disrespectfully.
I mean, you know, celebrities are used to promote products, and that's, like, part of their appeal.
So he produces music.
I think he's done some acting, too, probably, because that's what, like, high-profile celebrities do.
But let's read the story, and then I want to talk a little bit about this gap between the left and the right and news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent commentary.
That means I rely on you to share this if you think it's good, right?
If you think it's bad, well then let me know why you hate me, or if you don't hate me, or just do whatever.
I don't know.
Let's read the news.
So this is from a couple days ago, and I didn't actually do an update on it because I was kind of waiting for more information, but let's read this.
Ash Skow of the Daily Wire reports, as Democrats and their media supporters continue to claim that Trump administration is putting kids in cages despite no such outrage when Obama did the same, a new report finds that the administration has reunited nearly all of the children separated at the border.
The report from Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee looked at data produced by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services and found that 95% of children who had been discharged from HHS custody had been reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent.
The data provide- Okay, so let's back up.
When I said maybe they were still in cages but with their parents, that appears to not be true.
They were released to a parent or reunified.
Well, it's still kind of possible, but it sounds like they released many to their parents.
Okay, well they discharged then.
had identified 2,648 children who were believed to have been separated at the southern border.
The committee only had data from HHS on 1,619 of those children, but found that 99 percent
had been discharged from HHS custody. Okay, well, they discharged then. They're no longer in cages.
They say of the 1,603 discharged children, 1,546 children, or 95 percent, were either
reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent.
Specifically, 1,061 children were released to a parent and 485 children were reunified with an individual sponsor.
So that at least says that there may be some children who are still, you know, currently detained.
The remaining 73 children who were discharged but not reunited have also been accounted for.
16 are being cared for by HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Oh, okay, so I guess, no, they were all discharged.
21 had sought a voluntary departure and went back to his or her home country.
20 turned 18 while in custody and could no longer be held by ORR.
8 were sent to another migrant program.
6 went to a DHS family shelter.
1 was granted immigration relief.
And the last child was a runaway.
They say the report also noted that a federal court filing also found that ORR had discharged 99% of children from its care since June 26, 2018.
According to HHS, children typically remained in ORR care for 60 days, although the average length of care has expanded to 78 days in fiscal year 2019.
The HHS data show that ORR released 53% of the separated children in 60 days or less, the report found.
Something I've talked about quite a bit, right?
Because I don't want to make this whole video about, you know, the kids and entertainment.
I will stress, I detest and deplore the horrible conditions of these places, as I'm sure most sane, reasonable people do.
Nobody wants... Look, they keep saying on the left it's about the cruelty, they want people to suffer.
No, that's ridiculous, okay?
You know, there are a lot of people who are working for ICE and CBP who are being put before, you know, Congress and the government and being berated when the issue is they literally can't do anything.
And I was thinking about this, like, what do you do if you have no resources and you've got these horrible conditions you inherited from the Obama era?
Do you just open the door and say, be free, young children, to the world with ye?
Now they're gonna be out in the middle, they might, they'll die!
You know, they'll be out, they'll be homeless, they'll have no food, no water.
So what do you do?
I've seen no solutions proposed, right?
So yes, we can absolutely say no one should tolerate these conditions, but it requires the Democrats getting on board with this.
Now to the point about news and people like Justin Bieber, The reason I think he's a really great example is because of how high profile he is to make this tweet.
Two days before he tweeted this, a report was published showing 99% of the kids have been discharged.
So, Justin, I guess he's talking about that 1%.
That's fair.
But in reality, we know Let's be honest, Justin has no idea what's going on, nor do most of these celebrities.
Even this woman, Molly, who responds, says the Obama administration, not the Trump administration, built the cages that hold many immigrant children at the US-Mexico border.
Non sequitur, okay?
The issue is, Obama is not the president anymore, Trump is.
So if you have kids detained, it's on Trump to get them out.
Apparently, Trump has done that.
Credit where credit is due.
If the report is accurate, is all I can really say.
Let's get the job done, right?
The real issue is between, you know, I'm not going to assume Molly doesn't know that, but I'm going to go ahead and assume the average person doesn't know this, you know, and I guess that's why people come to my channel because I typically have up-to-date information to the best of my abilities.
Granted, this report's from two days ago, but I can shine a light on this massive moment.
I mean, this tweet's going around.
81- I mean, you can watch the tweets and likes going up in real time.
Justin Bieber clearly is, you know, I don't want to say that he's virtue signaling.
I think he's genuinely like, hey, let's take this opportunity to shout out to the president to make some positive change, not realizing You're late to the party, bro.
You're late to the party.
So think about what happens now.
People who follow Justin Bieber are sitting there going like, oh my god, Trump has kids in cages.
And it's like, dude, come on, you know?
There's nothing we can do about it.
This shows a hole in our society in general, in our system.
Because Justin Bieber does nothing wrong by saying, hey, can you get these kids out?
It's actually a fairly polite way to address the situation.
So respect to Justin for actually stepping up and saying, let's do something about this.
The problem is his information is out of date.
The problem now is everyone, you know, a lot of people who might not have heard are now being fed misinformation.
Again, it's not his fault.
It's an issue of the average person doesn't care for these issues, doesn't follow news.
And so let me get to the main point I want to make, because I've made this point before.
You will find on YouTube a perfect microcosm of the macrocosm in that liberal and progressive channels are few and far between, but centrist and right-wing channels are abundant for one simple reason.
When you look at, you know, Pew data from like 2017, and I should have pulled it up, but it shows that liberals only get their news from liberal sources.
Conservatives actually get their news mostly from conservative, but around 40% from liberal sources.
So, actually, no, I think, yeah, yeah, something like that.
So, it's like Jack Dorsey said on his first, on the Sam Harris podcast, that they found in 2016, liberal journalists only follow liberals and conservatives follow both.
And therein lies the hole, the schism in our news and information economy.
Big mainstream sources are in a bubble.
And I know this because I've worked with them.
I've talked about it time and time again.
I have sat at the tables, the picnic benches in Williamsburg with all of these other New York-based journalists drinking beers where they don't know what's going on because they only get news from themselves.
In fact, I've talked to some high-profile progressives Nice?
Like, I have conversations with people on Twitter, and I have a lot of friends who are high-profile progressive, and they have no idea any of this is happening.
Case in point, the Antifa guy in Washington, with the ghost, you know, AR, and, you know, whose life was ended.
Nobody knows about that because the media didn't cover it.
So they only ever hear about one issue.
They only ever hear orange man bad.
And so then what happens?
Because I thought of something really interesting this morning when I was like, why do they feel that subject matter dictates political orientation?
It doesn't.
It's actually very obvious.
I am a liberal-leaning individual who follows a lot of conservatives.
I try to keep a balance.
That's what I do.
When I go online, you can look at who I follow on Twitter, okay?
Go to my Twitter account, you can look at who I'm following.
I go to, like, GamerGate and the KotakuInAction and GamerGazi subreddits periodically.
I go to r slash anarchism.
I go to ChapoTrapHouse.
They love me over there.
I go to, um...
Left and right wing sources.
Just to try and see where the people are at.
I go to, you know, news, on Reddit.
I typically try to look as much as possible.
I follow many progressives.
I follow many conservatives.
And because of this, when big news stories happen, I have a broader picture, which probably makes me a centrist.
You know, it's probably contributing to the fact that I'm rather centrist.
But then I wonder, why is it that, like, you know, I'll do a video the other day, like, about Bernie Sanders not paying $15 minimum wage.
And I was thinking about it, because I'm like, I do like Bernie.
I do.
I do.
You know, and I'll give you some examples as to why.
Bernie said, not that long ago, that we can't allow everyone across the border.
And I'm like, much respect.
Bernie said a few months ago, that was the border thing, but he said in 2015, no open borders.
Bernie also opposed the free trade agreements, and this is why a lot of people supported him.
I definitely think he's now pandering to the woke identitarianism, which is destroying the fabric of society.
And I've got a bigger video coming up on this later, because it's pretty scary stuff, like potential for violence is getting out of hand.
But I think Bernie's lost it.
But, you know, I looked at the story and I'm like, it's actually kind of defensive of Bernie, but if you approached my channel and looked at the subject matter, these people are immediately like, aha, Tim's conservative, because only conservatives talk about these things.
And that shows you they exist in a separate bubble.
People like Justin Bieber don't get news from conservative sources.
He gets his news from mainstream left-leaning sources who don't talk about what's happening with Bernie's salary.
Admittedly, it was the Washington Post and Newsweek, which is why I cover it, because I always make sure my sources are vetted by NewsGuard, like 99% of the time.
There are certain exceptions.
But when he only gets his talking points from mainstream media, he's missing out on half the conversation.
So then when I see something like, wow, that's actually really important that Bernie is in a labor dispute, because, look, we are in the 2020 cycle, the Democrats are priming, Trump is not.
We know who Trump is, we know what he does, and I sprinkle in, you know, the criticism, but I am not here to make an Orange Man bad channel.
I'm here to be like, here's what's going on with the Democrats, and here's the big news that I think is important.
But because I follow conservatives as a liberal, Here's the way they see it.
The only people who follow both are conservatives.
And liberals only follow liberals.
Therefore, anyone who follows both must be conservative, right?
Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent here.
The point I want to make, wrapping this all back together, is that, first, respect to Justin Bieber.
Actually, I mean this sincerely.
Tremendous respect for him putting out this tweet because I do think it's important that people in his position use their influence and power to rectify mistakes.
I would also point out You know, I don't know how to solve this problem, but you're two days late to the party.
So while I can certainly respect an attempt by a celebrity to call out injustice, and yes, in many circumstances, I can also criticize many celebrities for butting in on things they don't know.
Okay, so in this instance, while I can respect the effort, I can also criticize the misinformation and the lack of understanding.
And so then, at that point, it becomes important to say to someone like Justin, before you make a shout-out like this, you really gotta do a Google search.
And I mean this with all due respect, I'm not trying to be a dick.
Do that Google search, figure out where we're currently at, because this is gonna go far and wide, and people are gonna assume these kids are still in cages.
That's gonna result in protests, it's gonna result in, you know, like, police pushback.
It could get people hurt.
So we gotta do our best.
While I can certainly respect people trying to, you know... And here's what I wanna stress, okay?
You have these woke celebrities that are mean people, that are swearing and cussing all the time.
That does not deserve respect.
Okay?
Like Kathy Griffin, she blocked me on Twitter.
Justin Bieber here, it's a very calm and polite response.
While you're at it, can you get those kids out of cages?
Like, hey man, respect.
He's not being a dick.
He's, you know, I wish he had his details correct.
But I respect this.
You know, I have a friend who's a very high-profile progressive.
And they put out tweets about Black Lives Matter and, you know, feminism, and I have tremendous respect for them for doing so, because they always try to do it from a point of, I'm sorry if I'm offending you, I'm trying my best.
You know, they approach their posts with, like, let me hear what you have to say, I'm not trying to be mean to you, you know, please listen now.
And that's what I respect.
Like, if you want to come out and be, you know, pro-communist, and you do it in a way that's polite, and you don't, you denounce violence and all that stuff, like, dude, let's have the conversation.
I absolutely would love to have a conversation about these issues. But what we end up getting for the most
part are woke anger on Twitter.
And so I'll wrap this up. The main point I want to get to this whole video,
YouTube is a good example.
Very few progressive channels.
Tons of centrist and conservative channels.
Because here's the thing.
When you start digging into the details, here's what I think happens.
There's a lot of people who are centrist, because when you actually look at the facts, you're like, oh, that's interesting.
Like Joe Rogan, for instance, is, while his policies lean left, he approaches things from kind of a moderate point of view.
He's willing to hear out Ben Shapiro.
He's willing to hear out Ebby Martin.
And so his opinion is formed by mutual conversation, like understanding.
Then you get a lot of conservatives who are pushing back on how liberals only follow each other.
So that's why the ecosystem on YouTube is predominantly centrist and right-wing, except for the major players, you know, like Colbert and stuff.
But I'll leave it there.
Point made.
Like, here's the important data.
The kids are out for the most part.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
The digital age is truly something to behold.
We're kind of in the Wild West.
Or, I should say, the Wild West was maybe 10 years ago.
Things have improved in terms of cybersecurity, but it's still crazy because it's very, very easy to hack someone's social media account.
The story we have here from the Daily Mail, Donald Trump mocks Sadiq Khan after Metropolitan Police Twitter hack.
US president says, with the incompetent mayor of London, you will never have safe streets, as police accounts tweets a stream of obscenities.
Now here's the crazy thing.
It's really easy to phish.
It's a hacking technique where you trick someone into giving up their password.
It's really, really easy.
Security for these systems is actually kind of... Well, I don't want to blame Twitter for this.
Security, in general, is very, very difficult with online systems because there's a multitude of ways to attack a system.
Will we get to a point where you can be guaranteed your accounts will be safe?
Honestly, I don't know, but for now, it's the Wild Wild West.
So let's take a look.
This is actually... I find it actually quite funny.
Let me just jump right to the tweets that were being put out.
They tweeted, no comment, get my lawyer.
No comment, F the police, RT free.
I'm not gonna read this.
What you, what you gonna do, phone the police?
Very funny.
So, it's actually, you know, we can read about Trump slamming Sadiq Khan and the criticisms there, but I wanna just stress, I feel nothing but pity for Metro Police because people get hacked all the time.
And it's really interesting how major governmental organizations like the Metro Police rely on an American company for official governmental business in their country.
You gotta say, at a certain point, it's a really, really bad idea.
And this goes into the big conversation about how much power should Twitter have.
They've become monopolistic in what they offer.
Is there an alternative system you can use for microblogging?
There isn't.
I mean there is, but not with the prominence of Twitter to reach these people.
Perhaps the solution is Government organizations need to start using, well, something other than Twitter.
Maybe the Fediverse, if you're not familiar.
It's an open source, like, network of various, I don't know, microblogging sites.
So, no one can ban you.
And you can secure things yourself, so you don't have to rely on Twitter.
But, ultimately, the bigger problem isn't whether or not they're using Twitter.
It comes down to, you're gonna have a dumb employee who's gonna open a stupid email and give away their password, and then someone's got access to your Twitter.
So, let's read the news before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, which means the only way I'm gonna get that push is if you guys think my content deserves it, and you share it.
Let's read.
Donald Trump has used the Metropolitan Police's Twitter hack, Blunder, to take another swipe at London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
The U.S.
The US president tweeted, with the incompetent mayor of London,
you will never have safe streets.
Hours after the Met's official Twitter account shared a stream of obscenities.
Trump was replying to a tweet made by controversial commentator Katie Hopkins,
who has also been scathing of Khan in the past.
Hopkins wrote, Officers say they have lost control of London streets.
Apparently, they lost control of their Twitter account too.
Twitter users were taken aback when a stream of bizarre and abuse messages started flooding
from the Met Police's official account around 11pm last night.
The account, which is normally only used to update the public on ongoing policing matters,
started writing tweets that said, F the police and what you gonna do?
Phone the police?
Other tweets seem to take aim at individuals, with one reading, We are the police.
Cal and Dylan are gay, by the way.
It's gotta be some kids, right?
So here's the tweet from Trump.
They say Trump used the blunder to take a swipe at him.
We can see there's a bunch of funny posts.
One said, um, Messiah and Oik are on your forehead.
Zion is harmless.
This one says, Kyo and Zion battered.
EOR on this.
We are the police.
No comment.
Get my lawyer.
So we have this from Superintendent Roy Smith.
He tweeted, We are aware that the Met Police has been subject to unauthorized access and our media team are working hard to delete the messages and ensure the security of the account.
Please ignore any tweets until we verify that it is back under official control.
And this goes in line with the argument or the point I've been bringing up over and over again about how dangerous it is that a private organization as big and as ubiquitous as Twitter has so much influence over discourse.
Because You may not know this.
At one point back in, I think, 2013-2014, a group of hackers took over the Associated Press' Twitter account and tweeted that there was an attack on the White House.
The stock market in the U.S.
took a dive by like 8%, some ridiculous—I could be wrong, maybe not 8%, but I can't remember the exact number, but it was like $4 billion.
And then after it was revealed it was a hack and not a real post, the stock market recovered around, like, 90%.
So there was still a loss.
But here's the important point.
I've brought this up to a lot of people that, like, there's too much power in Twitter and you can't have this private company with insecure systems having such influence over government and the public.
But they always go, oh, but the stock market recovered from this.
It's no big deal.
And I point out That dip was a massive change in ownership of wealth.
The people who immediately sold in panic saw that stock bought up by someone else.
Sure, the stock market recovered, but different people have money now.
That is a massive exploit.
And for all we know, it was disguised as a political act in an effort to get people to— It was a heist!
For all we know.
Perhaps it wasn't.
But what are you going to do?
You can't reverse the trade.
People made the choice based off this information.
So what then happens when the Met Police in the UK have this problem, and it's going to negatively impact the public in the UK, but Twitter's based in San Francisco?
What do you do?
So, look, I think people are insane for letting these companies get away with what they do outside of the censorship conversation.
You've got to recognize it's a massive problem when insecure private systems have this much power over the public discourse.
Let's read on.
Some tweets targeted ongoing policing matters and called for the release of 18-year-old drill rap artist Digga D, who is currently in jail.
They say his real name is Reese Herbert.
He is part of the 1011 Drill music group from Ladbroke Grove in West London.
They then go on to explain who this group is.
I'm not sure.
They said he had millions of views on YouTube with tracks in the genre linked to a rise in violent crime.
They say last year, five members of the gang... I don't think this is relevant to the story at all.
Let's read on.
They had got... Why are they telling me now about this rapper?
I don't care.
Let's read about the hack.
Attackers also managed to hack the Metropolitan Police's website, as they were able to send test press releases.
One, titled Free Diggity, said, I just want to stress, these hackers did the Met a favor.
The Met Police.
city, be the best crime fighters by any measure, earn the trust and confidence of every community,
take pride in the quality of our service so people love, respect, and are proud of London's Met.
I just want to stress, these hackers did the Met a favor.
The Met police, they did them a favor.
Because could you imagine if they actually put out a press release that said something that seemed
Maybe something about Sadiq Khan being sick?
That could damage the economy?
That could send people into a panic?
That could get people on the streets hurt?
By doing this nonsense and this overt hack, it effectively helped them in the long run.
They go on to say the post also linked to press releases regarding the rapper and an apparently missing child.
Several other messages included abusive content.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed they had been hacked, although were unable to confirm the extent of the hack.
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
The Met is a huge organization.
They probably have a handful of people who run IT, and someone got a stupid email that said, you must click here to update your password or something, and they did, and that's called phishing.
There's a really clever thing called spear phishing, for those that aren't familiar.
And this is where you can actually spoof an email address.
So this is where it gets crazy.
You will receive an email from what looks like, say, google.com, and you'll be like,
okay, that's Google, it must be real.
That's called spear phishing.
It's a little bit more complicated than that, but phishing is like, there was a really amazing hack
that took place at Vice years ago, where they did a phishing attack followed by a spear phishing
followed by a phishing followed by a spear phishing, And the goal was, when they phished Vice the first time,
they made it really obvious.
And then everyone said, hey, don't fall for this.
Oh, no, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
The first time, it was a spear phishing attack.
And I immediately reported it.
And then people were like, hey, heads up, we're being phished.
Don't click links in any emails.
The next email that came in was obviously fake.
And at this point, everyone already knew that we were under attack and someone was trying to break into our servers.
But this is where it got truly incredible.
I was impressed.
I was clapping for these hackers.
First, they had a pretty good spearfish that many people fell victim to, but they immediately wiped everything out, changed everyone's passwords, and secured the system.
The second phish was so bad, I laughed, I was like, it's so awful, no one's gonna fall for this.
But, I actually fell for the trick, though I didn't get hacked.
What happened was, the bad phishing attempt was part one of a more sophisticated attack, where following the bad phishing, they sent a really excellent, perfect attack that mimicked the actual head of IT, the CTO, saying, guys, I told you not to click links.
We, you know, you all saw that email that went out that was fake.
You guys need to go in and reset your passwords.
Please, once again, do not fall for these attacks.
That was the actual hack.
It was brilliant.
It was absolutely brilliant.
When I saw that, I was like, no!
That is, that is, that is, oh my god.
Think about it.
When we, when we tell people, do not click links in your email no matter what, we mean no matter what.
But sending an obvious phish is the perfect con, because people immediately saw that and said, uh-oh, they're attacking us again.
They made sure it was obvious so stupid people would see it and realize they were under attack.
The next attack was brilliant.
The CTO himself saying, guys, I told you not to fall for this.
And everyone went, haha, somebody fell for it.
And then they clicked the link to reset their passwords, and that was the actual hack.
Person got in, started deleting stuff.
It was actually pretty hilarious.
But this is more serious.
This is the Metropolitan Police.
It's gonna have a serious impact.
So, they say Scotland Yard's Twitter feed has more than 1.2 million followers, who are bombarded with a series of increasingly bizarre messages.
It is believed the cybercriminals got access to the Met's My News Dex application, which automatically pushes messages out across email and their Twitter feeds.
Superintendent Media tweeted that they're working to delete it, but that's basically the story.
And then you get Trump ragging on him, which is kind of funny.
So, I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Slow news day, I might add.
You may have realized, but I've got a much bigger, more of an argument for the next video at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
For those on the podcast, it's always in a different order, but thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, and I will see you all in the next segment.
A second Mississippi gubernatorial candidate says he will not be alone with a woman who is not his wife.
Why does this keep happening?
It actually started a couple years ago when we heard Mike Pence wouldn't be alone with a woman who was not his wife, out of respect for his marriage.
It's a traditional religious thing for the most part, but it's also a side effect of the Me Too era.
Because I gotta admit, I am very cautious, as are many men right now, over... And it's a good thing, too.
Hear me out.
Actually, hold on.
Let's do this as an addendum to the video on my main channel and talk about how there's no truth here.
What's the right thing to do for a man?
Should he say, by all means, I will be alone with this woman?
Or should he say, I won't be alone with this woman?
Pick one.
Because no matter what you do, it's going to be offensive somehow.
What I was gonna say is, men should leave the door of their offices open and not have private meetings with women, because you don't know where the line for a woman is.
Unfortunately, that's offensive.
So, what do you do?
Invite women into your room and close the door?
Oh, now you're making a woman uncomfortable, and if you don't know they're uncomfortable, it's your fault.
So what do you do?
Honestly, I have no idea.
Let's start by reading the news, and the reason I want to talk about this is because CNN penned an op-ed, or one of their opinion writers did, and it's absurd.
So first, the story from CNN's second Mississippi gubernatorial candidate.
I read the title already.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share this video on social media if you like it, because YouTube doesn't anymore.
They deranked us, so I defer to y'all.
Let's read the story.
They say.
So the opening paragraph basically talks about how State Representative Robert Foster made the same decision.
This is now the second candidate.
And we'll read.
Bill Waller Jr., the former Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, told Mississippi Today that he subscribes to what is known as the Billy Graham Rule, named after the prominent evangelist, in which a man avoids being alone with women other than his wife.
I just think it's common sense.
I just think in this day and time that appearances are important.
Transparency is important.
And I think that people need to have the comfort of what's going on in government between employees and people.
And there's a lot of social issues out there about that, Waller told the news outlet on Monday.
He said his goal is not to make an issue so that everyone's comfortable with the surroundings and we can go about our business.
And this is the point I was trying to make in the beginning.
Sounds like he's doing the right thing via Me Too, right?
You can look at what happened with James Damore.
I think it's a fascinating story.
James Damore worked for Google.
He drafted a memo saying that men and women are different, and the systems we have in business are designed around men, so maybe we should design systems around women.
Quite honestly, a very feminist thing to claim.
However, he was called a misogynist.
Because there's no truth.
Only power.
That's what these people believe.
So even though he agreed with them that it was patriarchy at Google, he didn't say patriarchy.
If he used the word patriarchy, they probably would have said, you're right.
But he didn't.
So they cast him out.
He lost his job.
Long story short.
We now have an issue where this man is saying, everyone should be comfortable, right?
Hey, I agree.
A lot of these stories we hear in the Me Too era, like Aziz Ansari, for instance, He had no idea she was... So if you're not familiar, he had a bad date.
She then complained about it as he's gotten, you know, he got cancelled, sort of.
He's back.
It wasn't as bad as many other people.
But he was dragged heavily on media, and many people on the left attacked him for it.
He had no idea his date was uncomfortable.
That is the important point here.
If you are working with a woman, and you say, come on in my office, close the door and lock it, Maybe you don't gotta lock it.
I don't know.
Maybe you want the door locked like many people do for privacy so no one can butt in on your meeting.
Okay, okay, okay, hold on.
Don't lock the door, right?
Maybe that's the appropriate thing to do.
But now what if she's uncomfortable because the door is closed?
Okay, leave the door open.
What, now we can't have a private meeting because I'm a woman?
And there it goes.
There's literally no correct way to approach this.
This guy seems to be doing everything right.
He wants everyone to be comfortable, right?
Nope, wrong.
He gets attacked.
Waller told Mississippi Today that in his 22 years serving on the state Supreme Court, he never found himself alone with a female colleague.
He said, I tried to always have someone present, he told Mississippi Today, adding that he would not, however, demand that the woman provide the other male colleague.
Last week, Foster declined Mississippi Today's request to send a reporter on the trail with him for the day because the reporter was female, unless she brought along a male colleague, saying he did so because he just wanted to keep things professional.
Okay, you get the idea.
We've talked about it.
Let's jump over to CNN's, I don't know, feminist-y, left-y critique.
An open letter to officials who won't meet with a woman alone.
Dear State Representative Robert Foster and former Chief Justice Bill Waller Jr., At a time when young people in your state of Mississippi are dealing with the lowest earnings and the highest unemployment for their age group, with tens of thousands of people don't have health insurance in part because of their refusal of current leadership to expand Medicaid, You have made your way into the headlines by boldly pledging not to meet alone with a woman other than your wife.
Congratulations to both of you for all of this national coverage, which they didn't ask for.
Doesn't need to be news, and in my opinion probably isn't.
Except considering the greater cultural context, I can see why it is.
But don't blame them.
You're the one writing about it.
Your constituents probably won't know anytime soon, if ever.
Whether this proclamation was inspired solely by the teachings of Billy Graham, by a fascination with the Victorian era, or doubts about your own self-control.
Oh, I love it.
Just whack these guys over the head, don't you?
That's a metaphor, by the way.
Oh, I'm gonna get banned now.
But there are a few questions to consider to make sure you are achieving your stated goal of avoiding speculation resulting from the evils of the MeToo movement.
Is having another man present really the answer?
So I understand you think that having another man present will really help you control your unbridled masculine urges.
I love how they do this.
The problem isn't as this guy, look, this guy straight up said he wants everyone comfortable.
It's not about his urges, it's about him not wanting to put a woman in an uncomfortable position.
Rather a feminist approach, but of course it's offensive to someone.
Let's read on.
But doesn't having two men present with a woman make it even more questionable?
No, it doesn't, because now there's a third party to support or deny certain claims.
According to your way of thinking, I would feel a lot safer as a supporter of the MeToo movement if you had two women present instead.
Sure, that's fine too, but you have to recognize this guy said he didn't want them to present a male colleague to be with him.
You gotta pay attention, lady.
You're not even reading the news.
It's outrage without understanding the context.
Welcome to 2019.
I'll say it a million times.
This woman clearly didn't read what the guy had to say.
She's just typing away at her faux outrage without having any idea of what's happening.
And this is journalism today.
Did she look at the source material?
Obviously she didn't.
Her outrage is fake.
It's just generating clicks.
Congratulations.
Now here's the best part.
Should you really be meeting alone with men, either?
It is very clear that you believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, despite the rulings of the Supreme Court.
What?
In this country, it's something like 95% of people who identify as straight, cis, whatever you want to call it.
So no.
Quell your faux outrage!
It's just, ah, I'm so sick of the nonsense.
And therefore, any relations are only between a man and a woman.
No, just extremely likely to be.
But wouldn't it help avoid any question that you were going outside of your marriage with a man if you always had a woman present as well?
No.
You're just taking them out of context for no reason, so you can pretend to be mad about it.
What kind of women should be present?
Now that I think about it, it would really make sense for these women chaperones to be married and also mothers.
I mean, who can even trust a married woman if she hasn't yet procreated?
And see, now they're just going nuts.
Now you've just lost the plot.
Okay?
There's a real argument to be made.
I do not believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
I believe you can love whoever you want, and I recognize, hey man, you do what you want to do in private.
Like, I got no beef.
And I don't mean private in, like, your own home hidden in the closet.
I literally mean, like, if you want to walk down the street holding hands with someone, that's none of my business.
That is your private action.
I don't care if it happens in public.
You want to make out with a dude or a lady?
Hey man, do your thing.
Although I think there might be some laws somewhere.
I don't know.
I think you should be able to do your thing.
Okay?
Within reason, obviously.
We have laws for a reason.
I'm not a libertarian, but I am liberal.
So herein lies, I guess, the assumption on this lady's part, that anybody who's going to be critical of the MeToo era surely must be a Christian conservative.
Oh, harumph, I say.
Should you consider body cameras?
And this is why we can't have nice things.
There's a real argument that needs to be had about what's going on right now and what the appropriate thing to do is.
Instead, we get snarky drivel like this.
I think it's funny that they rag on YouTube anti-SGWs for making similar kinds of content when they do it on CNN.
Who published this?
Why would this get approved?
I'm not even going to read the other nonsense.
Let's keep going.
Don't touch anyone appropriately.
This sounds pretty straightforward.
Oh, okay.
She says, I am outlining an alternate approach.
Don't touch anyone inappropriately.
Define inappropriate.
If I pat you on the back, is that inappropriate?
To some it is, to some it isn't.
If I close the door, is that okay?
Don't make any remarks about a woman's figure, including her bust or backside.
Okay, well if I go to a guy and say, hey man, you've been hitting the gym?
Totally acceptable.
I go to a woman, ooh, you've been hitting the gym?
Not acceptable?
So you're saying men must be treated differently from women?
I'll tell you this, you have no answers because there isn't one.
Any sane person who tries to approach this problem from a solution-oriented position is going to find out there's literally nothing they can do.
And that's the point I've made over and over again.
I can walk up to a dude and be like, damn, brother, nice suit.
Where'd you get it?
Say the exact same thing to him and, ooh, damn, girl.
Okay, get rid of the ooh.
Damn, girl, nice, or damn, sister, nice.
I'm trying to make it perfect.
Say, damn, brother, nice suit.
Where'd you get that?
Looking good.
Oh, yeah, I got it tailored.
Damn, sister, nice suit.
Nice dress.
Where'd you get it?
Looking good.
How dare you?
How dare you comment on my figure?
Don't ask anyone, including women, for a sexual favor because of your place in power.
I mean, sure, but that's a given, right?
That's literally, like, sexual harassment laws exist.
Well, it's civil, you know.
Hire women to be on your senior team.
What does this have to do with anything?
So, you know what?
I get it.
I'm not gonna beat a dead horse on this one.
You get the point.
Once again, we have another story, and CNN loves just putting out the hyperbolic trash.
You know, look, I get it.
Everybody does it.
I got a couple more stories coming up for you in a few minutes, so stick around, and I will see you in the next segment.
From the Daily Caller, a third of Democrats believe it's racist to criticize politicians of color.
It's actually racist to believe that.
What's the famous saying?
That, uh, I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Something like that.
And that's what I grew up on.
And that means a lot to me, especially with my family history.
But of course, today, heaven forbid anyone ever criticize anybody who's not white, because that clearly must be racist.
Right now, we have the controversy over Trump and the squad.
A poll is done.
A new poll that suggests nearly one-third of Democrats.
That's a lot of people to believe in nonsense or to be overtly racist.
So let's read this, but I also have another story that I may pull up, and we'll get to it in a second.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, as most of you know, share the video if you like it.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, so I mean it.
If you really do like it, hit that, you know, share on Facebook, wherever you want to share it.
But let's read the news.
They say, Rasmussen conducted the survey with 1,000 registered voters between July 15th and 16th.
The survey found that 32% of Democrats agree that it is racist for any white politician to criticize the political views of politicians of color.
The poll also found that 85% of Democrats believe President Donald Trump is racist, while 85% of Republicans believe charges of racism against opponents are usually politically motivated.
Go figure.
Once again, the whole political debate falls down on tribal lines.
And this is why, well for one, I've said there's no center.
But it's also why it's a really difficult position to even address.
How do I accurately approach a political situation in which there is no middle ground?
Either it is or it isn't.
And because I often take the middle, as Vox has even stated in one instance, that the center and the right are aligned in their narrative for the most part, if I say, if I say something like this, The left thinks Trump is racist.
The right thinks he doesn't.
They will accuse me of making a right-wing statement for saying that because I didn't agree with them.
And because of that rhetoric and that narrative, you're pushing the center towards Trump.
But that's the story we'll get to in a second.
Let's read on.
They say the Rasmussen poll comes just days after President Trump tweeted that a progressive group of freshmen congresswomen should go back where they came from.
Really, Daily Caller, I think you can do a better job of framing that.
He did say freshman congresswoman should go back and solve the problems, you know, the countries are facing problems, they should fix it.
It's a really complicated story.
And simply by bringing up the nuance, here comes Tim Pool's right wing.
I can hear it.
I can hear it in the distance from the left.
At a Wednesday night rally, supporters of the president took that sentiment a bit further and chanted, send her back, in reference to Somali refugee Ilhan Omar.
Trump told reporters the next day in the Oval Office that he was not happy about the chant and said he went out of his way to move from it during his speech.
And you know what I saw in response to that?
A lot of Trump supporters saying, thank you, Trump.
There were actually a lot of conservatives who were critical of Trump over that chant.
Admittedly, Trump isn't the one who said it.
Now, the next day, what did the narrative become?
Trump waited 13 seconds before he started talking.
That means he allowed it.
Oh, man, come on.
You know, when I saw that, I cringed.
What I saw when I looked at Trump was Trump probably thinking, like, uh-oh, that one's bad.
That one's bad for me.
Trump definitely put out these tweets, he put out this language, because he wants the Democrats to unify, but things went a little far with that chant.
I find that chant to be bad.
Disgusting.
I do not like it.
But I also recognize that the left has been using the exact same language non-stop for years, and no one said anything about it, and therein lies the problem of there being no middle.
I've criticized the left over this stuff, I'll criticize the right over it, but it doesn't matter.
I'll at least say this.
Even though I made a video, two videos, where I called the president.
I made one video saying Trump disavows center-backed comments, and I opened it by saying I find those comments disgusting.
Completely disagree.
What do I get?
All of woke Twitter.
Okay, not all of it, but many woke Twitter people being like, Acting like I never criticize the president and then someone comments that like the only reason I criticize AOC is because I'm panicking because I offended the Trump supporters.
Oh, I don't care.
These people are insane.
I restrain myself from ragging on Trump because I rag on him so often.
Yes, I'm in the center.
I'm not a fan of Trump's tweets, I understand the strategy, and I'm not stupid, I'm not gonna pretend like he didn't succeed in what his plan was.
But I think he deserves criticism for his plan, and I think he's facing a pyrrhic victory over it.
But how absurd is it?
That you can't even criticize the squad without being called racist, as Nancy Pelosi learned the hard way.
It's pure insanity.
Because what is the outcome then?
AOC comes out with her farting cows proposition, and then when someone criticizes it, they're called racist.
That's where we're at.
It's a fascistic ideology.
There is no truth but power.
They're using victimhood as a tool.
They're using the goodwill and the fear of people.
And I can add, you know, I'll mention a little bit, too, from the video I did on my main channel, the story of Amy Wex, who said, she said something to the effect of, immigration from first world countries is preferable because they hold similar values, but most of those countries are white.
Therefore, you have to, you know, battle the idea that immigration from third world countries is typically going to result in people who don't necessarily agree with your values, et cetera, et cetera.
And because of this, she said, you will then find I don't want to quote her.
She made a reference to countries with white people and then, you know, countries with non-white people, and no matter how I address that issue, someone's going to try and clip it, so I'm not going to say it.
But her point was that any good society will open the doors—at least this is my understanding, because I've seen a bunch of people defending her—will open the doors to all people of all races.
But it is an obstacle to try and make sure we're screening for the right cultural appreciation.
So I did an interview with some refugees from Syria who love South Park and Family Guy and totally love American culture.
And that's kind of the point she's making.
That those are the people that you want to try and bring in.
It's an obstacle to try and find them.
Of course now she's smeared as a racist for stating a fact.
The point I'm trying to make with that is, if you can't even criticize AOC for being, you know, an idiot because it's racist, well then how do you address her bad ideas?
Do you just let her bad ideas happen?
That's absurd.
And it's gonna lead to ruin if we can't be smart.
There are a lot of young people who have said this about Trump, that the reason they liked him is because if you can't address a problem, you can't solve it, and that's what we're increasingly seeing on the left.
But don't get me wrong, We absolutely do have some criticism to go around, and this is one of the most important points and warnings I will make to Trump and his voters.
You don't want a pyrrhic victory.
Alright?
If you're not familiar, it basically means you win the battle, but you've caused so much damage to yourself, it's hurting you in the long run.
The Examiner reports from Scaramucci, if Trump continues racist theme, he'll lose my vote and the votes of a larger glacier of people.
I completely agree.
First of all, Trump doesn't have my vote, so take my opinion with a grain of salt if you care at all.
But there are a lot of moderates.
There are a lot of people I talk to who voted for Trump who used to be Democrats.
Look at the walk away campaign.
Well, I certainly think anybody willing to announce walkaway is not going to be swayed by this.
I do warn you that there are people in the middle of the road who are sitting there saying like, man, the Democrats are going nuts, but, you know, at least, at least, you know, they're looking at the Democrats as really bad and Trump as bad, but not as bad.
And that's what Trump needs.
Here's the problem.
Trump can tip the scales in a dangerous way.
It seems like with that tweet strategy he did, he distracted from the immigration debate.
Good for him.
It worked for him.
Fine.
I disagree with him tweeting.
But it worked.
You gotta admit it.
But it's also causing damage to him.
In the hopes it causes more damage to the Democrats.
If we go based on the narrative that, you know, like my opinion, as well as like Ezra Klein and other leftists, that Trump was trying to force the Democrats to unify, it seems like he's playing a game where, I don't know if you're familiar with like Pokemon, you do an attack that causes 20 damage to the opponent and 10 damage to yourself, hoping that it kills them, you know.
Okay, I'm gonna try and tone down the rhetoric, even though I'm being metaphorical.
It hurts them more than it hurts you.
The problem is, we can't quantify that.
And you gotta be really careful because when you get Republicans coming out too, you can lose the moderates.
The left doesn't seem to care, right?
The left goes full racist all day and night.
Not everybody, but a lot of them do.
And every time I say, you're gonna lose the moderates, they laugh, ho ho ho, you're not a moderate and we don't want you anyway!
Fine!
So then at least the Republicans get it.
There is a tacit alliance right now between the center and the right over liberty, freedom, loving America, border security, etc.
But if Trump pushes that line, he's going to lose those moderates, and that's a warning that I've given over and over again to the left, and the right better listen to it as well.
Look, we're going to see record voter turnout in 2020.
And while I certainly think Trump has a massive advantage, it seems like his strategy is, I'm going to hurt them more than I hurt myself.
And while that may work, because you will see people going like, oh my god, Trump, what are you doing?
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
This story is complicated and dangerous, but I would say, I'm going to be very careful of my language, the story is being framed as a male predator pretending to be trans, or maybe legitimately trans, to exploit the system and target children and destroy businesses.
This seems to be, uh, this is being framed by many people as an instance of someone abusing civil rights law for just, like, complete chaos to watch the world burn.
That's how it's being framed by many people on the right.
However, we're not really seeing it addressed by the left or the mainstream media at all.
But here's the story.
From the National Post.
Accusations fly at human rights hearing into transgender woman's Brazilian wax complaint.
A substantive question remained at the core of the raucous day-long hearing.
Should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?
This is where things get... You know what, man?
I don't even know how to address this story.
This is insane.
But you basically have a human being with male privates who identifies as a female trying to get a female service of Brazilian wax.
Here's the important thing.
Actually, let me stop right here and say this.
When it comes to the bakery case in Colorado, this is an issue of someone writing words on a cake, and arguing they shouldn't have to produce speech that goes against their religious beliefs.
Religion is a protected class, and it's a complicated story.
In this instance, we can see there's a bit of nuance.
Look, my opinion is...
It's not your speech.
I understand if you don't want to, but is it easier just to do it?
Well, it honestly comes down to a coin toss.
How much easier is it to just go to a different bakery?
It's a small business, why bother with it?
But I do feel like if you are participating in public, using public infrastructure, and someone who pays taxes which funds the infrastructure to your building, be it plumbing, electricity, etc., you should service them to a reasonable extent.
Now this pushes me to my limits.
Because it's simple, right?
Like, just make a cake and write a little message.
Not a big deal.
However, what happens then when you have a trans woman with male privates telling a female they have to touch your genitals to do this job?
All of a sudden now, It gets pretty damn weird.
And there's not one solution to this problem.
Thus, as I've said time and time again, the more we try to expand civil rights protections, the more we actually take them away.
Case in point, the Colorado Baker.
It's against his religion to engage in a practice.
Well, is that an excuse?
We now take away the right for someone to engage in a religious practice or belief based on the protections of someone else.
We've stripped away someone's rights in exchange for someone else's.
In this story, Who's protected?
A woman's right to not be forced to touch the genitals of someone they don't want to?
Or a trans woman's right to be serviced?
You got yourself a heck of a conundrum here, civil rights activists.
Let's read.
A human rights tribunal hearing devolved into repeated outbursts and name-calling this week as it considered a trans woman's complaint that a home-based salon discriminated against her by denying her a Brazilian wax.
At one point, the complainant compared the business owner to a neo-Nazi.
The lawyer for the business owner accused the complainant of engaging in half-truths and fabrications.
Tribunal adjudicator Devin Cosseno frequently had to interject to maintain decorum and to keep the hearing from careening off course.
But a substantive question remained at the core of the raucous day-long hearing, should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?
Jessica Yaniv, the complainant, told the hearing she was entitled to receive the advertised wax service, and that if the tribunal ruled against her, it could lead to a dangerous precedent.
You cannot choose who your clientele is going to be, she said.
Look, man, I agree with Yaniv.
I've made this point.
You cannot.
If you want to pass these laws, this is what you will get, the law says as much.
Now, I've frequently made the point about New York City and recognizing all genders, including public accommodation, names, etc.
I've brought up a somewhat silly contention that you can make someone say whatever name you want.
Starbucks, for instance, will yell your name when your drink is done.
I don't know if they still do this.
There was a big controversy when people put their name as Trump, because they're like, I refuse to say that.
Well, what if you're, you know, you look very masculine, you say your name is Sarah, and someone says, I'm not yelling that name, that's not your name.
Well, that's a violation because they're denying you a public accommodation.
What if your name is something really, really offensive?
Or what if, because the law states your name can be whatever you want, what if you just say, hey, my name is, you know, a swear word?
I'm not gonna yell that out loud, but you have to.
Well, that could be laughed out of court.
In this instance, though, now things get damn confusing.
How can the law be upheld if you will compel a woman to touch the genitals of a man?
In a Brazilian wax, you need specific techniques.
I believe Brazilian is specifically for females, and I think they bring this up.
But obviously, men and women are different.
Males and females are different.
It's a very touchy subject to try and talk about.
If a woman, if an individual, is not trained to perform the male version, they can't.
Is it then the business's fault?
Should every salon be now mandated to provide male and female service?
Where did you draw the line?
Let's read more.
They say business owner Marcia da Silva said she was not comfortable carrying out a Brazilian wax on a person with male genitals, nor did she have the training for it.
Jay Cameron, da Silva's lawyer and litigation manager with the Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told the hearing that a ruling against his client would be tantamount to ordering intimate services against someone's will.
This is just so weird.
The complaint heard Wednesday is one of more than a dozen filed by Yaniv, who described herself as a digital marketing expert and LGBTQ activist.
All alleged she was the subject of discrimination by Salons.
A few complaints have been settled without hearing or withdrawn.
Yaniv also made headlines recently for engaging in a social media spat with free speech advocate Lindsey Shepard, in which they both made disparaging remarks at each other.
Twitter subsequently banned Shepard from the platform, but not Yaniv.
You can't have this!
You can't have one- So what happened with Shepard was, Yaniv insulted her abnorm- her uteral abnormality, and that's okay, but then when Shepard insults back, she gets banned?
You can't have these double standards.
I'm sorry, you can't.
That's why many people believe Yaniv is faking it, and pretending, and just trying to get special benefits.
Yaniv, today, talked about advocating for, you know, topless children, and has, I'm not even, I can't even get into it, it really does make one believe Yaniv is just exploiting the system.
But at least, these exploits will reveal the holes in the system and perhaps force the system to correct itself.
These are questions that need to be answered.
We're in the process of developing new civics, new social regulations, norms, and laws.
And they'll be tested, and within 10 or 20 years, we'll know for sure what is or isn't acceptable.
For the time being, we're gonna see absolute... I don't know, man.
How do you tell a woman she has to touch a dude?
I don't know why you answered this one.
Let's read on.
The Tribunal had initially issued a publication ban shielding Yaniv's identity, but on Wednesday, Cosseno decided to lift the ban based on Yaniv's social media presence and public advocacy.
At Wednesday's hearing, Yaniv, who is representing herself, said she came upon a Facebook ad in spring 2018 offering a promotion for Brazilian wax, which involves the removal of hair around the groin.
De Silva testified she had started her home-based business after previously performing waxes on family and friends.
Yaniv was the first person to respond to her ad.
The first person, and her business already gets shut down.
They agreed over text messages to an afternoon appointment.
But Yaniv testified that after identifying herself as transgender and sending De Silva a selfie, De Silva canceled the session.
De Silva told the tribunal I have no problem with LGBT.
She said she was just not comfortable waxing male genitals.
The idea also did not sit well with her husband, she said.
Further, she didn't have any experience doing it.
Everyone has the right to decide who comes in their home, she added, noting that she was also uncomfortable with the persistent messages she was getting from Yaniv.
For my safety, I said no.
Think about it.
Whether or not you will see a widespread group of predators exploiting the system for fetish ends is irrelevant.
One person is enough.
Should the law be able to compel a woman to service a male?
Man, I just don't know what the answers are.
And while it's really easy to point to the baker and say, look man, you just gotta bake a cake, I get it.
It's the same principle here when it's like, okay, but then should a male be able to get services from a female who doesn't want to touch a male?
Look, when I go to the airport and I get a pat-down, I can request, like, a male or something, like, you can ask for it.
Can they get rid of that?
Is that against the rules?
Like, where do we draw the line?
I honestly don't know.
So, they say, De Silva told the tribunal she defines someone who is
transgender as a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery.
She responded affirmatively when asked if she'd performed the waxing service on someone who had undergone such
surgery.
Yaniv said the advertisement De Silva posted was open to the public and didn't come with any conditions.
She said that DaSilva should have accepted that Yaniv identifies as female rather than make assumptions about her based on her appearance.
Your gender identity is your own, Yaniv testified.
We live in a different day and age now.
At one point, Yaniv equated the denial of service to Neo-Nazism.
Oh, congratulations, we made it this far.
So, however, Uh, Yaniv tried to tell the tribunal that she was intersex and that she had female body parts.
But Cameron accused her of an outright fabrication, your attempting to mislead the tribunal.
Cameron called Yaniv's credibility into question and earlier suggested that Yaniv had used a fake Facebook profile of a pregnant woman when she initially sought out the waxing service.
It sounds like, based on the history of this individual, at least many are framing it this way, that she's trying to exploit this for legal benefits.
Just to make a point?
I don't know.
But all I can really say is that, look, she's done this over and over again.
Numerous salons.
She's got a rather controversial history.
And many people believe that it's an exploit.
That it's just gaming the system or attempting to watch the world burn.
I have no idea.
Regardless of that, let's set aside whatever your personal beliefs are and just say this.
Yeniv has a good point.
If the business says you can't discriminate, then the Brazilian wax can't discriminate.
And I think she might win.
But you'll also see this is extremely disruptive to commerce, and it's going to result in a collapse of small business.
I don't even know.
Here's the point I want to bring up with this story.
It's hard to parse.
Current human rights law are conflicting and need to be sorted out and who knows where we'll end up.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
