Major Antitrust Probe Announced Into Google And Facebook, Insider Says Google Is Biased
Google Employee EXPOSES Political Bias Amid Anti-Trust Announcement. Project Veritas' latest interview brings a senior google engineer on the record about the political bias at the company. This provides an interesting window into the real problems we are facing in regard to the big tech monopolies.This comes at the same time as the DOJ announces a major anti trust probe into four big tech companies relating to how to they operate and any anti-competitive practices.The issues with political bias in these companies is that it leads to conservative censorship and market interference. FOr instance the recent banning of the Gab app for content violations even though the app contained no content at all.Big tech and social media bias is obvious to those that are outside the bubble. While far left, leftist, and social justice activists routinely try to deny that the evidence is real it was actually the left wing Gizmodo that first broke the story in 2016.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We've got a couple big breaking stories today related to big tech, political bias, censorship, and market manipulation.
The first, Justice Department to open broad new antitrust review of big tech companies.
Inquiry signals Bill Barr's deep interest in tech sector poses threat to companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple.
The next big story we have A Google engineer with a PhD has gone on record with Project Veritas explaining how he sees the political bias.
He believes that the Google staff are wrong when they say they're not biased.
They are.
But he paints a rather interesting picture.
He shows it's kind of nuanced, and there's a sort of ignorance in how Google acts in a very biased way, in a way that could be very, very damaging.
I want to follow this up with some examples, but I do want to end by showing you this story from just last week.
A Google expert to Senator Cruz, 15 million 2020 votes are at risk.
This man, Dr. Robert Epstein, who is not a conservative, explains that Google is swaying votes.
And this ties together with what Project Veritas has shown us in this interview.
There's a sort of ignorant action taking place because these systems are being run by biased individuals who think they're not.
So first, let's get started with probably the biggest breaking story.
There's going to be an antitrust review of Big Tech.
Now, this is not necessarily an investigation, but it could lead to one.
So hold your horses, everybody.
We're not quite there yet, but this, in my opinion, Will absolutely lead to some action.
And the reason I think so is they talk about, they're doing the review to determine whether or not these big tech companies are stifling competition.
And I can show you that yes, they are.
And I have a lot of examples to show you how they kind of work together.
It's strange, right?
Because it's almost ideological and market-based.
These companies want to protect their business, but in the end, they kind of act together In ideological ways, that's rather creepy.
So antitrust is greatly welcomed, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Now, I don't know what the right thing to do is.
I don't want to advocate for what they should or shouldn't do, but I do think we need to do something.
Now, 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 you know the drill.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, and I gotta stress, I am making a video right now explaining that Google is facing antitrust.
I can't imagine they will appreciate this.
That means if you like this video and think it's important, share it on social media to help spread the message.
But first, let's start with the Wall Street Journal and go through what's happening, big breaking story.
They say, The Justice Department is opening a broad antitrust review into whether dominant technology firms are unlawfully stifling competition, adding a new Washington threat for companies such as Facebook, Google, and Apple.
The review is geared towards examining the practices of online platforms that dominate internet search, social media, and retail services, the department said, confirming the review shortly after the Wall Street Journal reported it.
Now, I want to make sure we stress, social media is in here.
That may wrap up Twitter.
The new antitrust inquiry under Attorney General William Barr could ratchet up the already considerable regulatory pressures facing the top U.S.
tech firms.
The review is designed to go above and beyond recent plans for scrutinizing the tech sector that were crafted by the Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
They say, the two agencies which share antitrust enforcement authority in recent months worked out which one of them would take the lead on exploring different issues involving the big four tech giants.
Those turf agreements caused a stir in the tech industry and rattled investors.
Now, the new Justice Department review could amplify the risk because some of those companies could face antitrust claims from both the Justice Department and the FTC.
The FTC in February created its own task force to monitor competition in the tech sector, as the team's work is ongoing.
The Justice Department will examine issues including how the most dominant tech firms have grown in size and might, and expanded their reach into additional businesses.
The Justice Department also is interested in how big tech has leveraged the powers that come with having very large networks of users, the department said.
So I think that's the gist of it.
They do go into greater detail, but I don't think we need to read too much into that.
I want to make a few points as it pertains to market bias.
But here's the thing.
Whether or not these big tech firms are stifling market competition, there is an absolute tie So the first thing I want to reference is Patreon and what we saw following the exodus back in December.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, Patreon had banned a while ago, maybe a year and a half ago now, Lauren Southern.
When they snapped their fingers and wiped out her income, that sent ripples through the community, mostly in the political sphere.
We saw people like Sam Harris say, it's not a safe place and I'm going to be leaving.
I don't think he left right away, he might have.
It's been a while.
But essentially this scared people.
Now my response was, Patreon should not outright just ban people without warning, and they should give people a chance to migrate because we're talking about income.
But then, in December, Sargon of Akkad, real name Carl Benjamin, who is a YouTuber, political commentator, was banned from Patreon again, without warning.
But this was a, you know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me moment.
Many people said, I will not be fooled again, and fled the platform.
Around this time, I also left.
But here's what's interesting.
Many of these creators then went to Subscribestar, which I currently use now.
When everyone did, there was a lot of press.
And then we saw something interesting.
PayPal, Stripe, and other payment processors removed access.
They canceled their partnership with Subscribestar.
This was disconcerting because it looked like Silicon Valley was acting to protect its own interest either to stifle market competition or for ideology.
Now, of course, many people will say it's about the ideology.
They'll say, These companies were biased and were trying to stop conservative voices from being able to fund themselves, although many of the people who fled weren't even conservative.
There were some journalists and some, you know, comedy channels, and there's my channel as well, which is, you know, centrist, but I get it.
They don't like me.
They don't like Sargon.
However, it was presented by a lawyer named Lior Lesser, who's a YouTuber Law on YouTube, that there's potentially A monopolistic issue here in that, why would PayPal suspend services to a rival company to Patreon?
It may be that they're trying to stop another company from competing with service used by PayPal.
So, Patreon allows PayPal to, you know, send money, and that means PayPal probably gets a percentage of that.
By PayPal then suspending services to a rival company, that may have been a trust violation of some sort.
So I want to make sure that's clear.
That you can see there's an overlap between ideology and potential market violations.
So now before we get into an example, I want to show you of both, I do want to go over what Project Veritas has now in this latest interview.
Now, I don't believe they're framing it as a whistleblower, necessarily.
I believe they're just saying that he's taking great risk going on the record and explaining what he sees.
Veritas Story reads, current senior Google engineer goes public on camera, tech is dangerous, taking sides.
He says, it's time to decide.
Do we run the technology or does the technology run us?
I really don't buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral.
Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?
He says, I look at search, and I look at Google News, and I see what it's doing, and I see Google executives go to Congress and say it's not manipulated, it's not political, and I'm just so sure that's not true.
Adding, I have a PhD, I have five years experience at Google, and I just know how algorithms are.
They don't write themselves.
We write them to do what we want them to do.
Here's what's interesting.
Google has addressed algorithmic bias.
A good example is when you search for inventors.
What do you see?
Well, right now, people believe that Google is manipulating the search for inventors, but the point is, if someone writes an algorithm saying, you know, when you search for x, you will see y, the person's bias is in that algorithm.
It exists.
So Google's trying to intervene, but what they end up doing is rather ideological, and then you can see that basically because Google can't affect every single search, they target their ideological bias and try and manipulate those.
It doesn't mean that Google is trying to shut down conservatives, though some definitely are.
We've seen the emails.
It means, what we hear in my opinion, and definitely check out the Veritas report after this video, what it means to me, and what this man, I believe, let me try to get his name in here, his last name is Coppola, so, I don't, do they have his first name?
Greg Coppola.
He's presenting the actual kind of nuanced stance that I think is true for the most part.
What we have are people in Silicon Valley who are biased, because most people are, creating massive systems which manipulate our behavior, and they don't realize how biased their system really is.
An example he gives.
When you search for Donald Trump, 20% of those stories come from CNN, an outlet that absolutely hates the president.
Well, you can say they don't hate the president, but come on.
It's jokingly referred to as the Orange Men Bad Network, so yes, it's almost all negative press from CNN.
What that means is, whether Google is trying to be biased or not, they are.
Google has recently deranked my channel.
And that's why I really do sincerely mean it.
Share this video if you think it's important.
Not just my channel.
They deranked a ton of people across the board.
Notably, David Pakman, who is a progressive.
And he did a big video exposing this and showing the data.
What they did was they de-ranked independent commentary.
Here's what happens.
All of the big corporate channels get propped up, including Fox News.
But out of all of the big media channels, how many are centrist or conservative?
One, Fox News caters to a more centrist and conservative audience, mostly a conservative audience.
Where do centrists go?
Where do moderates go?
All of these other channels that are being propped up—CNN, MSNBC, etc.
and the local news outlets—are left-leaning.
Which means, though their intention is to prop up what they view as authoritative sources, they end up propping up traditionally left-leaning outlets and only a few
conservatives. Independent commentary tends to be centrist and right because of this. Because moderates and
conservatives and some center-left individuals are looking for a nuanced position they don't
get from corporate media. But corporate media gets propped up, that is bias. Now I do have some
examples, but I want to stress a very Recently, you may not be aware, I was just in Dallas, and the reason is because Glenn Beck invited me out for an interview.
It was actually, I gotta say, it was really, really interesting.
We did not agree on pro-choice, we did not agree on the Colorado Baker stuff, but we had a very cordial, amicable, and interesting conversation, I think.
One of the most important things that came up was how I was describing the danger of algorithmic bias.
When you explain to someone that since the early 2010s, we've seen a massive spike in the media reporting on these social justice, identitarian stories, that will influence people, but it's hard to truly grasp, especially if you're in that bubble.
Imagine you're talking to someone who is a progressive, and let's say they're acting in good faith.
You explain to them the media is biased, and they say, I don't see it.
Well, the reason they don't see it is because they're in that bubble.
Try and ask them about some story about, say, the ICE facility in Tacoma, or Andy Ngo, and they probably won't know about it because their bubble doesn't talk about it.
They can't tell that they're being shifted ridiculously far to the left.
But here's a real example.
A couple years ago, there was a serious algorithmic nightmare scenario occurring on YouTube of which I reported on and many other people reported on.
It was a Finger Family algorithmic disaster.
What was happening was that someone discovered at some point nursery rhymes got hundreds of millions of views because mothers, and to an extent fathers, would hand an iPad to their baby and they would turn on a song called Finger Family.
The babies would stare at the screen.
The parents thought, I'm occupying my kid's time.
It's educational, fun family songs.
The algorithm realized Finger Family does well and started showing it more and more.
Now here's where it gets scary.
The babies weren't touching the screen.
It's just babies in their crib.
I was gonna say cage.
Babies in their crib, just looking at the screen.
After that video ended, YouTube would automatically play a similar video that fit the algorithm.
This led to a wave of children's content that was mostly okay.
However, eventually some people, notably in India, found they could exploit the algorithm.
They started making extremely low-quality, creepy videos, and you can probably still find some of these.
Eventually, it got really weird, and you could see certain disreputable historical figures that no one should be watching dancing along to crudely recorded nightmare songs that it sounded horrifying.
But the video would be titled Finger Family.
You would see Elsa, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk.
You would see disturbing imagery, things that are so offensive I can't say it in this video.
And babies were watching this because the algorithm was feeding it to them.
This was real.
Now, here's the thing about the media.
They like to claim that YouTube is a rabbit hole.
It really isn't in this regard.
The reason this problem happened with the babies is because babies couldn't choose.
They couldn't say, I don't want this.
They were forced to stare at the screen.
Now think about people being inundated by a manipulated far-left media that keeps going crazy trying to find something that will outrage the audience to get them to watch.
It's why most news about Trump is bad.
They can't tell they're watching the freaky nightmare content.
So do this.
Google search, you know, Incredible Hulk Finger Family Algorithm Weird.
Try and find some of these videos and you will see just how nightmarish they are.
Because we're not in that bubble, we can truly see how freaky it is.
Now imagine the same kind of system is feeding regular people who watch, who read BuzzFeed, who read Verge, who read even now the New York Times.
And they're getting this nonsense.
Their world is being shaped by it.
Is it the intent of the people running Vox.com to drive their audience into a delusional state?
Of course not.
But they keep chasing after this narrative to try and get the clicks because these companies aren't doing well.
They have to feed that addiction.
And it gets crazier and crazier until, I kid you not, they say Donald Trump is worse than racist.
Worse!
What does it even mean?
They've run out of space, so they have to keep escalating what he is.
Orange man bad every single day.
And this is the danger of these big tech companies and why we do need to step in.
And it's kind of, it's, you know, not as specific.
But we do see this in what this guy Greg Coppola is saying, that the algorithms are created by people that are feeding everything in this one direction and it becomes dangerous.
But I want to show you some real examples of why we do need something to step in.
Now, there have been polls showing most people do think we need some kind of regulation.
I know there are conservatives who disagree, but look, I'm not saying shut the companies down.
I'm not saying break them up.
I'm not saying restrict what they can or can't do.
I'm saying something.
Something.
One of these, we'll figure it out.
Let's talk about it.
Let's figure out what we can do to make the situation better.
Check this out.
This is a story from 2017, okay?
Google explains why it banned the app for Gab, a right-wing Twitter rival.
Gab's free speech stance makes it popular with right-wing trolls and racists, Ars Technica says.
Now, I'm not super concerned with why Google did it.
But I'll explain.
In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups or people.
Because Gab is a free speech network, Google removed them.
Okay.
Well, that's not necessarily a violation of antitrust, but there is an argument that there's no real contender for an app store.
That if you're out of the Google Play Store, you're off Android for the most part.
So that's an argument to be made about market competition.
Why should their rules supersede the option of the public to purchase a product?
Well, you can argue that Walmart refuses to sell a product.
Fine.
But there's not just Walmart.
There's competition.
On Android, it's the Play Store.
On iPhone, it's the App Store.
You get what you get.
Now, you can argue against that.
But let's check this out.
Here's where it gets actually scary.
This is a story from just last week.
Google bans Gab app, gives the decentralized social network an impossible list of demands.
Recently, Gab federated.
What this means is they've overhauled their code to become part of an open source social environment.
Anyone can create their own server, federate, And then using an app that grants you access to what's called the Fediverse, you can type in a domain and go to it.
Long story short, it's essentially a browser for social media.
You download the browser app, the Fediverse app, whichever one you want to use, type in the domain you want to go to, and you will see that social network.
This allows you to follow people across different social networks.
It's quite brilliant.
Open source.
Here's the thing.
There's a multitude of apps that act like a browser and grant you access to these networks.
One of them was Gab.
The Gab app, in this instance, contains no content.
None.
You can go onto it, and you can type in whatever serve you want, just like any browser will let you do.
Google Bandit.
Google removed, or I should say, from this story at least, they told it they had to remove it, and my understanding is now it has been banned.
Even though it was number one trending, they said you had seven days.
But here's the thing.
The Gab app didn't have content on it.
It's quite literally impossible for them to moderate this content.
Why then would the Play Store remove only this app, which I assure you, Basically identical to many other Fediverse apps.
Just a browser.
In fact, I believe the open source code was identical to other apps that were not removed.
This is removing someone from the market for no real reason, and Google has the power to do that.
Here we can see it's something personal.
Whatever their reason is, they're saying the app wasn't violated of user-generated content, but the app had no content on it.
Interesting, then.
What we can see here is an absolute bias.
It has to be personal or political.
It wasn't professional.
The app didn't break any rules.
They still threatened them anyway.
And then we have the last story I want to go over where I really want to stress the importance of some kind of action.
I'm not gonna read through this, but I do recommend you follow up and actually watch what this guy has to say.
And I gotta say, you know, Ted Cruz has done a really great job addressing this.
I also want to give respect to Elizabeth Warren.
I get a bipartisan thing here.
She's presented proposals for dealing with big tech.
It needs to be done.
Anybody who's on board with this, you have my respect.
I don't care for Tribe.
Okay, Elizabeth Warren is worthy of criticism, so is Ted Cruz.
But if they're going to tackle this issue correctly, then you have my respect.
Elizabeth Warren has talked about breaking up big tech.
Well, we're looking at antitrust right now.
Much respect for her for bringing up the issue.
I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but it needs to be addressed based on this story alone.
I can show you all the other examples, but this story alone.
And Dr. Robert Epstein, an expert, testified That 15 million votes can be swung due to the bias of Google and he believes at minimum 2.4 million votes were swung because of Google in 2016.
Whether or not you think there's a mischievous man up top at Google laughing and trying to take over the world is besides the point.
I don't think that's true.
You can if you want, fine.
I do think there are biased employees that act You know, to be, you know, politically, to gain advantage for their political side.
But in the end, what I think is happening is more like what Greg says.
These algorithms are being built by people with a bias.
It's a bias then against conservatives because they think conservatives are outside their bubble, they can't see it, and they don't realize how bad it is.
When you're outside the bubble, you can watch it happen.
But these people are too, they're stuck in their own world, and they don't see it.
I have a poll, I'm working on a story, a big one.
That shows liberals primarily get their news from liberal sources.
That means if liberal sources don't see this because they're all getting news from themselves, they have no idea they are trapped in a bubble.
Those of us outside the bubble can see it plain as day.
The rules are biased against conservatives.
Specifically, the misgendering policy.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree.
I'm saying it straight up.
If conservatives don't agree with that worldview, you're biased against them.
Now think about what happens.
Twitter says you can't misgender someone.
That's a line in the sand.
That means from this point forward, policy and public discourse developed on Twitter will never oppose the idea of misgendering.
But there are certainly 60 to 70 million people in this country who think that's wrong and think the misgendering policy is strange.
Why should Twitter dictate that?
The employees at Twitter are biased, think they're doing the right thing, and thus they're shaping the future of discourse in this country in a negative way.
They shouldn't have that right.
It should be up to the people to talk to each other and figure out what makes the most sense, not one big tech giant.
And I'm talking about Google in this regard.
Twitter isn't as big a player as Google is.
But then think about how Google employees determine what is or isn't fake news.
In fact, the story on censorship, in my understanding, came from Gizmodo, a left-wing outlet, where they said Facebook employees were biased against conservative sources and removed them.
It's here.
And because these people on the left aren't outside their own bubble, they're in it, they can't see it.
Fortunately, this man, Dr. Robert Epstein, is not a conservative.
I believe he was asked if he opposed the president.
He says, that's an understatement.
But the fact is, it's real.
And to those of us who are outside the bubble, we can see it.
So to finalize this video, the antitrust probe is coming.
It's here.
It's been announced.
And I believe it will likely lead to an investigation, a full-on investigation.
We'll see what happens.
I mean, they're essentially in an investigation now, but I think what the review is, they're going to look at surface-level stories.
They're going to try and see if there's grounds for a full-on investigation.
The investigation will probably look into the company's internal practices.
We may even see communications.
To determine if they're acting in anti-competitive ways or if they have a political bias.
And that's going to be really important.
I want to stress on a final thought as well.
The interview from Veritas is very straightforward.
This is not a grand expose in my opinion.
We're not seeing someone leak documents that prove the world is ending.
But it's substantial and probably, in my opinion, the most important thing Veritas has done on the issue.
Now they've shown us internal documents, James O'Keefe.
This is an interview with a current on-the-record employee of five years of the PhD saying, here's how the system works, and here's why it's biased.
This should be the biggest bit of evidence anyone can use.
It's not an anecdote, right?
Well, you could argue it is, essentially, but here's the thing.
It's not one small out-of-context bit of evidence.
It's not some woman in a cafe speaking off the cuff.
A Google senior engineer with a Ph.D.
been at the company for five years is saying, I'm seeing this happen.
I work here.
This is my expert opinion.
So this counters what we're hearing from the executives, which means something is happening.
This is the main—what we see here is unquestionable.
Okay, they argue that James O'Keefe edits things out of context and all this other stuff to try and defend against it, but you can't defend against someone going on the record who currently works for Google and has a PhD on the issue.
So this is extremely important.
Watch the full interview.
Obviously, ProjectFairTask.com.
I think they did a great job.
Great interview.
So, whether or not things get resolved is besides the point.
I don't know.
I don't.
But we can see that there are certain strange, anti-competitive behaviors, ideologically driven behaviors, and most of us have been watching it happen for years.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segments will be coming up YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
A few days ago, I made a video where I asked you to imagine a firetruck, and then imagine that firetruck bursting into flames.
Now I'd like you to imagine that firetruck just blowing straight up.
Bernie Sanders, his White House campaign, has been hit with a federal labor complaint.
This is crazy.
Of all of the people to be hit with this, of all the people to screw up labor relations, I'm surprised to see that it's Bernie Sanders.
For those that aren't familiar, His staff was upset that they weren't getting $15 an hour equivalent in their salaries.
Now, his campaign initially did want to offer more money, but that would have... So, based on the negotiation and the deal they had, the more money you make, the less they cover in healthcare costs.
So the staff said, you'll pay us more, but then we got to pay for our own healthcare.
It's not a good deal.
Bernie's initial response and why he's likely in trouble right now was, one, to say to the media, I am disappointed that they would do this.
It's not how you negotiate, blah, blah, blah.
New York Post editorial board said that could be a federal labor violation.
Intimidation.
But apparently I think interrogation is one of them, too.
So here's the gist of it.
And this shocked me, okay?
I'm not here to rag on Bernie for the sake of ragging on Bernie.
I was a fan of Bernie, and I'm gonna give him some defense in a second.
I've got a pro-Bernie section at the end of this, just so you know.
Tim Poole has principled concerns about what Bernie Sanders did in his campaign.
His staff said, I struggle to feed myself.
People are quitting.
Pay is too low.
The issue wasn't, are they making $15 an hour?
The issue was, it's not enough, period.
Now they made the mistake, apparently in the negotiations, they made the mistake of thinking they could appeal to Bernie's sense of decency by saying, you're not paying us the equivalent of $15 an hour.
We're working 60 hours a week.
Well, Bernie contests, and he does in a CNN interview, which I have, I'm not going to play it, but I want to talk about what he does say.
He contends.
They're getting $17 an hour, is what he says.
Right, they're getting $17 an hour based on a 40-hour work week, but they're working 60.
The issue isn't that they're not getting paid the equivalent of an hourly wage, it's that they can't feed themselves on the amount of money you're giving them, period.
So I do say they negotiated improperly.
I would have pushed back and said, Bernie, I don't care how much you pay us per hour for your PR stunt or whatever, for the press.
We need more money for food, period.
Bernie's response?
Work less hours.
I kid you not.
Listen, if somebody's working 60 hours to get the job done, and you say, stop at 40, you're telling them to increase their work speed by 50%, and you're saying, I don't care that you can't feed yourself.
And this is the point I made before.
If somebody is saying, I'm not making enough money to feed myself, and you say, here's an extra day, work faster, what are you telling them, basically?
Go work at McDonald's or Starbucks to make up the money you're not getting from me?
So, Bernie, you're letting me down, but let's read the complaint.
And trust me when I say there's a lot to the Bernie story, and I definitely want to give him some defense because the media attacks are always very crooked.
This is from Bloomberg Law.
Sanders' White House campaign hit with federal labor complaint.
They say Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign has been hit with an unfair labor practice complaint alleging illegal employee interrogation and retaliation against staffers.
The July 19 complaint to the National Labor Relations Board filed by an unnamed individual in Indiana was posted to the agency's website late July 22nd.
It comes as tense negotiations between the Sanders campaign and the union representing staffers recently boiled over publicly.
The Washington Post reported July 23 that union organizers for the campaign had won a pay raise and reached a compromise to reduce the hours of some workers.
So that's good news for his staff, and it's essentially what I wanted to highlight in this.
Bernie Sanders on CNN says they reached an agreement.
So long as it includes a pay increase?
Fine, good.
But I will stress, cutting hours means, sure, they're getting paid more, but they're going to be doing the same work, but they've got to do it faster, which could mean more stress.
But let's see why they're complaining.
A copy of the charge has not yet been made public, but the agency's July 22nd docket lists five potential violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
The charge also alleges that the campaign unlawfully discharged an employee, modified a labor contract, and engaged in illegal discipline.
Charges to the NLRB can be filed by any person and don't have to come from a campaign staffer or someone directly affected by the alleged labor law violations, according to the board's website.
The NLRB has yet to make a determination about whether there is any merit to these allegations.
I want to mention something.
I've worked for several nonprofits, and I want to stress, I've actually filed two NLRB complaints, and I won both of them.
Technically, I won both.
It's complicated.
I can't get into the full details, But let me just say, political campaigning?
Dirty business.
Dirty, dirty business.
I want to say it, I can't say it, I signed paperwork, but let me just say, and this is 13 years ago, this is a long time ago, I understand the process a bit, and I just think campaigns can be dirty.
Let's read on.
News of potential labor unrest within Sanders' campaign has emboldened critics of the union-aligned lawmaker.
Sanders has made worker rights a key part of this platform in the race for the Democratic White House nomination.
A representative for the United Food and Commercial Workers, the union representing staffers, declined to comment.
Campaign officials did not offer a comment in response to Bloomberg Law's inquiries.
The charge filing will initiate a preliminary investigation by the Labor Board's Indianapolis office to determine if there is merit to the allegations.
The Board's lawyers will then decide whether to move the case forward or dismiss it.
In my experience, they move forward quickly, and they tend to, because they do side with Labor.
Sanders' campaign staff in March became the first to unionize in a presidential race when workers voted to join the UFCW.
The union inked a contract with campaign officials two months later.
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, is scheduled to appear this evening at a union rally.
Well, that was the other day.
So, basically, that's the gist of the dispute.
I want to stress, the complaint filed against him seems to be outside of the union dispute over pay.
Bernie already dropped the ball, but credit where it's due.
If he's getting them more money, fine.
If they're happy, fine.
Bernie put himself in a situation where he needs to represent the workers.
So I recognize, as a sane individual, Bernie might not be wrong.
The union may be in the wrong, right?
But Bernie is a man of the union.
Bernie says he's going to do this, that, and this.
And he put himself in a position where if he doesn't get the labor union what they want, he looks like a hypocrite.
Welcome to Business Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps, as someone who hasn't run a business in his life, in my understanding, he didn't realize things can be this way.
Imagine if he has some staffers who are just taking advantage.
Look at Rashida Tlaib.
The other day, she says we need a $20 minimum wage.
That's how the game is played.
Because people always want more, okay?
In a meritocracy, you have to do something to earn more.
I'm not a big laissez-faire capitalist guy, because I think a system that relies strictly on the free market will invariably result in a masturbatory system.
If we don't have some kind of, like, even small central guiding force, you will end up with people buying nothing but virtual reality, you know, dopamine stimulation.
Let's put it that way.
Let's call it dopamine stimulation.
What humans want can often be contrary to what they need.
You look at... I mean, all you have to do is look at the emotional reaction to many people on the left.
One good example are people arguing that the DSM-5 for mental illness shouldn't have gender dysphoria as a mental illness.
That's what they want, but not what they need.
In fact, by having that in the DSM-5 and considering gender dysphoria as part of mental illnesses, it grants them access to medical care, which they want.
So that's a really good example of how there does need to be some kind of I don't describe it, but I defer to how the United States was built.
They didn't want mob rule.
They didn't want people just voting on everything.
There has to be some, like, guiding force where the people say, I trust you to make the right choice.
And then our representatives, not perfectly, perhaps humans aren't good enough, but they try to make sure there's a balance between the rights of the individual to go and pursue happiness, But also make sure they're not injecting themselves full of, like, you know, they're not drinking bleach, okay?
So there is a limit.
Now, people argue what that limit is, but the point is—I don't know how I got off this tangent—Bernie Sanders, in a free market system, needs—well, we're in a mixed economy.
Let's just jump back, because I don't want to go off on a tangent on capitalism.
But Bernie Sanders is much on the other side of that debate.
So, he puts himself in a position where if he doesn't just give in to what these people want, he looks bad.
Which is what I said before, but the point I'm trying to make is, sometimes you will have staff members who say, I want more money, and you'll say, you're absolutely right.
And then a week later they'll be like, hey, wait a minute, I should have asked for more.
It happens all the time.
Where do you draw the line?
Well, Bernie eventually has to.
And that's why labor negotiations can be complicated.
The goal of the union is to get what they want.
The goal of the employer is to make sure things are running properly.
And Bernie's learning less in the hard way.
But as I said, I do have some defense of Bernie.
But actually, before I do that, I just want to point out the hilarity of Bernie Sanders making a last-minute appearance at a union rally with Elizabeth Warren.
Sorry, buddy.
Bad timing.
Bad, bad timing.
Not right now.
Not while you're embroiled in federal labor complaints and labor dispute.
You know, I will stress, too, people want to take this guy down.
They cheated him in 2016.
Bernie let me down by showing way too much weakness and then pulling the Identitarian card.
I was shocked to see it.
Bernie understood, at least I thought he did, the white working class.
They're American citizens.
And then when he went off saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor, when those people took the stage from him, I'm just like, this guy has no strength.
But I do want to make sure I take some time to point out the media hates this guy.
And consider that when you look at these news stories about his labor disputes.
In this story from the Daily Beast, they say tensions between Bernie Sanders and MSNBC boil over.
They're specifically referring to a segment where this woman, I don't know who she is, she said, Bernie makes his skin crawl.
This was MSNBC analyst Mimi Roca, a former assistant U.S.
attorney from the Southern District of New York, a contributor to the Daily Beast, launched a personal critique of Sanders.
This is not a critique of Sanders.
Saying, Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl.
She went on to say, I can't identify for you exactly what it is.
But I see him as sort of this not-pro-women candidate.
So having the two of them there, like, I don't understand young women who support him, and I'm hoping having him next to her will help highlight that.
That is not a critique.
That is an outright attack on Bernie Sanders that literally means nothing.
And I'll tell you one thing.
I get extremely angered by appeals to emotion.
If you want to make me angry, try pulling something like this.
Saying Bernie makes your skin crawl does nothing to sway me.
In fact, it insults and offends me.
Bernie Sanders has his faults, and I can point those out critically.
But to do a TV segment where you're like, oh, I'm just, ooh, he hates women.
Oh, shut up, Bernie's not a pro-woman candidate.
Bernie is such a social justice guy his whole life.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
And, you know, it's the same thing they do to Trump.
Trump, for me, actually does give me, like, I don't know how to describe it, but probably a similar feeling.
But I'm an adult.
I don't base my policy decisions off of Donald Trump, and I'm not shocked that people like what he does.
I totally get it.
I don't like his attitude.
Well, I don't like some of Bernie's attitude, but I do like Bernie's attitude a bit more than Trump, except he's a little too weak.
The point is, these appeals to emotion are dirty, underhanded tactics to trigger emotions in people without an argument.
And that's what she's doing in my opinion.
I was really annoyed when I saw this segment.
And you gotta understand, Look, I have my criticisms of Bernie, but I will absolutely defend him when the media, when the fake news smears him and tries playing these BS games.
I don't care who you are.
I don't care for Bernie, I don't care for Trump.
The fake news makes, disgusts me.
It disgusts me, okay?
And no, I'm not trying to appeal to emotion.
I'm saying, quite literally, there's no morals, these people don't have morals, okay?
It is unethical, it is by any means necessary, and they want to destroy Bernie Sanders.
And he doesn't get it.
And this is why I'm not going to be supporting him.
Okay, I need more.
That's why I'm more for Tulsi.
I get it.
I don't think Tulsi's perfect, but she's a better option from- Tulsi's such a weird character, because I think she's great, but for some reason, like, the mainstream left hates her?
Fine, whatever.
Bernie Sanders and Tulsi are pretty similar, but Tulsi's maintained her principles, and she's defended speech, and she hasn't played these stupid games that Bernie has.
But I will stress, Man, what I like talking about, what I like calling out, this media bias.
Bernie Sanders deserves to be criticized for his labor dispute.
Bernie Sanders deserves to be criticized for what he says.
To go on TV and go, oh he just hates, he's not a pro-woman candidate and he makes my skin crawl.
Aw, man.
I detest the media.
I absolutely do.
But, you know, it's not just MSNBC.
It's just people do this.
There's gonna be a bunch of people who watch this and they're gonna be like, she's right.
Elizabeth Warren is better.
Aw, man.
They do not like this guy.
Anyway...
I mean, I'll leave it there.
It is what it is.
Bernie, you're gonna get lit on fire by the media.
Don't expect me to pull my punches when you've got a labor dispute and you're like the king of labor and championing labor, okay?
It's gonna get highlighted.
I'm gonna try and present the nuance in the situation and I will push back against emotional appeals from the mainstream media to smear you.
But in the end, man, you know, let me stress the final point, too, as it pertains to the labor complaints.
They want to take him out in the sense that they want to get him out of the presidential race.
They didn't like this guy in 2016.
They don't like him now.
And we don't know who filed this complaint, but his own staff in Slack messages are complaining.
It's not a conspiracy.
Bernie dropped the ball on this one, and he deserves to be criticized for it.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
From the Daily Mail, Ilhan Omar hit with ethics complaint over report questioning whether she committed tax fraud and married her brother to skirt immigration law.
But the biggest, most important bit of information here is that there is at least circumstantial evidence Ilhan Omar committed perjury.
We can throw all the brother marriage stuff aside.
The bigger issue here is whether or not social media posts are real.
Ilhan Omar, according to the story, signed paperwork, I believe, saying that she hadn't seen her husband, Ahmed Elmi, since 2011, had no contact with him.
However, they purport a photo on Instagram from 2015 shows them together.
Now, the reason I say purport is because the content has all been deleted.
But I believe that it's likely real.
I don't think anyone made a fake photo of Ilhan Omar.
It's just not there anymore.
I believe.
I'm not an investigator, I'm not law enforcement, but it sounds like there should be enough here for some kind of investigation.
I want to add, all of the conversation about Ilhan Omar marrying her brother has made this hard to actually investigate.
And I always warn people, So, like, you've got to hold things back and take things one step at a time.
You know, and I'll give you, like, an analogy.
I always find it funny when there's, like, some TV show, right?
And let's say, like, a monster appears.
And it's like a horror movie.
And they'll call the police and be like, there's a vampire in my house!
Yeah, like, that would never work.
What you need to say is, someone broke into my house.
Then they'll come and investigate, and they'll find out it's actually really crazy, right?
The point I'm trying to make is, while there may be evidence to suggest she married her brother to skirt immigration laws, sure.
We don't need to go there yet.
What we have here is actual circumstantial evidence.
She may have committed perjury.
Start from there.
And if that's all you get, well, at least that is palatable to any sane, rational person.
What ends up happening is you get a lot of people who dig into conspiracies.
They may find something real, but it sounds nuts, so no one listens.
Let's read the story and see exactly what's going on.
This is from Judicial Watch.
I believe Tom Fitton is his name.
I could be getting it wrong.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course you get the drill.
Share this video if you think it's important because YouTube de-ranks independent commentary.
That means if you think what I'm talking about matters and you like what I do, share it to help spread the word.
Daily Mail reports Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group, filed an ethics complaint against Representative Ilhan Omar for accusations that she married her brother to commit immigration fraud, among other crimes.
Now, I do want to stress, I believe the report actually calls them, they call themselves a non-partisan group, but conservative, I think, may make sense.
I just, you know, I always try to be wary about how people try and frame other people as a means to try and create a division.
It says, a new report following a three-year investigation alleged that Omar married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Sad Elmi, in 2009 to benefit in some fraudulent way from the marriage.
Now, for those that are not familiar, the general theory is that it's like 10 years for a sibling to get a visa.
It's like three for a husband.
So this was a way for him to get to the U.S.
quickly and something like that.
Now, according to an updated investigation, forgive me for the people who are doing the investigation, I'm forgetting your names and I don't mean to do this intentionally, but what they're now saying is that they are biological siblings and when they fled Somalia, her brother went to the UK and she went to the US and she adopted the name of the family she was with.
But let's read on.
They say Omar is a Somali-American immigrant who fled Africa for the U.S.
with her family when she was a young girl.
She became a naturalized U.S.
citizen when she was 17.
The report alleges that her second husband, Elmi, who she supposedly married when she was still married to her first husband, is actually her brother.
Now, there's really important considerations here.
You're gonna see the left say she married her brother is a ridiculous smear.
And it does sound ridiculous.
It absolutely does.
And that's why I warn, don't start there.
We do have a few things that have to be brought up, because this is true.
This is from the Star Tribune, a liberal paper.
They said, and I'm going to try and just paraphrase, and then we'll go through the report.
She was living with her cultural husband.
I believe they weren't legally married.
When she married... Actually, let me try and just paraphrase this much more simply.
At some point, all three, her old, her ex, and her now current husband, and her ex-husband, they all shared the same address.
So maybe it's just a paperwork thing.
Fine.
The interesting thing, though, is that she was culturally married to one guy and legally married to another.
The whole thing sounds suspect.
Why not legally marry the guy you actually had kids with?
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics Chairman David Skaggs.
The House of Representatives must urgently investigate and resolve the serious allegations of wrongdoing by Rep.
Omar.
We encourage Americans to share their views on Rep.
Omar's apparent misconduct with their congressmen.
Now, let's jump down and I want to get to the most important part, which is the perjury part.
They say Omar married Elmi in 2009, before she had divorced her first husband.
The report reveals that Elmi is actually her biological brother.
I don't know if it doesn't actually reveal that.
The two divorced in 2017, but Omar claimed she had not seen him since June 2011.
However, take a look at this photo.
Photo evidence, however, suggests Omar may have perjured herself by signing a document claiming she had not seen Elmi.
Instagram evidence shows them in an image together in 2015.
Apparently they deleted the social media.
And the hard thing for Star Tribune, which is actually investigating it, is that they can't publish this post.
Someone could have taken an old photo and put it next to a new post.
It's hard to know.
With these claims and this complaint, perhaps they could subpoena Instagram and see if any of that data still exists, which I would believe likely does.
It's actually quite hard to delete things, but if they migrate servers, if they change data providers or data centers, then perhaps.
Let's read on.
In the document, the now Minnesota representative claimed she had not had contact with Elmy after June 2011 and did not know where to find him.
By signing the document, Omar was swearing to the state that under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct.
However, Steinberg, that's one of the investigators, Sam Sunder and Johnson's investigation revealed With Instagram photo evidence that Omar and Elmi had met up in London in 2015.
The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.
Judicial Watch claims it's a non-partisan educational foundation.
I also wanna stress, it's not just that she met with him.
Even if they didn't meet, even if that photo was fake, there's also contentions, it's also been contended, that Ilhan Omar's sister works with her ex-husband.
So when she says, I have no way to contact him, it's possible she's lying and that her sister does.
Now, it's also possible her sister is lying to her and saying, I don't know where he is, when she does, but that's really the long shot, okay?
The simple solution here is we've got photos, Her sister works with him in some capacity because apparently he used his Instagram account to create her account for her business.
Something that, in fact, I could be getting it wrong.
But there is circumstantial evidence to suggest she did perjure herself.
Forget the marriage, forget the brother thing.
We can look into that later.
The perjury is a serious issue.
They say, while speaking with reporters last week, Trump briefly talked about the report on Omar, which brought more attention to the alleged crimes and the fact that the progressive representative likely married her brother.
But this was in response to a question Trump didn't bring it up, and he even said, I know nothing about it.
Someone asked Trump, will there be an investigation into whether or not Omar married her brother?
And Trump said, there's a lot of talk about the fact she was married to her brother.
I know nothing about it.
Trump said, I'm sure that somebody will be looking into that.
He was just a passive comment.
But, sure enough, that question to the president followed by his response, it's going to trigger a wave.
More investigation, more reports, more scrutiny, and now it's mainstream.
Now everyone's talking about it.
So they go on.
We got a bunch of photos, sure.
Trump has been at odds with Omar.
We know the stuff.
We know about the tweets.
I don't want to get into that.
They're called the squad, and that's basically it.
They end by saying, of the four in the squad, only Omar was born outside of the U.S.
Ocasio-Cortez is of Puerto Rican descent, Tlaib's parents are Palestinian immigrants, and Presley is African-American.
But Ilhan Omar did come here at a young age, and so the question is, It would be really interesting to find out.
Now, there's some allegations that Ilhan Omar's real name is Ilhan Nursed Elmi.
Look, I know that there's a lot of investigations going into this, and there are some documents published, but getting documents from Somalia will be very difficult, if they exist at all.
And more importantly, I guess, in a sense, to the defense of Ilhan Omar, When it comes to refugee status, when it comes to people fleeing war, getting accurate documents, it's damn near impossible.
And so, here's what I can say.
Perhaps they're not related, right?
As it was pointed out by, I believe, a journalist pointed this out, I don't want to say their name.
It's possible they were raised by the same man.
It doesn't mean they're biologically related.
But if that were true, it still sounds like immigration fraud.
Because she was culturally married to this other guy.
She claims they divorced in their faith tradition and that she married him.
But there's just too much here.
There's too much here, I think, for us to act like it's nothing.
It may be overblown, it may be blown out of proportion on the right-wing side, but it does seem like perjury is feasible and warranted.
How do you investigate perjury?
Like, at what point do you say there's enough here?
To me, I think there is.
But I'm curious because we see this all the time with politicians, corrupt behavior, and we're always wondering why nothing ever gets done.
Okay, listen.
I don't care for the partisanship.
Hillary Clinton deleted public record.
Period.
We know she did.
Why is there no charge?
Why is that?
Define her 50 bucks, please.
Okay?
Why is that?
When these people break the law, there's never an investigation.
Or if there is, nothing happens.
I don't know.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all then.
I gotta say, I'm sick and tired of this story, but we absolutely have to talk about it.
Because a witness has come forward in the Erica Thomas race hoax scenario, alleged race hoax, where apparently she is the person who told a Cuban to go back where he came from.
The narrative has been inverted.
Quickly to rehash for those that don't know the context, a Democratic lawmaker from Georgia named Erica Thomas did a live stream where she said at a grocery store a man came up to her and started yelling at her and told her to go back where she came from.
She then decided to hold a press conference because the video went viral.
She got all this attention.
This guy on the right, Eric Sparks, shows up to dispute her claims and say she's lying.
It's not true.
It's not what happened.
And there's security footage to prove it.
She then recants and says, I don't want to say he DID tell me to go back.
Oh, so the story then breaks down.
Then she recants again, saying, I never, I never backtracked, I never backtracked, and calls for charges against this man.
For what?
I ask.
For what?
He didn't do anything.
This guy then says he's planning a lawsuit.
But now the latest update, so we don't bury the lead.
Apparently, according to a witness, she was the one who told the Cuban guy to go back where he came from.
Oh, I love... It's like political TMZ, isn't it?
We're gonna bring you all the hottest gossip here.
I hate this story so much.
When it first happened, I actually kind of just like stayed away from it for the most part.
But I gotta say...
It's such ridiculous BS that this is the current state of politics in this country.
He said, she said that shouldn't have been news in the first place, but celebrities started propping her up, and that's what they do.
When Jussie Smollett came out with his phony story, allegedly phony story, All these celebrities do these PSAs.
They take photos.
It's so bad.
You know, you get Ellen Page saying, no, we can't have this.
And I'm like, dude, calm yourself, children.
You need facts and data before you start pushing this.
Could you imagine if these people had principles and actually came out and admitted they were wrong and then condemned this woman for telling this guy to go back where he came from?
Never gonna happen.
So let's dig into it.
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 you know the drill.
If you want to support my work, just share this video on social media because YouTube is deranking independent commentary, especially stuff like this where I'm calling out these people who publish fake news and hoaxes.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if people try to flag these videos and get them taken down because I'm challenging their hoax narrative.
So if you do like the video, share it to help spread the word.
Let's read what they say.
Witness!
State Rep Erica Thomas told Eric Sparks to go back where you came from.
A witness to a heated grocery store encounter between Rep Erica Thomas and a man she accused of uttering racist comments told authorities she didn't hear him make those remarks, according to a Cobb County police report.
A Publix employee told a Cobb County officer that she witnessed part of the conversation and heard Thomas continuously tell Eric Sparks to, quote, go back where you came from, but did not hear Sparks utter those words to Thomas.
So there you go.
Here's your third-party interjection.
It was Erica Thomas who did this.
And actually, I think in her recanted statement, the first one, she said, I think she did allude to actually saying this.
So what's the recourse?
What's going to happen?
Is Patricia Arquette and these celebrities now going to publish a retraction saying, how dare Erica Thomas tell a Cuban?
And this is one of the reasons I just call these people out all day and night.
It is a double standard.
They will jump up and down for Jesse Smollett all day and night, but where were they when it came out?
It was nonsense.
Now, some people did come out, and they have my respect.
I'm not saying everybody.
There's a lot of people on the left who are like, this guy screwed us bad.
How dare he?
Making the problem worse.
Props to those people.
But there was like a photo from the set of the Big Bang Theory.
Like, where were they?
Okay, let's read on.
They say in a tearful video, Thomas accused Sparks of using that phrase, which echoes a tweet by Donald Trump that sparked a national uproar.
Her account quickly went viral and triggered a wave of support and backlash.
Sparks admitted to calling the Democrat an expletive during the run-in, saying he was upset she was at an express- We know all this stuff.
Thomas' attorney, Gerald Griggs, said the officer's report shows the case needs additional investigation.
Because the employee, and another witness who also said she didn't hear Sparks use the phrase, didn't hear the initial argument.
Well, hold on.
We now have two witnesses, according to a police statement, did not hear Sparks say it.
Well, you can't prove a negative, but hey, this is as good as you can get, right?
Two witnesses saying, never heard him say it, but one going, I heard her say it.
Really, then?
Really, really, really?
I wonder what really happened.
There's a funny tweet going around where this woman, Erica Thomas, from like 2015, says she was going to some place and was hoping to run into Jesse Smollett because she's a fan.
And everyone's laughing, like, what a coincidence, right?
She's a big fan of Jesse Smollett, Smollett pulls something off, she does this, birds of a feather flock together, right?
Cobb authorities, meanwhile, said Tuesday they don't intend to file criminal charges in the case after what the police department said was a thorough investigation into the confrontation.
Meanwhile, the debate over Thomas's account has echoed the political divide.
Some liberals declared the run-in a heartbreaking side effect of Trump's rhetoric.
Yeah, but they don't do any damn re- They don't do any research.
I've got a video coming up that's gonna break down the problem with the left, why I call them out, why I still believe in left-wing policy, but these people are a problem.
They're exploiting the system, they're exploiting our goodwill, they manipulate us, they lie, and the people who are buying into it don't read the news!
They don't!
Okay?
Certainly there are people on the left who read the news, but these people echoing this nonsense and propping up people like Thomas do not read the news, they don't follow up, and they don't know the truth.
Today at the Mueller hearing, Ted Lieu asks, he says something like, you didn't indict Trump because of the OLC policy, and Mueller says yes.
All of a sudden, Democrats are going like, screaming, like, there it is, there's your proof, and then sure enough, like an hour later, Mueller says, I withdraw that statement, it was incorrect, it was phrased improperly, we didn't make a determination.
The reason I bring this up, I don't want to derail, but it's because the left is going to take that soundbite, and they're going to run to kingdom come with it.
And I'm really annoyed at Mueller for constantly doing this, creating two perfect sound bites of nonsense for people.
Here's the thing.
The conservatives now know the update, and they're going to say it.
And so do moderates, people like me.
But the left is going to be like, Ted Lieu said it, and they're going to run around, and that's the end of the story.
And they'll never hear otherwise, because they don't read the news.
Let's read on.
They say conservatives cast her as a version of Justice Millett, the Chicago actor accused of concocting a racist attack to advance his career.
They say the report offers new details about a dispute that started Friday evening with Thomas.
A vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus posted a Facebook video accusing Sparks of berating her for flouting a ten or fewer items.
And look, I can be critical of this guy too.
Who cares, man?
She had what, five or ten items extra in the line?
It's not a big deal.
Let's move on.
Choose your battles, man.
But they're only making themselves look worse.
The white man comes up to me and says, you lazy son of a B. You need to go back where you came from.
Sir, you don't even know me.
I'm not lazy.
I'm nine months pregnant.
It's like such an obviously biased statement.
Now, Sparks says, it's interesting.
Sparks' statement comes off as more reasonable.
He comes off like a dick.
He confronted her for no reason.
He then said, excuse me not to be rude, but blah blah blah.
He then says she gets in his face and starts yelling at him.
That sounds more reasonable.
The way she phrases it is like all of a sudden she was like, oh, I never, oh no, how dare you, sir, you hurt my feelings.
Nah, I don't buy it.
Someone gets in your face, you push back, people get mad at each other.
This doesn't sound legit.
Now we have witnesses, however, basically saying she was the one who was racist.
The video soon caught the attention of liberal activists who amplified it.
Her message that racism and hate is getting out of control.
From you!
From you!
Soon it had tallied millions of views and sparked a media frenzy of competing headlines and hashtags.
And why does it keep happening?
You know why?
Because journalists, who tend to be liberal, don't read the news either.
I hate to say it.
Look, there are a lot of journalists who do real news.
You don't hear from them.
They write the very boring and bland stories that most people don't talk about.
But the new media, the new digital sphere, the new hires, are in their Twitterati woke sphere, spinning in circles, reading nonsense and not fact-checking it.
And that's how you get Covington.
That's how you get wall-to-wall coverage of some 15-year-old kid smiling.
Really, that's what we're focused on.
And that's why this exploit works and will work again.
Because even though we know her story is likely BS, doesn't matter.
People are going to keep pushing.
Even though we've got witnesses now, doesn't matter.
These people are not going to read the news.
They'll never know the truth.
They say, you know, later I came under scrutiny.
So here's the recanting, I guess.
He called her a selfish little whatever.
He was quoted as saying, I did say that, that's all I said after and walked out of Publix.
Her words stating on Twitter and her video stating I told her she needs to go back where she came from are untrue.
Both Thomas and Sparks have called on Publix to release a video of the incident, which has not yet been made public, but the officer who reviewed the tape, which did not include audio, described it in a report.
He wrote that Sparks did not appear to be irate during the confrontation, and that he quickly retreated from Thomas as she moved his way, pointing her finger at him.
Sounds like Eric Sparks.
His story was real.
When she moved towards Sparks a second time, a public staffer waved for him to leave, and Thomas turned to her daughter and paid for her items, he wrote.
The dispute lasted about 45 seconds.
The public's employee, a customer service manager, told police that after Sparks accosted Thomas, he began to leave, but Ms.
Thomas kept running her mouth as she approached him, Sparks said, responding by repeatedly calling Thomas ignorant.
We get to the point.
Let's, um... I don't want to rehash the entirety of the old story.
In a statement on Tuesday, Sparks said he wasn't surprised that C.O.B.
authorities decided not to file charges, and he blasted media coverage of the incident.
"'Everyone that knows me knows that I'm anti-hate, anti-bigot, and anti-racism,' he said.
Sadly, too much of the media isn't fact-checking items, or they are just taking the word of a politician when they do a live Facebook or Twitter post.' Exactly."
So you get it.
Eric, you get it.
And it's funny, because Sparks is an anti-Trump dude.
But hey, man.
This is what the media does, and we see it.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up, and I will see you shortly.
The left can't meme.
They can't.
I don't know why.
I have some theories.
I think it may have to do with the fact that if you're someone who's online and engaging and reading, you will be well informed.
And there are a lot of people on the left who are reading the same fake news like Covington, for instance, and believing all of this.
If you're not informed, you don't really understand the nuances of the culture or how to participate.
Take a look at this story from the Daily Dot.
It says, in America's meme war, the left and right are fighting different battles.
The Daily Dot is a left-wing source.
And what's really funny about this is there's no left-wing memes.
There's a few.
Actually, there's a really funny one.
It's called Toilet Paper USA, and they make fun of Turning Point USA.
Actually really funny.
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
And much respect.
I had people, like, messaging me on Reddit.
Like, snarkily.
And I had to contend, I'm like, I gotta give it to you guys.
Credit where it's due.
These are funny memes.
But typically, the left can't do it.
The right has done such a great job of memeing, I kid you not.
Go onto Instagram and look at the Daily Wire.
They post articles and memes, and it's hilarious.
Fun and funny.
And that brings people in.
So here's what happens.
There's a meme culture on the internet that's not right-wing.
But because the right knows how to play the game, they're able to then shift the narrative towards the right.
And thus, you will see on Reddit, there are memes that are inadvertently political.
What's funny about this article in the Daily Dot is they try to make it seem like there's a war going on.
I'm sorry, dude.
That would be like a war between a bunch of 12-year-olds with pebbles versus the U.S.
Air Force or the U.S.
Marines.
Like, yeah, I wouldn't call it a war.
I'd call it funny memes from the right, even if you're not right-wing, and the left posting ridiculous weird stuff that makes no sense.
Let's read a little bit of this, and I want to show you some examples of how the left cannot meme.
And I've got this The page they cite, it's called Abolition Memes, my god, when you see this, it's actually a meme in itself.
How funny, like, it's, it's, man, it's like comedy cemetery.
It's like attempts at jokes that are just, just awful.
Like, they don't get it.
They think they can take, like, a picture of, like, Homer Simpson and put a, put a shirt on him that says socialism, and it's a meme, and it's like, I don't get it, dude.
What are you trying to say with this?
It's just a picture of Bart and Homer, and it says so, like, it's not even a meme.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, you know the drill.
Share this video if you like it.
YouTube de-ranks my content, so I rely on word of mouth.
But let's read.
They say, If you're on Instagram, before HBO's Game of Thrones ended, you surely saw hundreds of images starring Daenerys Targaryen, Queen of Dragons.
But one resonated particularly well with the American right.
It features two separate images of Daenerys.
In the top picture, she's surrounded by her happily worshipful people with the caption reading, Promising Socialism.
In the bottom image, it shows one of her dragons breathing fires down on King's Landing.
Screaming residents flee from the flames, the caption reads, Implementing Socialism.
On Instagram, the accompanying description includes hashtags like socialism sucks, big government sucks, capitalism cures, and has 32,000 likes.
Here's the image.
Those on the podcast, you can't see it, but it's funny.
It's funny whether, like, no matter what your political leanings are.
It's funny because, promising socialism, you have all of the brown people worshiping the white woman, and then you have a dragon burning their city down.
It's a different part from the show, so it's different people.
But it's funny, because Daenerys promised all these great things and then executed a ton of people.
That's the joke.
And that's what we've seen historically.
Let's talk about left-wing memes, though.
They said the meme was created by Turning Point USA, an organization aimed at getting young people to promote Trumpian conservatism.
It's been one of the organization's best-performing memes.
The thing went everywhere, says a TPUSA spokesman.
Let's move on though.
Some of this cutting commentary appears in the comment section.
They talk about...
Yeah, okay, they talk about the right.
They say, Papa Kropotkin is a leftist Instagram account run by two late high school age students in Northern UK.
The duo follows right-wing accounts and posts their opposing views in the comments.
They've come to believe the intention of right-wing meme pages is to rile people up.
That is the way they increase the levels of hatred that exist.
What a mind-numbingly ignorant view of the world.
They're trying to make everyone hate everyone.
You're a child.
No, quite literally.
They're children.
They're in high school.
What Talking Point USA is trying to do is, for one, they're trying to get people to laugh.
Like, that's the core of why someone makes a meme.
And it's why people would have not, like, are, it's why the right is winning.
Because young people who want to make a joke and be in on the fun will post the joke.
But then you get people who like playing so they try and figure out more ways to do this and mock socialism because it is funny.
That's the intention.
And then for conservative groups, it's to either promote content to make money for their business, like they want to share a story, or it's for the ideological advantage of recruiting people.
They say, Sam and Patty are members of the Instagram Meme Union, an organization formed earlier this year by meme makers with the goal of gaining leverage in talks with Instagram and supporting fellow mostly left-leaning meme creators.
You can call them memes, I guess, but, like, a five-year-old making a turkey with a crayon in their hand is not a meme, okay?
They're not spreading an idea.
They're just... I mean, look, it's like... It's like watching somebody with a bow and arrow try and fight someone with a Scud missile, okay?
There's people who understand the system and know how it works and can make memes, and then there's the left who can't, but are trying.
At least they're trying, okay?
So they basically go on and talk about, I don't know, nonsense.
They're trying to prop up, look at this.
These two groups, TPUSA, which is massively influential, which Trump spoke at recently, and the Instagram meme union, which has no followers and no relevance whatsoever, are bold, font-using avatars of the US political landscape.
They're not.
Their divergent missions and tactics reflect the larger attitudes of the countries divided right and left.
Take Abolition Memes, a white non-binary member of the Instagram meme union in their mid-twenties who lives in Portland.
They started getting serious about making leftist political images after noticing memes about abolishing immigrations and customs enforcement last summer.
Their outrage over the atrocities committed at the US-Mexico border encouraged them to learn how to do graphic design, they say.
No!
No, it didn't!
Look at this image!
Tell me what this is, okay?
Tell me what the- what is it?
For those listening on the podcast, it is a picture of an Easter bunny with a basket full of chicks, and there's butterflies and rainbows, and then someone just pasted a really crudely paintbrush text of abolish ice over it.
Quite literally, someone Google-searched Easter and then typed abolish ice and clicked, like, export.
If they even did, they probably used paintbrush and put save as.
This is not a meme.
I mean, I guess you could technically call it a meme, but what's the message?
There's a rabbit with a rainbow hat, and it's Easter, and you want to abolish ice?
I do not see any cohesive message.
Let's compare the two.
Let's scroll up.
Here we have Promising Socialism.
It's a bunch of people raising their hands to Daenerys Targaryen.
And they're all worshipping her.
And below is a dragon destroying a town saying Implementing Socialism.
That means something.
When you promise it, it's great.
When you implement it, it's bad.
That I understand.
What is this?
What the hell does Easter have to do with anything?
Oh, and you thought that was bad?
Check this out.
Let's pull up their page.
It's glorious.
Here's one.
It's a picture that says America was a bad idea and it's a wagon on fire.
Oh, I don't, what?
Okay, that's not, I wouldn't call that a meme, I guess.
It does have a thousand likes.
Check out this one, this one's funny.
F. Ice.
Slash their tires.
Bottom text.
See, this one is important in understanding why the left can't meme.
What we're seeing here is all of the things.
It is a meme where there's a crudely drawn guy holding what looks like a broom or something and yelling.
And the point of this meme is to explain we should go to the extreme and do everything.
The appropriate way to do this meme would be to say something like, slash all of the tires.
They just put bottom text here.
And they used a meme generator.
It's like they didn't even know they were supposed to change this.
They had no idea what they were doing.
Here's one.
It's just a picture of two people and a dog.
And it's a stock photo where they pasted text that says, Dear Rich People, You don't deserve your wealth.
You don't even deserve your dog.
It has almost a thousand likes.
Not bad.
But how is this a meme?
It conveys nothing!
It's just a picture of people with a dog!
Here's one.
It's Snake from The Simpsons.
Hey, bub.
Wanna join a criminal conspiracy to meet our basic needs?
I understand sugar in a gas tank is bad for a car.
But what does that have to do with Mary Poppins?
Oh, okay.
No, I get this one.
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
They could have... Okay.
Can I fix this for you guys?
They could have put, a spoonful of sugar helps the car break down.
Oh my god!
There it is!
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the police vehicle break down.
They don't... They can't meme.
I find this funny.
I don't even know if this video is worth doing.
But it's because the Daily Dot, here's what they're trying to do.
For one, their memes are trash.
But their allies in media are trying to make it seem like they can meme.
It's so sad.
It's like, dude, you're not fooling anybody.
We know you can't meme.
You know, I don't know what to tell you, man.
You're not doing it.
These are so awful, man.
You can just... It's actually cringe, like, really funny, actually.
Here's one.
Gwyneth Paltrow walked so Jordan Peterson could run.
I don't get it.
Someone said, I love people like this really wakes up the brain.
Are you joking?
Maybe it's a reference to something specifically, I guess, but there's no, there's no caption.
Oh, okay.
It's important to recognize those who paved the way for you to be white and wrong in front of millions.
I get it.
The comment makes it.
Okay, sure.
What is this one?
Hey white people, time to start.
S in the family group chat.
These aren't... Whatever, man.
I'm done.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes where I break down what's wrong with my view of what the left is becoming.
And I will see you shortly.
Yesterday, David Pakman made a video where he admits to self-censorship.
I think it's actually a really good video, and I want to start this video out by saying it will be a response partly to this, where I elaborate on my views about where the left is at, what it means to me to be on the left.
I don't think I'm, like, some super leftist.
I just, like, lean a little bit more towards the Democrats, and always have.
But I want to address some of what David said, and then I want to show you a series of graphics, and it's data, showing how, in my view of the world, the left has gone completely off the rails.
Off the rails.
I got a ton of charts.
I want to start by saying, for one, I think David's a good dude.
I like his stuff.
I actually watch his videos periodically.
There's very few people I actually watch on YouTube.
He's one of them.
I always want to give a shout out to Kyle Kalinske and Jimmy Dore, who I think are really good people.
Look, I think, you know, we all disagree.
And so long as we can have a conversation, we're in good company.
So, David and I disagree on a lot of things.
Probably agree on most things, even policy-wise, to an extent.
But we can disagree and in the end, like, you know, I periodically talk to him.
I think he's a cool dude.
So I want to start by saying this.
He highlights this tweet as the opener to his segment talking about how he does censor himself out of a fear of what he calls a slice of the left that overreacts on certain issues.
And he's right.
I do believe it is a slice of the left that does this because I believe, you know, when
you look at like the Hidden Tribes Report, which I cite all the time, I actually don't
have pulled up, 8% of this country is progressive activists.
And every other liberal group is called the exhausted majority.
Based on the data I see, based on my experiences, how I talk to people, I believe most of the
left is inactive or exhausted, not participating.
One of the reasons Trump won, a lot of Hillary's voters didn't go out, either from hubris,
they thought they couldn't lose or they're just over it.
They wanted Bernie.
Bernie was who they actually voted for, and he was out.
So David in the beginning says that, he calls me an independent journalist, says that I claim to be center-left, but he views me primarily as an antagonist of the left.
And I think that's actually a really, really good point.
Not that I agree with David.
I don't think I'm primarily an antagonist of the left.
My main channel video today was about antitrust and political bias.
And when you look at my content, sure, by all means, like the thumbnails, the titles, you can get a certain view.
And that view should be very simple.
I've explained this before.
For one, I've been physically attacked multiple times by far leftists.
I've had my life threatened.
I've been forced to flee various countries because of them.
Doesn't change my political views on what I think is right.
It says to me that there's a growing faction of insane individuals on the left that must be called out, and they're gaining traction, and no one is calling them out.
That's probably the most important thing.
The second issue is, I worked for Vice News and Fusion.
I have seen the media bias.
Yes, I constantly call out the media.
As someone who is outside of that journalistic sphere, and seeing this, I have been antagonized myself by the far left, and they are very powerful to the point where NBC News and the Today Show published overt fake news about me, smearing me.
Just because I got invited to the White House.
So, I don't view myself as primarily an antagonist of the left.
I've actually... I try to, and I'm not perfect, but I try to differentiate between what is dominating the left and what the left actually is.
But this is a really good point brought up by David, inadvertently I would say, in that The fact that David is a progressive and on the left, and the fact that I still view myself as holding left-wing positions, means the left is fractured.
Period.
I recently went on the Glenn Beck show, and we had a good discussion about whether a baker in Colorado should bake the cake.
About pro-choice versus pro-life.
I defended the pro-choice position.
I defended the not-baking-a-cake position.
Although we respected the nuance, the difficulty in ethics, we had a real conversation where we tried to understand how we could compromise and bring these things together.
That does not make me conservative.
My position is mostly on the left.
More importantly, I believe in a progressive tax.
I'm currently supporting a couple Democrats.
The issue is the left is absolutely fractured.
I have data to back this up.
So I want to highlight this tweet first that David mentions.
I said on Twitter, My lefty friends message me every so often that they are scared of speaking out against the far left because they will get attacked.
Because they won't push back on the far left, Dems don't see opposition and embrace woke Twitter.
This will lead to Trump's 2020 landslide.
Admittedly a bit hyperbolic, but I will point out too, there's supposed to be a comma there.
And so it's like, David saw it as because they won't push back on the far left, Dems don't see opposition and embrace woke Twitter.
What I'm trying to say here is, My friends from Chicago, and I try to avoid exposing who they are.
It's really funny, people are like, Tim, if you have left-wing friends, why don't you ever post videos about them?
Because they're terrified!
I'm not exaggerating.
I have no problem speaking out all day, and what happens?
I get called an antagonist.
I get called right-wing.
I get smeared all day and night.
I get death threats.
At one point, someone posted pictures of my mom.
Simply for calling out bad actors on the left.
And I see the problem getting worse.
I call it out.
But, um, let's move on.
The point of this tweet is that I talk to my friends about immigration.
And they say, I'm concerned about healthcare.
I think we should have universal healthcare.
I'm like, yeah, I don't disagree.
I just don't know how we get there.
And they're like, yeah, that's a good point.
But what about giving healthcare to illegal immigrants?
Undocumented immigrants?
What do you want to call them?
And they say, that's nuts to me.
They say that to me.
And I say, why don't you speak up?
Because I will be destroyed.
That's what I was told.
I will be destroyed.
I'm not gonna tell you who these people are, but you can look, like, man, I've got pictures with people on the internet, and I'm gonna avoid naming anybody, because their careers will be ended if they say this.
Any one of these people, if they come out and say, I don't think we should be giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants, they will be attacked for it.
Look at Ricky Gervais being called a transphobe now.
Fortunately, he's famous enough to where it doesn't affect him.
But what about people who work, you know, as a PA on a production set in Hollywood?
They can't say this.
They will lose their jobs.
And, you know, people say like, oh, it's an edge, like, well, David said to me, it's an edge case.
He doesn't think it's a slice of the left.
Listen, man, I don't think everyone on the left is engaging in this behavior, but the people on the left are saying nothing about it or ignoring it.
And the next biggest faction, the resistance, doesn't seem to care either.
Why don't we get any news coverage about what happened in ICE?
I'm sorry, what happened at the ICE facility in Tacoma?
The guy with the AR who shows up with firebombs?
Where was the widespread coverage?
But the Covington kid?
A kid standing on steps?
Just smirking at a guy?
That's wall-to-wall coverage?
You gotta tell me that's... Look, man, that is affecting national discourse to an extreme degree.
What this says to me is, the Democrats in the debate stage are pushing this rhetoric, okay, because they see it online and they don't see moderate left-wing individuals challenging it.
And because the moderate left are out of the game for whatever reason, out of fear or just being exhausted, There's very few people that are now in the middle, used to be on the left, that are defending this.
I can look to people who, look at the walk away campaign.
People who have just said, screw it, I'm out, and they go Trump.
I won't do that.
I won't.
I'll still stick up for what I think is the right thing to do regardless if I'm being attacked by these people.
Why do I look like Tulsi Gabbard?
Primary issue, anti-war, totally support it.
Okay?
She's called for the defense of free speech.
She's called it the big tech companies.
She's talked about things that matter to me, and she is a major in the National Guard.
She seems presidential, and she seems like the right choice.
Disagree with some of her domestic policy, but not to an extreme degree.
Just a little bit.
I think in the end she's a great choice, and so is Andrew Yang.
But that makes me not on the left?
They call Tulsi and Yang the alt-right?
All that matters is if the left are willing to throw us out, the left is fractured, period.
Because I'm certainly not a conservative.
I am pro-choice, pro-progressive tax.
I can say it a million times, okay?
I don't fit with, you know, whatever the conservative is.
Except for defending, you know, free speech?
That's ridiculous.
So this is why I think, again hyperbolic, Trump will win.
Because the Democrats don't see us.
They don't.
They see the woke insanity on Twitter.
I kid you not.
Look at this story.
Why did Trump make the OK sign while talking about AOC?
This is the Rolling Stone!
Heaven help me.
Okay?
This is not some fringe random blog.
This is mainstream papers presenting things that literally mean nothing.
Donald Trump does that all the time.
Why is this a story?
It is happening every day, and I've got the data to back up exactly what's going on, and I will put the link to this in the description below so you can read it.
A series of graphs, lifelong identitarianism, and the biased media, and how we get to this point.
But I do want to make one point to push back on David a little bit.
When he says I'm an antagonist of the left, the reason I don't call people grifters for the most part, although they exist, is because you can take a look at David's channel and they do the same thing to me that you could do to him.
You can see all of his thumbnails that are segments with tons of views, Trump's epic meltdown.
It's framed in a way that's antagonizing to the right, and he's saying it for a progressive audience.
Me, I'm targeting a moderate.
I mean, actually I'll say this.
I don't think David is intentionally trying to target anybody.
I think he's expressing his opinion on these issues.
As am I. And so I see stories I think are interesting.
I talk about them.
And so very similarly, David's got thumbnails that target Trump.
I have thumbnails that target wokeness, the media, the far left, things that I think are bad.
It doesn't change my policy positions.
And if David thinks that that makes me an antagonist of the left, well then it's an interesting statement about how powerful the woke, identitarian, and authoritarian left really is.
But look, by all means, criticize me.
I don't think I'm right.
I just disagree.
Take a look at these charts.
Let me explain to you how I see things and why.
And I also want to stress, this is not an exhaustive list.
It's just what I literally pulled up from my Twitter account.
And I actually have someone right now researching, and we're gonna do a report on this.
First.
The first chart we have on the left, and I understand it's small and hard to see.
You can zoom in, it's much bigger in the imager link.
We can see here, the New York Times has done something interesting, and they've actually created a peripheral bit of evidence to my point.
First, here's the red line, the Republicans.
I've shown many of these things before, we're gonna go through it.
The Republicans have actually shifted a little to the left since 2012.
A little to the left!
The left!
However, the Democrats, since 2008, shot so far to the left, they're to the left of centrists in Europe, which are, like many democratic socialist countries.
Now, what the New York Times has done, that's actually more evidence to my point, is that they put the median to the far left, comparing the U.S.
to foreign countries of which we have nothing to do with.
I get it, we're allies.
I'm talking about our country, our culture, and what we're doing.
All that matters is we see this blue line jolting so far to the left, they're to the left of European parties.
So, where are the centrists?
Still rather close to where the Republicans are because the left has just skyrocketed far to the left as possible.
Take a look at this chart, the next one, from Pew Research.
Look where Democrats and Republicans were in 1994.
Look where they are in 2017.
The Republicans have moved ever so slightly to the right.
Granted, this other chart goes to 2016.
And the Democrats have shot dramatically to the left.
Okay, how many sources do you need for me to say, the left is pushing too far, and so when I call that out, it doesn't mean I'm not on the left anymore?
How about this one from The Economist that I show over and over again?
We can see that the right has coalesced around a common bell curve, meaning most people agree on their issues, and the left is flattening out.
The left is not only fractured, but pushing to the far, far left.
So I'm calling out these people.
Now, if you want to say that's the left, the bulk of the left, fine, by all means.
It doesn't mean I'm not still over here, closer to the center.
That's where I'm at.
How about this one from Quartz?
We can see in 2018, where the arrow is pointing, a massive spike to the left in the Democrats.
How much data do you need?
One, two, three, four.
Four charts.
And this is not an exhaustive list.
I have several others because there's still Gallup and Pew Research.
I didn't pull up showing the same thing.
The same thing.
But I will show you this.
As part of the fracture.
Evidence of the fracture.
You can still see that there are a lot of Democrats that lean over to the conservative side.
And you can see here, too, that Democrats still move towards the center.
We can see here it's split very, very far to the left and to the center.
And here we have Gallup.
54% in—this is a report from 2018, from November—want more moderate policy.
That's what I want.
I'm critical of Pelosi because she's a super elite corporate millionaire, not because of her stances for the most part.
I'm critical because I think she's only opposing Trump for the sake of opposing him and not actually getting anything done.
But I still defended her when it came to her conversations with AOC because I still think she's in a better political position on policy issues, as is, dare I say it, Joe Biden.
Although, I'm to the left.
I just don't like these elite, corporate, phony Democrats.
I don't think AOC has good intentions.
The Green New Deal was a smack in the face to environmentalism, and I am an environmentalist who worked for three, maybe even for three different environmental nonprofits in my life.
In my life, to campaign for environmental issues.
That's not going to change, and I think AOC is doing damage.
Now let's look at this.
The next issue I see is that you can talk about the far left, but let's talk about identitarianism, okay?
This is where the left is now embracing politics based on identity in beyond just, okay, it's hard to parse.
The thing is, Identity politics can be a good thing.
The civil rights movement, for instance.
Did great things for my family, and I think it was great.
But there's a certain point where instead of bringing us together and breaking barriers, they build them.
And that's what's happening.
In this chart, in this graph you can see it says ANES 2018 pilot survey.
Mean in-group bias by race and ethnicity.
White liberals have an out-group bias.
They're the only group.
They don't like themselves.
Progressive activists tend to be, you know, college-educated, making over $100,000 a year, and they don't like white people.
That is part of the problem.
It's not the root, it's not the core, it's not the greatest example of the entirety of the problem, but this should show you that something weird is happening when there's only one group, the white left, the Biteswa, that are hating themselves.
It's weird.
I've never, and this is the craziest thing, never in my life have I identified as white.
In fact, I grew up in a mixed-race neighborhood, with a bunch of different ethnicities, to a mixed-race family, and we didn't really have that outside of being Americans.
That's why it's all so alien to me.
Then when I see what's going on with Elizabeth Warren putting pronouns in her profile, like, I get it, dude.
Gillibrand embracing overt identitarianism.
It is left-wing ideology dogma and it is associated with this regressive, authoritarian behavior that punishes people for asking questions.
We're now seeing the rise of anti-science on the left.
I will call that out.
I don't care the Republicans don't believe in global warming.
They never did.
I do.
Why is my side abandoning science?
So yes, I'll call them out.
Now the question is why?
And this chart shows us these three.
And there's a note.
It's three graphs out of a dozen or so, or more, pulled up by a guy named Zach Goldberg on Twitter.
Diversity, inclusion, whiteness, unconscious bias skyrocket according to LexisNexis and media.
And these are just the first three, okay?
And there's a huge list of all of these other things that even check for bias.
The word the, the word if, the word boat.
They use regular neutral words to see if there were spikes similarly.
The issue being, is this due to the increase in articles, or is it due to the increase in frequency of words?
And it is due to the increase in frequency of words, not the increase in news, period.
And finally, this last one, which I guess it's really hard to see because of the way this is shaped, but it's really tiny.
I'll do my best.
Let me see if I can zoom in manually.
See the blue line on the left?
I can't really do anything to get a better view because of the way this works, but you can see your white conservatives.
Get their media from a mix of liberal and conservative sources.
Liberals overwhelmingly only get their news from liberal sources.
Very little of their media, less than 10%, around 5%, comes from conservative sources.
Combine that with this, and you can see that left-wing sources are increasingly talking about wokeness in this ideology.
What this says to me is that the media diet of the left is worse than conservatives, and it results in a biased worldview.
Now, you can see moderate here reads a little bit of conservative news and a lot of liberal news, and that explains me quite perfectly.
I predominantly try to use the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Reuters, mainstream and NPR, PBS, left-leaning sources, but I do use a lot of conservative sources too.
So what happens is, liberals don't know about a lot of these stories.
They don't know these things are happening because they're in a bubble.
But they're inundated with this.
And that results in what we see, a dramatic shift to the far left.
They're only reading their own news, they're getting themselves angry, they're writing more, and it's a circular bubble that's resulting in left-wing identitarianism.
The problem is way more complicated than I've presented.
But I hope this is a good explanation for what's going on with the left, why I think the left is being lost, because it's not about a cohesive left.
It's not about a bunch of socialists, right?
If it was just socialism coming into the Democrats, there's an argument to be had.
But it's a combination of regressive tactics, authoritarianism, socialist ideology that's met with, you know, by any means necessary, calls to violence, championing of terror, and other horrifying practices that is not being called out ever.
And it freaks me out.
And the Republicans are wearing their suits and doing their Republican thing like normal.
That can be criticized.
And there you have it.
I don't make videos to cater to the crazy people.
I'm trying to call them out and trying to, you know, it's, it's, look, I don't make content for anybody.
I make content the way I see it.
And that's it.
Maybe as a moderate, because I see the news similarly to how conservatives see it, that's what we get.
But a better example or better explanation could simply be how Vox sees it.
After Andy Ngo was attacked, Vox said, the left has one view and the center and the right have another.
The left has gone so far left that the right and the center are closer to each other.
And I've said this over and over again.
Me as someone center-left, absolutely center-left, I have more in common with conservatives than I do with where the left is today.
Even though I'm probably to the left of Barack Obama.
So what do I do when I say we need someone who is like Obama but a little bit better?
Bad foreign policy.
We don't get it.
Look at the gap between the Democrats and the Republicans.
I'll tell you this.
Most Americans, while we are seeing a big shift to the left here, there's gonna be a lot of Americans confused.
And that's who I talked to, and that was the point of that tweet.
Trump will win because I'm being told by my friends who are lifelong Democrats they're not gonna vote this time or they're gonna vote independent.
