Ocasio-Cortez Just Lost Her Top Staff, Democrats Slammed For Being "A Mess"
Ocasio-Cortez Loses Top Staff, Democrats Slammed For Being "A Mess." Following a long couple of weeks of scandals involving the far left Democrats known as the squad, AOC Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti is out as well as her spokesperson.While Ocasio-Cortez's office painted this as a positive and planned circumstance some believe that this is the result of Saikat battling with establishment Democrats and causing chaos within the party.If the latter is true it signals that AOC may be moving more towards establishment politics or at the very least circling the wagons and cutting the fat that may cause he trouble in the future.Meanwhile high profile individuals such as Bill Maher and Chris Cuomo have criticized the 2020 Democratic candidates and the party for being being crazy, or "not having their heads on right"As Democrats increasingly embrace far left types like AOC the split in the democratic party grows and the advantage held by Trump and the republicans will grow as well.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has just lost her top staffers, notably Sycat Chakrabarty, and this is coming shortly after this huge feud with Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats that made the Democrats look really, really bad.
Now, there's a lot of context in this story.
I don't know exactly why he's out.
He's moving to a non-profit to focus on climate change, and there's some context there we'll get into later.
But I will point out Donald Trump has successfully played the Democrats off each other, made them fight, and then rally around the far-left progressive Squad Democrats.
These are people most Americans in swing states don't like.
I believe Trump knows what he's doing.
I recently made a video addressing how Trump had enacted new policies to restrict asylum for Central American migrants, and then put out all of these tweets that immediately distracted everybody.
Now, the media was quick to point out the first ruse from Trump, that he was trying to get the Democrats to circle the wagons around unpopular politicians, Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez, but that they were ignoring the policy decisions Trump was doing.
Now we're seeing the aftermath of that whole two-week news cycle.
Sycat Chakrabarty is out.
Now this is coming at a time where the Democrats are having their debates.
We're hearing Chris Cuomo say the party doesn't have its head on straight.
Bill Maher slamming Democrats because Obama now isn't woke enough.
And we've got a lot of other stories that I want to go through.
I also want to go through the Detroit debates, where this leaves the Democrats.
Biden clearly in first.
But let's start with the real news here.
SideKat Chakra Bharti is out.
Now, 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, the best thing you can do is share this video because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, meaning it's much harder for me to grow the channel, reach new viewers, and actually get you, the people who actually watch my content, to even see it.
If you think these videos are good, please consider sharing them on various social media platforms to help keep the channel going.
Let's read!
AOC loses top staffers following controversies from the New York Post.
They say, two top staffers are leaving her congressional office following a firestorm of controversy.
Her chief of staff, Sycat Chakrabarty, is done as of Friday.
Ocasio-Cortez's communications director, Corbyn Trent, plans to be her congressional spokesman until the end of the month, but will then transition to her 2020 campaign to play the same role.
So she's losing her spokesman, but he's going to be working on her re-election campaign, so he's not really going anywhere.
Chakrabarty will head to New Consensus, a non-profit climate change group that helps promote the Green New Deal.
The Intercept first reported the departures, which were confirmed by the Post Friday.
Chakrabarty and Trent's aggressive tactics often made life harder for Ocasio-Cortez in Washington.
Chakrabarty helped spark the rift between Ocasio-Cortez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others when he likened moderate Democrats to new Southern Democrats in a tweet, in effect calling them racists.
He particularly targeted moderate Rep.
Sharice Davids, a Democrat from a formerly red Kansas district, who is one of the two Native American women serving in Congress.
Chakrabarty said Davids voted in a way that helped enable a racist system, when she voted in favor of a bill that would provide Southern border relief.
The tweet was deleted, but the damage was done.
Now, we saw the results of this.
It was actually really weird.
This tweet has since been deleted.
But following this, the House Democrats' verified account tweeted, Who is this guy?
And why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?
Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice.
She's a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue.
Keep her name out of your mouth with clapping emojis.
This tweet, my understanding is now, it's been deleted.
I'm pretty sure it's been deleted, so I pulled up the archive to try and find it.
This was an insane news cycle.
You can't outwoke someone like Sycat Chakrabarti.
It can't be done.
If he is going to target a Native American woman and throw, I mean, name-calling, calling her racist, essentially, what do you think you're going to be able to do by firing back calling him racist?
It won't work.
But I will say this.
Sycat Chakrabarty being ousted?
In my opinion, entirely predictable.
He started a fight.
He made the Democrats look bad.
And in the end, who do you think will have to leave?
Ocasio-Cortez?
No, she's in Congress.
Sharice Davids?
No, she's in Congress.
How about an employee?
Sycat Chakrabarty?
Yup.
So he's gone.
Let's read on.
The remark was widely criticized and prompted a tweet from the House Democrats account to which we read what they said.
Chakrabarty also regularly tweeted criticism of Pelosi, who sat down with Ocasio-Cortez last Friday to clear the air in a closed-door caucus meeting.
The speaker had urged the socially savvy freshman to stop tweeting about other House Dems.
In June, Trent also generated negative press for his boss when he dropped the F-bomb while calling out a potential Republican challenger on Twitter.
Yo Rich Valdez, what the actual F makes you think you're entitled to a debate with AOC?
Trent tweeted, pro tip, stalking her at a parade ain't gonna make it any more likely to happen.
If there is going to be a challenger of Ocasio-Cortez, she should debate him.
It's really funny how when Ben Shapiro challenged her to a debate, they all said, you're not even running against her.
There's no reason for her to debate you.
Well, now she has a potential Republican challenger.
Shouldn't she debate him?
Apparently, no.
Apparently her spokesman will come out, drop some F-bombs and say, you're not entitled to this.
I believe these far left Democrats like AOC are inept.
ignorant and dangerous. You know, we can look at the Amazon deal, the repeated gaffes,
and the Green New Deal are great examples. The Green New Deal, in my opinion, is a slap in the
face to real environmentalists. I'm going to say this, and I mean this, as somebody who worked for
several non-profits on environmental issues, if you didn't read that bill, if you aren't following
this news, if you support the Green New Deal, you are no friend of environmentalism.
That's my opinion, okay?
Because the bill isn't about the environment, and I'm going to bring that up next in my criticism of Sycat Chakrabarty.
Let's read on.
Both aides followed the New York Democrat to D.C.
after working on her successful primary campaign, in which she toppled Rep.
Joe Crowley as the leaders of the Justice Democrats, an insurgent group that tried to oust Democratic incumbents and replace them with progressives more in line with Bernie Sanders.
The finances surrounding Justice Democrats have also generated bad press.
The group attracted three Federal Election Commission complaints filed by conservative groups because of an odd setup in which money from the PAC flowed into two limited liability companies controlled by Chakrabarty.
Ocasio-Cortez didn't require Chakrabarty nor Trent to disclose their personal finances.
Members can designate any member of their staff a principal assistant, forcing them to file annual financial disclosure forms.
Both AOC and Trent painted a rosy picture of the departures.
Her office told The Intercept that AIDS leaving was planned before the most recent dustup between AOC and other members of the so-called squad and House leadership.
Sycat has decided to leave the office of Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez to work with New Consensus to further develop plans for a Green New Deal.
We are extraordinarily grateful for his service to advance a bold agenda and improve the lives of the people of NY14.
From his co-founding of Justice Democrats to his work with Ocasio-Cortez campaign and in her official office, Sycats' goal has always been to do whatever he can to help the larger progressive movement, and we look forward to continuing work with him to do that.
They then went on to say that Trent will be working on her campaign.
Now, here's the thing.
Chakra Bharti, AOC, Kyle Kulinski, Cenk Uygur, the principles of Justice Democrats and this new progressive movement, it now seems that for the most part, all that's left is AOC.
Now let's get into some of the criticism about Saiket Chakra Bharti before we move on to the bigger story that is the criticism the Democrats are facing in the bigger picture.
Now, Chakrabarti is going to head to New Consensus, a non-profit climate change group that helps promote the Green New Deal.
However, we saw this story a couple weeks ago.
AOC's chief of staff admits the Green New Deal is not about climate change.
And this is what I meant when I said it's offensive to environmentalists.
You know what?
Most people vote on tribal lines.
Most people are going to say, how dare you criticize this group?
Tim, I'll tell you, it's very simple.
You want to win on environmental issues?
You need bipartisan support, period.
Now, the left keeps saying, we gotta push a progressive agenda, we gotta go far left.
Well, good luck on that!
You're not gonna force anybody to do anything.
You need to win over hearts and minds.
We are not an authoritarian nation, and for the most part, you know, I'll say that for the most part, we kind of are.
But as citizens, at least, we do have rights.
And that means while the government can do things, there's a lot of things it can't do.
And it can't force people without the rule of law, without rules being passed through our congressional system and other measures, precedents set by the Supreme Court.
It's complicated.
But look, if you want to win this, you've got to get votes.
You've got to get votes from the people, you've got to get votes from Congress, and you've got to get it signed by the President.
You can't just force it in.
So here's what they do.
Manipulation and coercion.
In a quote, Saiket Chakrabarty said, it wasn't a climate thing at all.
Check it out.
The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is, it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.
Chakrabarty said to Inslee's climate director Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter
who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday, Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we
really think of it as a how do you change the entire economy thing. And there you have it.
They go on to say, It would also, according to its proponents, advance social,
economic, racial, regional, and gender-based justice and equality, and cooperative and
public ownership, socialism and identitarianism.
They say, all told, the proposal will cost $93 trillion in new government spending over 10 years, according to a recent report by the Conservative American Action Forum.
I was talking to someone on the left, a progressive, who likes AOC.
And they asked me if I liked the Green New Deal, and I said, I don't.
And they were like, but why?
Aren't you environmentalist?" And I said, yeah, but did you read it?
It's like two paragraphs talking about the environment and the rest goes into socialism.
University for people, like for all, health care for all.
The FAQ said wage for those unwilling to, wages, guaranteed income for those unwilling to work.
The whole thing, it's more focused on how to give people money from the government and tax people than it is how to actually deal with the climate crisis.
They don't care about this.
They've found a Trojan horse to play on our emotions and manipulate the left to get what they want.
So no, I don't like it.
But you know what?
I decided to include other stories in this segment because I believe what we're seeing with AOC is a good example of what's wrong with the Democrats.
I really do mean it.
Take a look at this story from the Washington Examiner.
Now, of course, they will highlight this.
They're more conservative.
CNN's Chris Cuomo has a 2020 take.
The Democratic Party, quote, doesn't have its head right.
I believe he's, uh, what he actually said was, quote, I think this party does not have its head right in response to a question.
He goes on to question whether the Democrats are doing the right thing and how they're framing things.
But for the most part, he brings up kind of how they're not framing things correctly.
They're getting too specific.
In the segment, he says things like, you gotta just tell the people you're gonna help them, you're gonna do right, and don't get into the nitty-gritty.
But Bill Maher has a little bit better criticism.
He says, he mocks the Democratic debates.
So Obama is, quote, not woke enough now.
Marr, who called on several candidates weeks ago to get the F out, recapped how the Democratic candidates went after the President hard.
Unfortunately, the President was Obama.
The guy with the 97% approval rating among the Democrats, Marr said, with bewilderment, his S is not woke enough now.
He joked Trump saw that, called Putin, and said, I got this one.
Good on Bill Marr for bringing this up.
This was my segment yesterday.
The Democrats have gotten so woke, Obama is far right.
Obama is a Republican.
I kid you not.
Okay?
I know it's a little hyperbolic, but I will tell you this.
Take one of Obama's policy proposals, go on Twitter and tweet it, and wait and see how long it takes for someone to come out and say you're far right for posting that.
Not exaggerating.
I am serious.
If you tweeted that you supported the border facilities that detained these kids, they will say, well, because you're a far-right fascist, except Obama built them.
If you tweeted right now that you want Trump to deport 3 million people by the end of his term, they will say you're far-right, but that's what Obama did.
You could talk about the NDAA, and they will say, oh my god, you're fascist.
You can talk about the AUMF, oh my god, you're fascist.
You can talk about the disposition matrix, the drone strikes, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on.
And they will say, fascist, fascist, fascist.
Obama's policies are fascist, according to the left.
And that's why the Democrats on stage, who are chasing after Ocasio-Cortez and pushing this nonsense, are looking nuts.
Check this out.
Round 2 of Democratic Debates does little to change voters' minds.
Vote choice among potential Democratic primary voters for frontrunner candidates.
And Joe Biden is at 32%.
He started at 31,725.
A few days have gone by.
He's gone up, gone down a little bit.
He's the frontrunner.
You know why?
It may shock people to find that Barack Obama is still very popular.
As Bill Maher pointed out, 97% approval among Democrats.
So yes, people are looking at Joe Biden as bringing back the Obama years.
So they want to vote for him.
He is a very popular candidate who is centrist, public option type.
He's not going far left.
He's in line with Obama.
Unfortunately, the woke left are, you know, they're going to be voting in the primaries.
And they're a big portion, maybe 30%, if I extrapolate some of the data.
There was an article I read showing data that said 3 out of 10 primary voters want to abolish ICE.
So that's a decent amount who are woke, and that's what they're trying to get.
That's a big bunch.
But then I have to wonder, are they sacrificing that other 70%?
32% are in favor of Joe Biden.
Next you have Kamala Harris in terms of like the more centrist types at 10%.
You have Buttigieg around 6%.
Bernie Sanders and Warren.
Bernie's at 18, Warren's at 15.
Bernie and Warren are the more far left with Elizabeth Warren being kind of far left but not trying to embrace the socialism thing because that is a lose-lose-lose.
In the segment that I just showed you with Chris Cuomo, he said, when looking at the data, they can see that any person who can reasonably be identified as a socialist will be six points down from Trump in the election.
That's why Joe Biden is on top.
Joe Biden has around basically the same percentage as Bernie and Elizabeth Warren combined.
Which means when it comes time for the primary, Bernie will likely win and we will get a tepid, centrist type who doesn't have the strength to win on his own.
And look, I'm not trying to drag Biden over being a centrist by no means.
I'm trying to drag him for not being strong enough to go up against Trump.
Biden couldn't win the presidency on his own.
He became the VP for Obama.
Obama had the strength to win twice.
So now there's something interesting with the incumbent advantage that we're going to see here.
With all of these Democrats pushing far left, desperately trying to get that base, Trump doesn't have that problem right now with a primary.
He's the incumbent.
It's just him.
We're not going to see attacks.
We're not going to see Trump trying to embrace, you know, populist narratives that are more extreme than the public wants.
He can play it straight down the middle.
Straight for the general, going straight for the moderates.
I think he's putting the moderates at risk because his tweets are bombastic.
Be careful, you know.
But as I pointed out several times now, in a poll the other day, a Harris X poll that I highlighted, we can see that the center in this country believes, 40% of moderates believe the left is going too far left, and 33% believe the right is going too far right.
So Republicans have the advantage.
With the attacks on Joe Biden, they run the risk of hurting him in the general, which is exactly what's going to happen.
I believe right now it's entirely possible Joe Biden does win, but I'm putting I'm putting my bet on Kamala Harris because she is not the woke far left.
She is the crony Democrat establishment type.
She's at a low point right now.
Biden's really high.
But I think the play is to have her steal Biden's thunder.
That's why they keep putting her next to him.
That's why she keeps going after him.
She wants to steal that thunder, become the frontrunner.
She calls herself a top-tier candidate.
Oh, please, you're not in the top three.
You want to talk top tier?
It's Joe, Bernie, and Elizabeth.
But fine, you're number four.
That's your opinion.
Andrew Yang, then, is a top-tier candidate.
He's being included in this as well.
But I do want to hit a few other points as we move forward that I've brought up.
The Washington Post highlights something that I've said time and time again.
Forget moderates versus radicals.
The debate was a left versus far-left brawl.
And I'm not going to read through this, but I just like the headline to iterate this point that We're looking at the emergence of a new political party.
You know, I was talking to some friends who are lifelong Democrats, and I said, what do you think about immigration?
What do you think about the Equality Act?
And invariably, these friends—it's anecdotal, by the way, it's just me trying to get a sense of people who aren't political.
They were opposed to these things.
The Equality Act is fine for the most part in my opinion, but the problem right now is you have that story of that trans woman who wants to get their genitals waxed by women and force them to do it, has actually spooked some people I know saying, that's ridiculous, I'm kind of worried about that now.
But the bigger issue is immigration.
I don't have one friend I asked who are like, open borders is a good idea.
I don't.
Like, I don't hang out with overt libertarian types, far right, far left, who are like, borders are meaningless.
I have, like, friends who just voted for Obama twice.
Didn't vote for Trump.
Voted for Hillary.
And I say, what about border security?
And they're like, man, this is crazy.
It's like, we're having a crisis.
What are we going to do about it?
And I said, so you think we should secure the borders?
They're like, yes.
You think, you know, a business shouldn't be forced to provide waxing service for, you know, a woman and a man?
No, of course not.
And I said, okay, what about, like, the issues of trans politics?
And they're like, I don't know, man.
I'm getting freaked out.
That's just the opinion of people I know from the Chicagoland area who are lifelong Democrats.
And of course, you know that the left is going to be like, Tim's lying.
And I'm not lying.
And if you don't want to believe it, fine.
But the data shows it.
Biden is the frontrunner.
These politics and these ideas don't work.
So here's what I'm seeing now.
I had one of my friends say, they're still a Democrat.
These other people aren't Democrats.
They say, oh, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
He was an independent.
These people are only pretending to be Democrats.
These far-left talking points are not Democrats.
The Democrats don't agree with this.
And I have to say, you know what?
You're probably right.
According to Gallup and Pew, 54% of Democrats want more moderate policy, where around 44% want more progressive policy.
But that's just it.
These people I know are in the majority, according to Pew and Gallup, but there still is a massive number of Democrats that want to go further left, in which case, it's the emergence of a new party.
Moderate Democrats and far-left Democrats do not agree, policy-wise, and that's what we're seeing in the Democratic debates.
The problem is, it's the far-left activists who are voting in the primary and going to get people elected.
But let's move on from this point.
Uh, so this is just a rehash of the first story.
I should have had this one closed.
I want to, I want to highlight this as we move on and, and potentially have this one be the, uh, well, I have a couple more points to make.
This is a story from CNBC.
Payrolls rise $164,000 as labor force sets a record high.
That's going to be hard to beat.
You can, you can posture all you want.
You can talk about, you know, Trump's bigotry.
You can talk about wokeness, but Americans are looking at a record economy.
Their wages are up.
Here it is, here's the data.
Wages increased 3.2% year over year, topping expectations by one-tenth of a percentage point.
Average weekly hours edged lower to 34.3.
The total labor force came in at a record high, 163.4 million.
Wages are up and the labor force is up.
It's huge.
It's just great, great news for Trump.
Meanwhile, What do we have from Democrats?
We have the wokeness, the collapse.
We have the shakeup even within the far left.
It's like a Chakrabarty being ousted.
We have this story recently, just today, from The Hill.
Democrats demonize wealthy to deflect from disastrous agendas.
We have this story from July 9th.
From Kamala Harris and Biden to Nancy Pelosi and AOC, the Democratic Party is a mess.
And we can top it all off with the sweet, sweet, glorious, when Kamala Harris is made to look bad, and hashtag KamalaHarrisDestroyedTrends, they go on to claim that, I kid you not, Did Kamala Harris destroyed go viral naturally or did Russian bots have something to do with it?
Let me tell you something, Democrats.
I've been a Democrat my whole life.
I voted like one time.
I'm pretty sure I only voted for Obama once and that was about it.
But I grew up in a family of Democrats in Chicago with punk friends on the left.
I have never, never had a friend who was like, the Republicans were just not part of our sphere.
I am here, and I am telling you, these things I'm showing you exist.
Bill Maher has been calling you out.
Bill Maher recently said all they had to do was find someone less crazy than Trump, and they're failing at that.
He said even Obama isn't woken up for you.
Chris Cuomo said you don't got your head on right.
AOC's staff is being shaken up amid chaos with the House Democrats fighting, and I'm telling you what I'm seeing.
And what do they do instead?
La la la la with their ears plugged.
And their response to Tulsi Gabbard slamming Kamala Harris is, was it Russian bots?
Where do you live?
The ivory tower has room for so few people, there's like 10 people atop this tower with millions on the ground level looking up while the crazy people scream Russian from the high heavens.
Russia!
Russia they yell as their party is in shambles.
And op-ed after op-ed and scandal after scandal show it to be true.
Look, man, I'm a reasonable person, okay?
I like what Tulsi Gabbard has to offer.
She's not perfect.
She's done some things that I—she's got some policy positions I don't agree with.
But here's the reality.
You never support someone completely, for the most part.
I get it.
There are some people who are probably just going to say Trump's doing the right thing no matter what.
Not me.
I vote on principle, okay?
And that means I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I'm going to recognize I'm never going to find myself as a candidate unless I vote for myself.
So I'll say this.
When Tulsi goes up, I say, she recently qualified for the third debates.
I'm like, great, awesome, excellent.
She's not going to make it in the polls.
We'll see what happens.
Same is true for Yang.
He might make it.
We'll see what happens.
The response of the Democrats is that they're so oblivious to the fact that there are moderates in this country who want a Democrat to vote for, they think we don't exist, they smear us, and then they say it certainly must be Russians who are tweeting this out.
I'm not Russian!
I'm a mixed-race high school dropout from the south side of Chicago.
I am your constituent.
I am exactly who you were supposed to be able to win over.
I am, I am, I guess technically a person of color who never completed high school.
But no, they can't do it.
All they had to do is be less crazy than Trump.
I agree with Bill Maher.
Man, I remember growing up watching Bill Maher like, you know, 10, 12 years ago and loving it and laughing.
I remember watching George Carlin, loving it and laughing.
Where are we today?
Family Guy is too offensive to exist on the internet.
I can't say certain words.
This is not what I want for the future.
And I have been a lifelong liberal.
So I'm sorry, no.
Free speech and criticizing a corporate crony, Kamala Harris, who locked people up for smoking pot, who kept people in prison for cheap labor, and kept someone on death row and refused to release evidence, at least according to what Gabbard was saying, No, I don't like that woman, and I'm going to speak out against her.
And no, we're not Russian bots for saying so.
Even the conservatives, who are critical of what Tulsi Gabbard had to say about Trump, who are critical of her support of certain bills, will point out she's got more principle in her pinky than Kamala Harris has in her entire body, and they're going to tweet this out as well.
No, it's not Russian bots.
So let me just finalize this whole segment.
The big breaking story here, the lead.
Psychic Chakrabarty's out.
Chaos and turmoil in the far left.
They don't have their heads on right.
That's my opinion.
It's also Chris Cuomo's opinion for the most part.
At least that's what he said.
You can tell they don't necessarily know what they're doing.
They're too wild and out there, and thus the turmoil erupts.
The fighting goes crazy.
Then you look at the debates.
They're embracing people like Cortez.
She's the last person you should be trying to emulate.
She just lost her chief of staff amid controversies when he was calling the Democrats racist.
Essentially calling them racist.
But they're trying.
So look, if I can show you these stories, story after story, saying it's a mess, and then they act like my opinion is unique.
Oh, Tim's just throwing red meat to Republicans.
No, I'm throwing red meat to moderates.
I don't know if I'm even doing that.
I'll tell you what I'm doing.
I have an opinion.
This is how I feel.
These are the stories I see.
If you don't want to listen to me, you'll lose my vote and Trump will win.
Don't care.
They don't care either.
They don't care if they've lost me already.
Fine.
Whatever, man.
I'm gonna vote independent or something, I guess.
Anyway, I'll wrap it up there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all in the next segment.
This morning, I have for you four different stories about Trump supporters winning small legal fights.
In the first story, Oren Shroyer of InfoWars was groped by a woman at an event, and she said, arrest me.
Well, guess what?
She got arrested and charged with sex abuse.
Apparently, I believe she pled not guilty, and she was convicted.
Five days in jail, probation.
There's some interesting tidbits in the story, so we'll go through this, but I have a couple other stories.
A woman who threw a drink at Matt Gaetz pled guilty in his facing a year in jail.
A man was arrested at an Elizabeth Warren event after threatening protestors in MAGA hats.
And lastly, Brian Karam, the guy who is shouting things at Trump's, uh...
It's a complicated story.
At the White House summit, there were some back and forth between Trump supporters and the press, but then Brian Karam of CNN and Playboy shouted, why don't we go outside, or something to that effect, to Sebastian Gorka, who said, you're threatening me on the Rose Garden?
Well, this guy just got his press pass suspended, and what does he do?
He says, he plays the, oh, it's because Trump doesn't like me asking hard questions.
No, dude, maybe it's because there were guests invited to the White House, and you, as a member of the press, shouldn't be shouting things at them, like, let's take it outside.
I don't care who the guests are.
I don't care if they're heckling you.
They shouldn't be, for sure.
There were people in the crowd, you know, saying things.
They shouldn't.
But even if they do, the press should not be heckling back.
But let's start with the first story.
Woman found guilty of sex abuse during InfoWars interview.
This is actually... I'm surprised.
Apparently, there was like some kind of strategy to plead to simple assault.
But she grabbed this InfoWars reporter's privates and squeezed, and I guess they were able to prove it to a judge?
Now here's what I'm gonna do.
It is a short story.
Before we get started, head over to youtube.com slash subverse news and subscribe.
We're setting up new channels.
This is where you can go for straight news that it's editorially independent from the content I produce, but of course I am one of the principal owners of Subverse.
We recently broke a, my understanding is some kind of regulation crowdfunding record.
We raised over a million dollars In 22 hours.
With your support, it is greatly appreciated.
And this is where you can find it!
So, as much as many people might not like the fact that Tim Poole is a journalist and produces journalism, there is a dedicated channel just for that.
So, uh, go subscribe!
YouTube.com slash SubverseNews and expect awesome things.
Um, I am working on the van.
It's done.
Um, but I need some modifications and I will be, first things first, going to the border and doing some on-the-ground fieldwork as well as continuing this show.
But let's read the news.
From Subverse!
On January 21st, Owen Schroyer, a video producer for the website InfoWars, accused a Women's March protester of touching him appropriately – I think they mean inappropriately, Subverse, get a copy editor – while recording an interview at the DC demonstration.
Police later charged Isabel O'Shaughnessy, 21, with misdemeanor sex abuse after Schroyer reported the incident on January 23rd.
The criminal complaint issued by Schreuer states that while he was in the midst of an interview, the woman grabbed and squeezed his genitals.
Shortly after the incident occurred, Schreuer posted a tweet, including a video of the incident, stating, Here is the moment I was sexually assaulted by a Women's March 2019 protester.
She laughed about it.
The crowd cheered.
The police did nothing.
The local police told the Washington Post the university student surrendered to law enforcement the following Wednesday after Schreuer pressed charges that resulted in an arrest affidavit.
O'Shaughnessy told police that she had inadvertently brushed up against him.
Nice try.
It's on camera.
They were filming the whole thing.
And that Schreuer misinterpreted her comments during the emotionally charged situation.
O'Shaughnessy claims that she was being sarcastic in the video where she states that she was engaging in the act.
Court documents indicate that on January 30th, O'Shaughnessy initially pled not guilty, which brought the case to trial.
On July 26th, prosecutors in the DC Superior Court found O'Shaughnessy guilty of misdemeanor sex abuse, sentencing her to five days incarceration, as well as unsupervised probation for six months, and a payment of $50.
Schroyer released a statement on InfoWars indicating that he is pleased with the court's ruling, stating, So that's actually rather significant, because there have been a lot of stories as of recent about Trump supporters being physically attacked.
was protected in this case and crimes could not be committed against me.
So that's actually rather significant because there have been a lot of stories as of recent
about Trump supporters being physically attacked. Andy No, I'm not going to call Andy No a Trump
supporter, but conservatives, you know, Andy No was attacked, no justice. We see a bunch of these
Breitbart for a while was keeping a running list.
I'm not a huge fan of Breitbart, so I'm not, you know, gonna... They stopped maintaining the list anyway.
But here you go.
You know, so we over at Subverse did some groundwork just to kind of verify the details.
The court documents are all publicly available.
And we found some interesting things that didn't make it to the story, but in my review of documents, it would seem...
Now, this woman was trying to set up a negotia— like, a plea arrangement.
I could be wrong about this, because I'm not a lawyer, but I was reading through it, and apparently it says at one point something to the effect of, they were in plea negotiations, she pled guilty to simple assault, but the government did not approve, and then, I believe it was a non-jury trial, and she was found guilty of sex abuse.
Wow.
So that's big.
I mean, that's just not—they didn't, you know, just let her off.
But we do have another story, because you may remember that not too long ago, Matt Gaetz was walking out of an event, and his political rival, who ran as a Democrat, threw a drink at him.
This was one of the craziest stories I'd seen in a while.
Like, Matt Gaetz.
A woman ran against him.
She lost.
Later, she shows up and throws a drink at him.
Like, I'm not saying it was like, I think it was a while ago she ran against him, but that's crazy.
That's where we're getting to.
We're getting to the point now where failed politicians are attacking... I get it, throwing a drink is low-level, but it's still an attack on someone at a sitting member of the U.S.
Congress.
Let's read.
A former political opponent of Rep.
Matt Gaetz pleaded guilty Thursday to throwing a drink at him after a town hall meeting in June.
Authorities say Amanda Kondratyev, 35, threw a red liquid at Gaetz, a floor Republican, as he left a Pensacola restaurant where he was holding an Open Gaetz event, the Pensacola News Journal reported.
Now, I want to stress, groping someone's genitals is... it's sex abuse.
She's convicted, guilty, done.
Throwing a drink at someone?
You're gonna get a lot of people.
And you see this on Reddit, you see this on Twitter, where they're like, oh no, someone threw a drink at you.
Liquids can be dangerous, man.
Okay, a milkshake isn't dangerous.
Unless someone's like severely, I don't know, allergic to dairy, yeah.
I read a story the other day about like kids at a school threw bananas at a teacher who was allergic and she went into anaphylactic shock.
You never know what's gonna happen, okay?
What if she has a milkshake and she throws it at Matt Gaetz and he's allergic to dairy and he goes into anaphylactic shock?
It's rare.
It's unlikely.
I get it.
The intent of throwing a milkshake is to humiliate.
What happens when someone puts concrete in a milkshake so that it can burn you?
That's what the police said in at least one circumstance.
They believed they saw concrete, and a witness told them as such.
We don't know if it's actually true, but the police said it was.
What if someone actually has something that looks like water, and it's actually some kind of acid or corrosive substance?
This is why you can't tolerate people throwing anything at anybody, no matter what it is.
Even if it's a drink.
You might say, oh, it was just a drink, so what?
So what is, what they're doing is telling you you're not safe.
That if we wanted to, we could throw a corrosive substance in your face.
And it only takes a few seconds to permanently destroy the face, the skin of somebody.
Just a simple splash.
And we've seen these kind of attacks on the rise in the UK, mostly as like honor, you know, incidents or whatever, like a religious thing.
Or cultural, I have no idea.
But let's read a little bit more, it's a short story.
They say, clearly it takes more than a drink to slow down our great team, Gates tweeted after the incident.
We are always thankful to the brave law enforcement officials who keep everyone safe at our events.
Kondratieff pleaded not guilty at a hearing in June, but her attorney said she now wants to take responsibility.
Yeah, because of something called the jury tax or the trial tax.
When we know you did it, when there are witnesses and there's video evidence, and you plead not guilty, you're going to get a harsh penalty.
Because the assumption is you won't take responsibility.
When you plead guilty, the assumption is you are recognizing your fault.
And thus, I think the idea of a jury tax, trial tax, whatever you want to call it, is abhorrent.
Because they're essentially saying, you want to exercise your rights?
Don't be surprised when we lock you up for the maximum.
It's used as a threat against people to not plead guilty.
Well, you know what?
I'll tell you what, man.
I act on principle.
I have a story from when I was younger where I was falsely accused.
These security guards lied about me and my brother.
And they were offering us like 20 hours community service.
I was like, no, I'm going to trial.
I didn't do anything wrong and I don't care if I can win or lose.
I am going to stand on principle, stand up there, hold my hand up,
take an oath, you know, swear in a Bible and tell them I did nothing.
And if I get locked up after that, at least I know that I did the right thing.
I don't play these games.
But she's pleading guilty, and as far as we can tell, she did it.
There's like video of some of, you know, and there are witnesses, I guess.
They say she faces a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
But I will stress on that point, one of the problems with our justice system is the assumption that if you pled guilty, you did it.
And that's just, that's just terrible.
But we got more!
We got more.
Apparently, at an Elizabeth Warren rally, somebody was threatening protesters in MAGA hats, and they got arrested.
They say on Thursday night, a man hostile to Trump supporters, who were protesting at a Tempe, Arizona event for Elizabeth Warren, was arrested when he reportedly threatened to strike one of them.
There was also an incident, I think, just to bring this back up, it was Jack Posobiec, who, it's a really great video.
Look, man, I don't care what your politics are, attacking people in the street is wrong.
Jack Bezovic is talking to people and someone, you know, hits his phone and then the cops pull up right away.
And they get out and then of course the anti-people start lying.
He didn't touch him.
They're lying.
He didn't touch him.
And Jack's like, we filmed it.
I think it was Jack.
I could be wrong.
But anyway, that's the gist of the story.
You know, this is being covered by a lot of people.
A police sergeant, Kevin Renwick, said of the arrest, it's pretty cut and dried.
He told ABC News, this is just people behaving badly.
Absolutely, it was appropriate and lawful, and the way the security removed him.
It never looks pretty, but sometimes that's the way to do it, unfortunately.
So...
I think this story's pretty straightforward.
But I want to talk about this last one.
And the reason—this one doesn't necessarily fit in the same way.
It's not like Brian got arrested for saying, let's take it outside.
But he's got his credentials suspended for 30 days.
Now, he's screaming First Amendment.
And this is where, you know, I am absolutely in favor of the First Amendment in every capacity.
But look, man.
Brian Karam shouted at Sebastian Gorka, why don't we take it outside, or something like that.
Gorka got in his face and said, you're not a journalist, you're a punk, and walked off, and people cheered for him.
Brian Karam gets his credentials suspended.
He's claiming now that it's because, you know, he was asking Trump hard questions.
But the White House wrote that Karam failed to abide by basic norms of decorum and order on July 11th, Karam said.
The letter further suggested that Karam had been rude to Gorka, a guest of the president.
100%.
Listen, these journalists, even if being heckled, do not have the right to start yelling at guests of the president, okay?
Like, look, I mean, by all means, do it, okay?
Actually, let me take that back.
You absolutely have the right to do it.
No, no, no, for sure.
You can be in the White House, as a journalist, and you can yell whatever you want at whoever you want.
But don't be surprised when they take your press pass away, right?
That's a privilege, not a right, to have access to the press pen.
You know, it is interesting in that the White House is extremely secure, but for obvious reasons.
So imagine if the president invited, like, I don't know, foreign emissaries of some sort, and a journalist didn't like him and started yelling at him.
That's like, you can't do that.
Here's the thing.
Brian Karam is going to play the anti-First Amendment move, even if that's true.
Like, let's say his argument is, they're claiming something that happened 21 days ago.
I'm there every day.
If this was an issue, it should have been brought to my attention long before now.
I know what they say the issue is, but that's not the real issue, or they could have talked to me at any point in time prior to now.
As a matter of record, they never spoke to me once about it.
Okay.
I will say, they probably should have suspended his press pass immediately and said, you can't do that, you're being suspended.
They did wait 21 days, which is interesting.
However, it sometimes takes that long to get approval to make a move like this.
I'd be willing to bet, I'd lean towards the probability that after he did it, somebody went to, you know, the chain of command, you know, administratively, not like the literal U.S.
chain of command, where they're like, should we do something about this?
Let me pass it up to the bosses and see what they think.
We have to get approval, blah, blah, blah.
And it took a couple weeks.
And they went through it and they said, yeah, I think we should suspend the guy.
And they did.
And now he's going, why did it take so long?
Because it's the government?
Because the government takes this long?
Because it's not just like Trump snapped his fingers and said, get out of here.
It's because somebody at a lower level passed it up.
That's likely.
But I'll also say this.
Don't give them an excuse.
Look, if you're really concerned about Trump trampling on the freedom of the press, don't shout things and threaten guests of the president.
Like, even if—okay, let's say they didn't have any intention of getting rid of him until he asked a tough question.
Well, they were sitting on this because it's your fault.
If it was true that Trump is removing him because of his tough questions, then I think Trump is in the wrong.
Absolutely.
But what's the argument we have?
The dude literally yelled a veiled threat to Gorka.
He said, why don't we go outside?
We'll have a discussion about it.
Or something to that effect.
And then said, I just wanted to talk.
No, dude.
We know what let's take it outside means.
You know, you're not fooling anybody.
Of course, the people who are in the tribal left who are going to defend him and say Trump is going after the First Amendment, they're going to pretend like they really believe it.
I'm just sick and tired of the fake BS, right?
Look, Brian, you can't go to the White House, shout at guests, and then get mad when they suspend your press pass for whatever reason.
You gave them the opening.
You created the attack vector.
And it doesn't matter what the real reason is, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
The only thing we have to go off is, Brian Karamy yelled at Trump's guests.
White House suspends his press pass.
Arguing that it was three weeks later literally means nothing.
It has nothing, no bearing on anything.
Yeah, the government moves slow sometimes.
It reminds me of this thing, I think it was like Bill Maher.
And he was talking about how someone said that, uh, he once wished for rain and then it rained.
It was a miracle.
And Bill Maher said, no, I think that sometimes it rains.
And that's a really simple way to explain, I guess, kind of like Occam's Razor.
Brian Karam wants to come out and scream, conspiracy!
It's a conspiracy!
Oh, the White House!
They're taking away my press pass because they don't want to be challenged!
What about all the other journalists?
Jim Acosta is still there!
Look, they did suspend Acosta, but that was after an altercation with a White House aide.
Yeah, they suspended him, and then he ended up getting it back or something like that.
Then they made new rules, and now here you are, breaking the rules!
There are rules in place.
So it doesn't— Look, I don't care what you think your reason is.
It is a conspiracy theory to think the Trump administration is plotting behind the stage, twirling their mustaches, being like, let's get rid of him for, you know, some dubious reason, when in reality, you literally shouted a threat at a guy.
You know what, man?
I've gotten to a point now where I was frustrated for a while about how the left and the Democrats were mostly ignoring these kinds of stories.
Of course I don't think throwing a milkshake at someone is on par with acts of terror.
To an extent, right?
Like, when you have a guy who shows up with a weapon at a facility for some reason, or at a church or synagogue, of course that's nightmarish and dystopian and needs to be stopped.
Who's arguing for those things?
Nobody!
Not one conservative I know is saying, hey, that was great.
No, none.
They're all saying, oh my God, it's terrible.
And we recognize it.
And completely independent of all of those things, including Islamic terror, we have low-level nuisance, mischief, and violence.
And we condemn it.
It's bad.
And the media, the left, they ignore this kind of stuff, even when it gets as crazy as what happened in Tacoma.
And you know what?
For a while I was really frustrated, but now I'm just kind of like, yep, another day, another dollar, right?
Same old, same old for the media.
They're going to put out the news that makes the money for them.
They're going to put out the Orange Man bad stories.
But then I tell you this, and I mean this sincerely, as much as many of these weird regressives don't want to accept it.
My friends, regular old run-of-the-mill Democrats, are straight up saying, I don't know who I'm going to vote for.
Bill Maher, last night, saying Obama's not woke enough anymore.
The Democrats have gone nuts.
It's just, look, you know, I was once told I have the unfortunate privilege of being out of the market.
And that's true.
Not just technologically, but also Factually.
I've been seeing this happen, and I've been talking about it, and they're shocked.
Oh, harumph, I say!
How dare Tim make a video where he complained the Democrats were targeting Obama!
That's a right-wing talking point!
Uh-huh.
Keep telling yourself that.
Keep telling yourself that.
Obama, who has, I guess according to Bill Maher, a 97% approval rating among Democrats, Now, I don't know what's going to happen come election time, I really don't.
They literally attack him on stage.
They ignore these stories.
I assure you, people are recognizing it.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen come election time.
I really don't.
But I got to say, there was one story about Trump breaking a record for filling some arena.
I've seen the lines of Trump supporters, and I'm not convinced the Democrats have done
anything to actually generate real support.
Now it's true.
A lot of people hate the president, the media, Orange Man bad all day and night, and that could be effective.
So don't think you've won this yet, Trump supporters.
You may be sitting on false hope.
It's true.
The media has been very heavy against Trump.
I, for one, believe Trump is still playing to his advantage in many ways, but that's getting policy done, and that stuff plays to his base.
He does run the risk of losing the moderates, but I will stress, in a poll I mentioned yesterday, independents, according to a Harris X poll, 48% believe the Democrats have gone too far left, while only 33% believe the Republicans have gone too far right.
That means advantage, Republicans.
Advantage, Trump.
And don't forget it!
I don't know if the polls are right.
Maybe they're not.
But at least from where I'm standing, as someone who's been a moderate for a long time, why would I ever celebrate someone throwing a drink at a politician?
That's nonsense.
You've lost the argument.
You know what I'd love to see?
I'd love to see someone confront Matt Gaetz and throw some hard facts in his face and see if he could respond.
That's the way things are normally supposed to happen, but they don't.
So what do we get?
We get Matt Gaetz looking calm and professional getting attacked by a crazy person.
What do you think that conveys to the American people?
Anyway, I'm not gonna make this video a million years long.
We'll end it there.
Stick around.
You can tell I am hyped and full of energy today, huh?
Next video will be at 1 p.m., and I will sign off by just saying one last thing.
Seriously, go to Subverse, youtube.com, slash Subverse News, and subscribe.
I'll just do a little extra for you guys.
Listen, I used to do more on-the-ground stuff for my main channel.
My main channel was a mix of my opinions, my commentary, as well as my journalism.
Over time, the channel grew and I decided to take the smaller stories that never made the cut to the main segment and put it onto its own channel.
Eventually, it's increasingly difficult to maintain steady and stable field journalism and groundwork.
So I decided to work on a new channel, Subverse, that I launched with some friends.
My brother was involved.
Now we have team members.
We have people running the show and producing straight news.
Just straight news.
This is one of the articles we produced.
It was the first one I read.
It's by Sean Jackson, who is writing and producing for Subverse.
And that's all you're going to get, is the straight news.
I'll give you my opinion on my channel, but Subverse is editorially independent.
So I can read through it and comment how he forgot to put inappropriately, which is kind of funny.
Kind of funny.
But here's the important thing I want to leave with.
And I'm going to do a lot of promotion for Subverse.
We have an on-the-ground section specifically for field reporting.
And I'm proud to say, in my opinion, you know, I didn't produce these segments, these on-the-ground reports.
I do have a series of reports I have hosted for Subverse News and contributed to.
But in the past several months, as we've been setting up the structure and the organization, it's been a tough year.
Hard work.
We have had other people, even left-wing activists, who have done reporting for Subverse to much approval from the audience, from you guys, because we don't put the opinion in.
I don't care if you're a left-wing activist, I don't care if you're a right-wing activist, so long as what you show is on the ground, real news, and that's what we've done.
We've had people who are very left-wing, but have done interviews that have been just straight interviews.
Ask a question, get an answer, and we can use that.
That's just no agenda-ing, no injecting what we think you should think.
And this video right here, Demand Free Speech Meets All Out D.C., we interview an anti-racist protester who's very critical of the Proud Boys, and we interviewed Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys.
We're doing it.
It's legit.
Check it out.
YouTube.com slash Subverse News, and I will see you all in the next segment at 1 p.m.
So people have this idea that they can buy a woke media company and turn it profitable.
I don't know why they do it.
There's an old saying that I believe it was like Einstein or maybe it's falsely attributed to him.
I don't know.
Something about the definition of insanity is when you keep doing something expecting different results.
That's not the real definition of insanity, but it's like a good, you know, it's a good idea, right?
Like if there's a fire and you touch it and it burns, and you're like, maybe if I touch it like this and you get burned again, maybe at some point you should realize it's fire, you can't touch it.
Behold, the story of the Gizmodo Media Group, or whatever it is called at this point.
Originally, Gawker was sold to Univision, failed, was sold to some new group, and is failing.
Here's the problem.
When you buy a woke media company, you will be inheriting employees who hold an ideology that makes business untenable.
They don't care about profit, they think money grows on trees, and they're shocked to find merit matters in business.
Take a look at this story.
First, I don't want to read through this whole thing, but man do I need to point some stuff out.
GeoMedia.
How Things Work by Laura Wagner.
When Jim Spanfeller and a private equity firm called Great Hill Partners took over GeoMedia, formerly Gizmodo Media Group, in April, their stated goal was to make the company profitable.
It was a welcome refrain for employees all too aware of how the company had languished under Univision's doomed ownership.
But as Spanfeller began to implement his vision, that hope was replaced by employee frustration and skepticism over his hiring practices and interference with the company's journalism.
Okay.
You want to run a business?
What do you do when people at your business repeatedly smear your own business?
You can't have, like, could you imagine if you owned a bakery and your employees kept putting up signs saying the food here is terrible?
That's really bad for business, isn't it?
You'd think someone would say, look, I understand we're trying to improve the product, I understand our food's not that good, but you can't go bad-mouthing the company because we're trying to turn it profitable.
Get rid of the people who keep bad-mouthing your company and bringing down morale.
Now, the funny thing about this is Laura writes that she's excited.
The people were happy because someone was going to come in and turn the company profitable.
And then when they tried, they're outraged.
Why?
Let me just do this.
Let me do Ctrl F and we'll type in white.
Spanfeller hired a stable of white men to fill executive positions.
And they're upset for a couple reasons.
One, Because there were other people at the company that they
thought should have been promoted but weren't.
They also go on to talk about how there's one like contentious subject where
this guy offered to promote a female within the company and And then he says the next day, he told her to fire this woman who's like, I don't know.
I think she's kind of toxic on Twitter.
We'll get to that.
And the woman he offered the promotion to said, no way, I won't do it.
Well, you can't hold a management position if you're not going to fire someone, right?
Eventually the woman was fired.
The other lady didn't get promoted and they complain.
I'll show you something that's really, really funny.
They talk about this.
Let me see if I can find it.
Here we go.
Spanfeller filled nearly his entire top layer of management without any public recruitment process.
What?
What is a public recruitment process?
Listen.
This thing is full of identity politics, demanding that women get hired, complaining that white men are getting hired.
And there you go.
Your employees hold an ideology that prevents you from doing business.
Let me tell you how business works.
You work for a company, and the guy is doing things you don't like, but he owns it?
Quit!
It's that simple.
But check it out.
Should this be a surprise to anyone, let me just say this, Jim, Right now, I am questioning your judgment.
This is to Jim Spanfeller for buying the Gizmodo Media Group.
Let me offer up my services free of charge to anybody who would like a consultation, albeit briefly, about these companies and my having experience with them.
And I will tell you right away, Bad investment!
I worked there, okay?
I worked for some- I worked for Vice, I worked for Fusion.
Fusion, which is- so basically, Univision bought the Gizmodo properties.
They were woke as a joke, and it didn't work.
Their vision made no sense, their content made no sense.
One of the best performing pieces of content put out by Fusion was making fun of social justice warriors.
And there was inner turmoil, like, oh no!
One of our pieces of content making fun of social justice warriors is doing really well.
What do we do?
And apparently they were angry that it did well.
And I was like, listen, people in this country are not woke for the most part.
You are chasing after a tiny, tiny base.
And these people have no idea how business works.
So here's the thing.
Jim, I would have told you right away, do not buy these companies.
That's my opinion.
You know, I worked for Fusion, which Fusion Media Group held some of these properties, I think.
And I'd advise you not to do it.
But, Jim actually might have a good idea, because think about it.
These are well-known properties.
If you can get rid of the wokeness, you might be able to turn them profitable by writing about things people care about.
But let me show you why, even if that idea is true.
Maybe Jim thought... I'm talking about Jim Spanfeller, by the way, the guy who bought him.
Maybe he was thinking like, you know what, man?
We get in, we bring in a bunch of people from Forbes and other entities that I know can make this work, and we slowly get rid of the weird woke people who have no idea what they're doing.
Admittedly, a lot of the people they say in the story were smashing their goals for revenue and things like that.
So I'm not trying to act like the people at Gizmodo don't know how to do their jobs.
I'm just saying, when you start hiring people that you think can do it, they'll complain about wokeness, about the race of the person.
I wonder if this is actually a violation of some kind of labor law.
You know, I don't think the woman who wrote this and the others involved have managerial power, but I wonder what, you know, is it a fireable offense if you have one employee complaining about the race and gender?
Like, that's got to be some kind of discrimination.
Not coming from management, though, so... But let me say this.
Perhaps that was his goal.
Buy the company, clean it up, get rid of the wokeness, and we can repair this and bring it back to just being a fun, funny, gossipy web blog, right?
Well, there were warning signs.
How about this one?
Kate Cogner, David Uberti, Univision is an effing mess.
Also, by Lauren Wagner as well.
Listen, man.
You can't run a business where your own employees are leaking secrets and making you look bad.
Even if you're doing things bad.
Okay?
The problem here is, a business can't survive with bad leadership.
Writing a story about the company being bad multiple times makes me believe it's not necessarily the company's fault.
It's the staff's fault.
I'll say this.
I worked for a Univision property called Fusion, which I believe the Fusion Media Group was holding these properties underneath it.
I don't know how it worked.
But I will tell you this, the guys at Univision, they just cared about money.
That's my understanding.
When I asked about, you know, politics, left and right, they said just side with the audience.
They didn't care.
They did produce a bit, there's a car- you can find it now, it's got like half a million or more views, where it's a guy doing stand-up, and everything he says is offensive, and they're screaming at him and throwing tomatoes and stuff, and that was one of their most viral pieces.
Not the most, but it was in the top.
And it was making fun of the social judge.
And it was, like, widely liked.
They had a bunch of other content that just got no views and was disliked.
They didn't care.
They were just like, hey, what can we do to make money?
Unfortunately, I am of the understanding, based on conversations I had, they were told, get woke, get rich.
The marketing people said, hey, young people love wokeness.
They love, like, look, you know, there are a lot of people in this country that love being characterized simply by the color of their skin, which nobody said ever.
Well, except for Don Lemon, I guess.
For the most part, people don't like it.
So what happens?
Univision hands the keys to woke identitarians who pump out trash after trash, and then they spiral out of control.
People get fired.
It doesn't work.
You look at, you know, so that's the point.
Maybe Jim said, hmm.
Maybe the problem is Univision is a mess.
No.
Well, actually, yeah, kind of.
But maybe the problem was they thought getting woke would equal money.
In fact, getting woke made them go broke because the warning signs were all there.
Here's a story from Jezebel's staff, which is part of the Gawker Media Group.
They said, we have a problem with certain gifs.
Anyway, I'm not going to read this title because I'm going to get in trouble on YouTube.
The point is, they keep complaining about their companies.
They publicly air their dirty laundry.
And then everyone can see it, and it makes the brands toxic.
If I'm going to be selling ice cream, I can't have my employees complaining that the ice cream tastes like crap.
Or, so look at this, they're like, we make great ice cream, but, you know, the company is terrible.
It's like, dude, we'll deal with it.
If it doesn't, if you don't like it, you can leave.
This story, the original story, is huge.
Now, I want to point to something, right?
There's a woman that was supposed to be fired.
This woman's name is Susie Benicarum, they say.
Let's read this.
In one instance in which Spanfeller tried to promote a woman within the company, his offer came with strings attached.
According to multiple sources familiar with the situation, in April, Spanfeller offered the job of head of talent to Katie Pontius, who until recently was the chief of staff for The Onion.
The job, however, came with a condition.
They said, Pontius's first order of business would be to fire newsroom editorial director Susie Bannekerum.
Multiple sources said Pontius declined to go along with the plan, angering Spanfeller.
Pontius declined to comment.
Spanfeller described the situation differently.
I hired Katie, who accepted the job.
The next day, she refused to join me in communicating our plans to Susie.
I found this troubling, but was okay with it given the circumstances.
Katie then refused to assume the HR lead role around other wider layoffs at the company.
It became clear that she was not a good fit for this position, and we both agreed on this.
I was disappointed.
I thought she was going to be great, and it didn't work out by her own assessment.
When you take over a woke company, you have to realize that these people, for the most part, like many of them, are intolerant.
Angry, authoritarians, and they lie.
The media pumps out fake news all the time.
Now, I have to question.
Why would Suzy need to be fired?
Well, we have at least one story when you google search her name.
I googled, I was like, why was he getting rid of her, who is she, and I found this.
I am being bullied, harassed, and stalked by the editorial director of Gizmodo Group, Suzy Banikarim.
Maybe this story isn't true, I don't know.
Maybe the story is true.
Doesn't matter.
The point is, she is bringing negative press attention to the company as of a year ago.
So it makes sense, then, if she's involved in some kind of Twitter spat, and she is calling the Barstool guys human garbage.
Look, man.
We're not going to have any of this at Subverse.
We are not going to have employees getting into Twitter fights, playing the woke game, insulting people.
I don't care what you believe, your opinions, but there is a decorum.
We are professionals.
If you have someone going on Twitter a year ago, calling someone else human garbage, and getting into feuds with other companies in this capacity, we can't allow that, okay?
We can't have this.
Now admittedly, I will say, I'm obviously doing a critique of these other companies and these plans.
I recognize that.
I'm not an idiot.
Although it's not necessarily a firetruck on fire for, well, it's a bit unfair to say it's not entirely without irony, but Subverse is editorially independent from me, and we will never have anything like this.
And I gotta admit, I will apologize right now if I've ever, you know, gotten into these kind of feuds or spats with other journalists.
I do my best now to try and avoid these things.
The point I'm trying to bring up is, it's bad behavior.
Of which I have ever participated in, I shouldn't have.
And I'll try to avoid that in the future.
But I will stress, I'm not surprised why someone would want to fire her.
It's bad for business to be going out and starting these fights.
So, you know, then you have other people from Barstool pointing out that Laura Wagner keeps writing about this guy.
They keep writing about Barstool Sports, claiming that he's asking around on dates and things like that.
It's all very weird.
So in the end, we have this story that I'm not going to read through, but I do want to point out one more story to you guys.
This thing is huge, and it's full of complaints about how the guy is running his business.
Guess what?
If you don't like it, you can quit.
Some of these complaints seem to make no sense, like we were going to use a certain video player and we didn't like it.
But there's a lot of complaints about identity politics, about how a woman who was hired or wasn't hired, a woman wasn't promoted, men were promoted.
And the fact that they even bring up that he hired a, quote, stable of white men should be warning flags, should be red flags to everybody.
They complain that they touted their diversity and inclusion, but then went on to hire white men.
Yep.
Let's say you want to buy a business, and you happen to know a guy who you think is good for the job.
Happens to be white.
Oh, better not hire him, because you'll get dragged and smeared.
But now I want to point out this story just very quickly.
The fall of Mike was a warning, they say.
And there's a section right here I've highlighted.
Many of the more than three dozen former employees who spoke to HuffPost said they entered the company hungry and hopeful, only to feel twisted around by a publicly woke company that privately left them feeling exhausted, Distrustful of leadership and desperate for financial security.
The point?
Mike.com was one of the wokest of the woke.
It was run by like a right-wing libertarian type guy and some other dude who was more like liberal-leaning.
But this company, according to some reports, was giving formulas for how to generate woke clickbait.
That was their goal.
They went broke.
That's what's happening to all of these companies that went woke.
I'm not joking.
Disney wrote off its investment in Vice.
Vox, a writer for Vox, published a story saying they think even their evaluation is down.
BuzzFeed's laying people off.
Layoffs are going up across the board.
And then we get this.
Another story in a very familiar narrative of people being angry when a business tries to turn the company around.
Once again, somebody tries buying a woke company, but woke is broke here.
I gotta tell you, man, it was a bad move, and you've lit your money on fire.
Gawker was gonna be relaunched.
They canceled that and laid the staff off.
I don't know exactly why, but I can tell you that there was outrage from the employees over one of the senior staffers not being woke.
I'm not exaggerating.
They complained that this woman got hired and she was really offensive on Twitter and Facebook or something like that.
How do you think you can save a business when its staff are driven by ideology and not meritocracy and profit?
Now, let me stress, profit isn't the number one reason anybody should do anything.
You should do things that are good for humanity, and profit comes after.
The mission comes first, and if you do it right, you can make money.
Now, a lot of people don't operate that way.
A lot of people say, let's just make money.
The point is, these people willfully obstruct the mission and structure of a successful business and merit in favor of public employment process?
Like, what is this?
Let me do this one last time.
Public recruitment process.
How many times do they mention this?
Twice.
Twice they mention the idea of a public recruitment process.
Who do you think you are?
If you don't like it, you can quit and start your own website.
Nothing is stopping you from doing that.
But they're upset that the people who got hired to save the company were hired because they knew a guy.
Welcome to politics.
You want to make a co-op media venture?
Go do it.
Don't complain that someone else running the company has a different plan than you.
You're not in charge.
But you know what?
Let it never be se- uh, let it n- wha- wha- okay, I'm gonna stop.
You know, millennials.
Millennials are entitled.
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, and I will see you there.
Over the past couple weeks, I've done a few segments talking about the American culture crisis, our lack of purpose and morality, and how this is driving a lot of the culture war.
It leaves people looking for purpose, and those who find it find religion, or they find identitarian politics, intersectionality, which, in my opinion, is a non-theistic religion.
But for many people, there isn't an ideology or religion to follow.
There's no mission.
There's no purpose.
Because of this, this story, I believe, is a part of it.
Suicide rates for U.S.
teens and young adults are the highest on record.
This is from the L.A.
Times.
Now, the story is a little old.
It's from June.
But I thought it'd be interesting to talk about because I have been talking about the morality crisis and the crisis of purpose that I believe we're experiencing.
I also want to stress this very important point.
They say, the rate at which young Americans took their own lives reached a high water mark in 2017,
driven by a sharp rise in suicides among older teenage boys, according to new research.
Now, the interesting thing about the story is probably a contributing factor to the suicide
of young men is an example of what's driving it, in my opinion, at least a little bit is this story.
Check it out.
I'm not saying this story is making people end their lives, but they frame the narrative as if it's all teens, and then in the lead of the story mention it's actually among teenage boys.
That's why the number is as high as it is.
Young men are killing themselves at record numbers. Or at least, I shouldn't say record, but
there's a massive spike in young men killing themselves, they say. In that year alone, suicide
claimed the lives of 5,016 males and 1,225 females between 15 and 24 in the US, researchers reported
Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. While reporting standards for suicide
have changed over the decades, the authors of the study said the youth suicide rate, 14.6
per 100,000, appears to be the highest it's been since the government began collecting such stats
Look, they started collecting these stats in 1960, and this is the highest it's ever been.
I do want to stress, population goes up too, and we can't assume this is just like- Oh, actually, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm wrong.
I was gonna say with more people, you'll get more suicide, but no, they're talking about per capita.
They're talking about per hundred thousand.
For 100,000 people, youth suicide is at 14.6% because young men are ending their lives.
And I think we need to figure out what's causing this.
I made a video a while ago on my main channel talking about how I think Jordan Peterson is a solution because he's telling young people to stand up straight, take responsibility, find the heaviest thing you can carry, and carry it.
I was at a skate park and I met some teenagers who were preaching about Jordan Peterson.
Young men.
And I think that's a good thing.
I'm not— I think you can criticize Jordan Peterson for some of his more kookier positions, you know, on art and stuff like that.
Fine, no problem.
But his core message, telling young men, you know, to find purpose, is exactly what I think young people need.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and act like I know exactly why young men are killing themselves.
But this is alarming, to say the least.
When you look at a story like this, and it says, among young people, and then they don't, and then they, the headline in my opinion to be young men are killing themselves at record numbers, or at least, there's a massive spike, I don't know what the record is, but they're saying youth suicide rate in general, including males and females, is as high as it's ever been.
This is driven by men.
The narrative in media is often that, you know, men are oppressors, right?
So, I want to tell you a story.
Here's what I'm going to do.
Before we get started, check out YouTube.com slash Subverse News.
This is the straight news venture that I am working on.
It is editorially independent of me.
I don't run the day-to-day content.
I will most likely just be contributing and providing certain oversight.
But for the most part, it is editorially independent.
Now, I want you guys to go follow this because this is where you'll get straight news without the opinion and commentary.
There will be some live streams where the crew will talk about things.
For the most part, straight news.
It's got to exist, and we recently broke a regulation crowdfunding record raising a million dollars in 22 days.
How about that?
Hopefully that sends a message to the media, but let's get back to the core story here that I want to talk about.
For girls and young women, suicide rates have mostly followed a steady upward trajectory since 2000, roughly doubling between then and 2017.
has a young man who experienced homelessness?
They say, For girls and young women, suicide rates have mostly
followed a steady upward trajectory since 2000, roughly doubling between then and 2017.
The grim escalation of self-destruction has followed a slightly different path for boys
and young men.
Their suicide rates saw modest, steady increases for just over a decade beginning in 2000.
Then it turned up sharply, starting 3 to 4 years ago, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.
By 2017, young men between 15 and 19 killed themselves at a rate of 17.9 per 100,000, up from 13 per 100,000 in 2000.
Since 1980, when the HIV-AIDS epidemic touched off widespread despair among young gay males across the U.S., has the suicide rate for this group been so high?
So apparently it's not a record high, so I'll make sure that's clear.
It was 18 per 100,000.
The increase among older teen boys raised the overall suicide rate for Americans ages 15 to 24 to its highest level since 1960, said Harvard University's Oren Miren, the lead author of New Research.
Suicide rates have been rising among men and women across the age spectrum.
In the U.S.
in November, the CDC reported that an average American's likelihood of dying by suicide at any given age rose 33% between 1999 and 2017.
I'm going to skip over some of these.
We've got a quote here.
He said, "...fueling that suspicion is the fact that coroners and medical examiners often find themselves puzzling over poisoning deaths in which the individual's intent was unclear.
But Mirin said that even when a young person's suicide is carried out with a firearm or by asphyxiation, it is often set against the despair of a community wracked by the opioid epidemic."
When you have that hopelessness all around you, and when it afflicts the family, it can definitely be a factor.
The increased risk for heroin or opioid users to commit suicide is really staggering.
They say across the country, rising rates of suicide, fatal drug overdoses, and deaths due to alcohol abuse have collectively driven up the average American's probability of dying at any age.
In recent years, these so-called deaths of despair have also reduced the average life expectancy of Americans.
Andrew Yang brought this up.
He said that even though we have all these record economic numbers, we're still seeing an opioid crisis, suicide, etc.
I want to get back to the core idea and talk about how I feel men are being left out in a lot of these conversations.
While they talk about a massive spike for young men, the narrative is framed as though it's a problem for everybody.
And it is.
I'm not saying it's unfair to do it, necessarily.
But I will stress, most people don't seem to understand that... Actually, let me start over.
I have a theory about society and gender dynamics, and I will present to you a hypothesis, as it were.
There was something I was reading from OkCupid that said women have most of their value in society at very young ages, and it's because men value women based on genetics, whereas women value men based on status.
I'm not saying it's true, just what I read.
So it shows that from like 14 to 22 women's value in society is as high as it could possibly be from a scale to 0-100 at 100 and then slowly going down from there.
Young men are inverted.
Starting early age they have almost no value and only around 30 Do they reach the same point at which women are?
So women, throughout the entirety of their lives, have more value than men, according to the data presented.
It's not just OkCupid, it was various other studies.
I think that makes sense, coming from an uneducated evolutionary psychological perspective, as somebody who's a layman who's just read articles online.
It seems that women would be more valuable to society because I've talked about this before, one man can impregnate many women and have many babies in a short amount of time, but in order to make a baby, only one woman per baby per 9 months.
Meaning, from an evolutionary standpoint, a society that protected women was more likely to survive.
So we then end up with a society that treats women as extremely more valuable and important.
When you look at this, and you look at how low-level jobs treat females versus males, I'll give you my anecdotal experience, which leads into my personal hypothesis.
Growing up, I couldn't find any work.
I would go with very little skills and without going to high school.
I went to various jobs like ice cream shops, cafes, bars, and none of them hired me.
I did notice that, at least in my area, it was almost entirely women who were working these jobs, around the same age as me.
There was an ice cream shop that exclusively was hiring women.
Even though they didn't say it, we knew it was true.
All of their staff was young women.
I went to one place, and they straight up told me, like, you know the manager's only gonna hire a young woman, they're not gonna hire a dude.
And I'm like, okay.
I ended up becoming homeless.
I couldn't find any work.
When I was a little older, I tried applying at bars, saying I'll do anything.
And I had a guy who was like, in his late thirties, tell me, he's like, listen man, we're not gonna hire a young guy who's got no training in making drinks, okay?
Like, the guys who are bartending are in their late thirties.
Have you noticed anything else about the other people working the bar?
There's like one bartender.
It was all in.
The bar backs, the other staff, he's like, you know why?
It's because older guys come in.
And they want to be in the presence of beautiful women.
So we're going to hire young women because they bring in the guys, they bring in the money.
Thus, I became homeless periodically.
And that's what I witnessed growing up.
Now, here's the thing.
I'm fairly pragmatic, so I didn't think it was like, oh no, woe is me, how unfair is the system and the matriarchy?
No, I was like, I've got to figure something out.
And I eventually did.
And things were okay, I started working for non-profits, and life slowly became better.
But the point is not whether or not I deserved a job or women were getting hired more.
The point was that in my experience, I felt firsthand what it was like to be treated like trash and be told that you're valueless and we won't hire you.
I couldn't even get jobs washing dishes.
I then look at all these jobs that are hiring women and I've experienced certain things like this in my life that I'm sure many other men have.
I'm not saying that my anecdotes are a reality for literally everyone on the planet.
I have no idea.
All I know is that's how I felt.
But take this for example.
Imagine if you had someone who experienced something similar, and you probably do, Young men who are considered disposable and with no value until they're older and educated and skilled, and they go through life and it's very tough.
We then see two things happen.
For one, a lot of guys eventually don't make it out.
They get angry and jaded.
They look at women getting low-level, entry-level jobs early in life and being praised upon, being able to attract older men who have money, going on adventures and having more fun where young men don't, and they become resentful and angry, and you'll end up with, like, men's rights activists And not like the legit ones, I'm talking about like angry misogynist types.
So, I'll draw that distinction between, like, a true men's rights activist who is concerned about parental rights and, like, real issues affecting men, and those who will sometimes claim to be a men's rights activist, but they're really just angry at women because of how society functions.
You can't blame society for the way that humans evolved.
Sorry.
I'd say the same thing to a feminist.
But you end up with some people who see that, and they're angered by it.
You also end up with other guys who are kind of like, that's the way life is!
You know, for me, I was kind of just like, yeah, well, you know, everybody's dealt their hand, you gotta figure it out.
But then I see something else.
And I'll only mention this lightly.
You end up with some women who have lived at a certain standard for a long time, who all of a sudden are experiencing things getting worse.
It's harder to move up in your job.
It's harder to command respect.
And they're angry for it.
All of a sudden now the standard is getting lower.
Because human society values women based on appearance, for the most part.
So as women age, their value goes down, and they get angry, and then you get the rise of, you know, hardcore feminism.
I'm not saying they're wrong for being angry about this.
Society shouldn't value people just because, you know, women especially, just because of how they appear.
They should be able to be judged based on their merit and their character.
But I view this as giving rise to the toxicity of both communities.
Angry men who feel left behind who become enraged and blame women, and women who are
gradually losing their high standard and blame men and the patriarchy.
That is not the majority of people for the most part.
I think it's just those who become truly toxic and angry.
Unfortunately, men's rights activists are not tolerated on social media.
For the most part, they're mocked and ridiculed in media and otherwise because even most men are like, grow up, dude, get over it.
And then other women who are looking for that as well are blaming men.
However, because society does still highly value women, they're going to say, oh, you poor women, let me help you.
In the end, I bring this up for one reason.
Why is it that young men are likely killing themselves more?
Because of things like this.
So I explain this to a feminist friend of mine.
How do you, like, what do you think's gonna happen then?
When you see these young men who feel beaten down and depressed and without value, and then they're told by mainstream society to a greater and greater degree, it's their fault, it's the patriarchy.
You're going to find guys who just give up.
Completely give up.
You're going to find guys who probably blame themselves and do think they're part of the problem.
So, you know, look, in the end, let me just stress, it's beyond just about men, right?
Women are killing themselves.
And this is really, really tragic.
We need purpose.
Humans need purpose.
Without it, we're lost.
I think there's an issue facing men because they highlight the stats, but I'll leave it there and let me know what you think.
That's just my anecdotal story.
I grew up.
Life was hard.
I was homeless.
I made it out.
I can't expect everyone to understand that, and thus, you'll find some people who don't, and they end their lives.
But let me know what you think.
Comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Stick around.
Couple more segments coming up in a few moments, and I will see you then.
A story from the Daily Caller, which is actually just a write-up of a segment from Tucker Carlson, but hey, you know how the game is played, it's kinda funny.
You're watching a video about me commenting on an article which is a write-up from a video which played last night.
Welcome to the digital era.
Isn't it stupid?
Anyway, let's talk about really important news here, though.
Former Google engineer Kevin Cernicki I'm probably pronouncing his name wrong.
It says Google will try to prevent Trump from being re-elected.
Now, I know I was being a bit facetious and pointing out this is a video of an article of a video, but I'm actually making this video for a reason, because I want to highlight this segment but talk about the power of Google and Facebook with real data to show you that it's not just hyperbole.
Google can and probably will do this.
But first, let's read the news from The Daily Caller.
Actually, yes.
Former Google engineer Kevin Cernicki told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that his former employer will work to prevent President Donald Trump from being re-elected.
Cernicki, whose allegations that the company discriminates against conservative employees were published in a Thursday Wall Street Journal article, worked on Google's laptop products until he was called insubordinate, bullied, and ultimately fired.
Appearing on Friday night's edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the former Google engineer described the company's management as highly ideological.
You can see bias at every level at the organization, he said.
One thing that I've noticed, that just handling routine issues is plagued with bias.
Like they will get a report, an email from a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it and they will fix the issue very, very quickly.
Cernecki told Carlson how it took nine months to fix a bug he reported that returned, whoa, Mein Kampf to people who searched for Trump's book Crippled America.
They just stalled at every opportunity, said Cernecki.
They assigned it to people who no longer work there.
They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down something that made Donald Trump look bad.
And I saw a number of other incidents just like that.
Carlson asked Cernecki if his former employer might attempt to influence the election outcome.
I do believe so.
I think that's a major threat.
They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake.
They thought Trump should have lost in 2016.
They really want Trump to lose in 2020.
That's their agenda.
They have very biased people running at every level of the company.
They have quite a bit of control over the political process.
So that's something we should really worry about.
Now the story's quite short, but there's a reason why I'm doing this.
Second, as I mentioned, I want to show you the real data because we have this article from Nieman Lab saying, Putting a leash on Google and Facebook won't do much to save the traditional news model.
Social media and search give advertisers better tools to target messages to more precise groups of potential consumers.
It's a phenomenally better mousetrap.
This is an article about news, and how news is being destroyed by Google and Facebook.
Yes, the woke media, the rise of woke media was particularly a Facebook phenomenon, people chasing the algorithm to get shares.
This disrupted the ad models, it disrupted real news, and real journalists are losing their jobs, and they're going to work in advertising, while woke activists who are willing to work for nothing come in.
They now work for Google and Facebook and they push their ideology and we're all seeing the effects.
I want to read this story and give you a breakdown of the true power.
And we have a graph here showing just how powerful Google and Facebook really are compared to everybody else.
And look at this!
News outlets don't even account for barely more than Apple does.
We'll read the data.
But I'm going to do something else first.
Go to youtube.com slash subversenews, subscribe and watch our regular newscasts.
Every day at 7 p.m., Monday through Thursday, there is a straight news piece, piece that is editorially independent from the content I produce, and it is without opinion.
99.9% no opinions.
There's some opinion in, like, the opening, but for the most part, it's straight reporting and, more importantly, on the ground.
And for those of you that haven't been following the news, we recently broke a regulation crowdfunding record raising over 1 million dollars in 22 hours.
I kid you not.
Much respect to everybody who contributed.
That says to me that there's a real demand, a real demand for legitimate reporting on the ground, real interviews, and not the BS.
So I will add, beyond just subscribing, you know, clicking the notification bell and all that, And watching the news?
Share these videos.
YouTube is propping up corporate media.
That's the power they have, and it's the reason why I want to stress this point in this video.
That's the power they have, and they're going to prop up CNN, and MSNBC, and HLN, and ABC, and NBC, and sure, Fox News.
But how many real powerful corporate outlets are conservative?
Just one, Fox News.
And how many are playing it straight?
Very, very few.
CNN certainly is not.
Subverse aims to cut through the noise and present news without spin and bias to the best of our abilities, and it is editorially independent, so there's no concern that I'm going to come in and start injecting politics.
Don't worry about that.
Although I will, I definitely have say in the company, it'd be absurd to believe I didn't, I am letting other people run the show to make sure my bias isn't in there, and At the very least, my company, which is separate from Subverse's own company, I will only intervene if there's truly egregious violations of journalistic ethics, and we're even now preparing to hire an ethics checker.
Somebody whose job is to check facts and ethics who will not be an employee of the company.
It's a complicated process, but subscribe to Subverse and help share and spread the word.
We're doing our best.
And now I'm going to show you why it's so important.
This is a story from Neiman Lab talking about the power of Google.
They say, Living with two preteens, I get almost daily requests to approve new apps.
My standard response is to ask my kids to describe the app, why they want it, and how it makes money.
The last question is important, and not just to avoid in-app charges.
Understanding the forces that drive the online economy is crucial for consumers, and increasingly for citizens.
Even when they seem to be free, all the new tools we access come at a cost.
How technology companies make money is a good question for digital media users of any age.
It lies at the heart of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's inquiry into the power and profits of Google and Facebook, the world's two most ubiquitous digital platforms.
The competition watchdog's job was to look at how search engines, social media, and digital content aggregators wield power in media and advertising.
How that undermines the viability of traditional journalism?
Excuse me.
And what can be done about it?
So let's take a look at this graph and show you the power they have.
YouTube has more power than all of the news outlets listed.
At least, what is this, for Australia.
I believe.
YouTube.
Just YouTube.
That means me.
Yeah, they certainly don't like me, so they smear me all day and night, which is why, aside from the fact that I'm challenging Google and Facebook's power and calling out how they damaged journalism, I'm also going up against journalists who are blaming me for what Google is doing.
There are many political commentators who are facing the ramifications of the hit pieces of the mainstream press.
They lie, they cheat, and they steal because they're desperate.
The New York Times even ran a story claiming they deserved billions of dollars from Google because Google was stealing their money by, uh, there's like an auto news populating thing that puts the news on Google so the advertisers don't get the revenue from the advertisements.
Whatever.
The point is, Google's bad.
We get it.
I'm grateful that YouTube exists to a certain degree, but yeah, look how much power YouTube has.
Combine search and other.
I don't even know what other is, but look at that power.
You then have Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
Now look at this.
Apple, Snapchat, Microsoft don't even come close.
The top seven, uh, top seven west, what, oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry.
These are the companies.
10, 7West, News Corp, ABC, 9Fairfax.
2.3% of the share of time spent online.
Google and Facebook dominate.
You're going to see a couple things.
The media is reacting in desperation.
They hire lower and lower quality people as they die.
And Google and Facebook know they're doing it.
They've even talked about giving grants to try and reinvigorate it because they know they've destroyed it.
But the last thing we need are news outlets that are being funded by the goodwill of Google who dominated the industry and are politically biased.
Same with Facebook.
Imagine this.
You have a news outlet that says, whoa, Google's doing something unethical.
We better call them out.
And they go, hmm, we're going to rescind your grant.
Sorry, you're out of the program.
Now you've lost your money.
You cease to exist when you challenge corporate overlords.
The tech companies are becoming too powerful.
They need to be broken up because they're dominating everything.
Let me reiterate this.
I don't necessarily know if breaking them up is the right thing to do, but I can say there's an argument to be made for breaking up these companies because they have way too much power to dominate the market and destroy news.
And as news collapses, it gets replaced by woke activists, people who are willing to work for trash to spread their ideology.
And Facebook and Google probably don't care because they agree with the ideology.
They like it.
It's working for them.
I don't think it's on purpose.
I don't think it's a big conspiracy.
I think it's just how the chips are falling.
Google and Facebook believe in this ideology.
Guess who gets past their filters and who is deemed to be worthy?
The woke ideology outlets.
It's just the way the chips are falling.
And that's what the government is supposed to be doing.
Stopping this.
Intervening and saying you have too much power in everything from online sales to advertising to controlling politics and speech.
Enough is enough.
Right?
So here's the important takeaway.
A Google engineer has come out and said, this will happen.
I've witnessed it.
Another Google engineer previously went to Veritas and said, I believe they're biased.
I do.
Whistleblowers have come out, emails have been leaked, and of course the media will lie and claim nothing's happening because they agree with the crazy woke nonsense.
But we know it's happening.
And unfortunately, the Democrats aren't going to do anything about it.
Only the Republicans will.
Fortunately, there's Tulsi Gabbard suing Google.
At least one Democrat, right?
Challenging big tech.
Now admittedly to, let me just stress, Elizabeth Warren deserves credit as well because she's challenging big tech.
So good on her.
Much respect.
Because this may be the biggest problem we're facing.
Big tech companies control the media, advertising, sales, and what we can say and read.
That is the Nightmare Dystopia.
We are in it right now.
So, you know, it's kind of funny that I'm saying, hey guys, check out Subverse, which exists on YouTube.
Now, admittedly, our articles are on Minds.com, which is insulation.
That's the game.
That's the play, I should say.
We are going to expand upon YouTube, use the system to the best of our abilities, while making sure that all new growth, or I'm sorry, that new growth appears on alternative platforms and other ways to bypass Google's restriction.
Let me stress this too, man.
This is really funny.
We have this on-the-ground report three weeks ago.
Proud Boys face off with the far left at a free speech rally.
In that video, Emily, who, I believe Emily produced it.
I believe she did.
We have contributors and we have other people who are helping to produce content, but Emily was providing the voiceover and she points out, there were things at this rally that if we tried to report on YouTube, the video would be deleted.
Seriously.
It wasn't anything particularly controversial.
It was.
Some of the things said, YouTube won't allow.
Some of the opinions espoused, YouTube won't allow.
We've seen academic videos and journalistic videos removed, and so that's a restriction we have because Google is a nightmare.
They have so much power in the video space.
They're the only game in town, and we struggle to report the news.
But, We put up videos at Minds.com, M-I-N-D-S dot com.
You can check out Subverse at Subverse dot Minds dot com, M-I-N-D-S.
And you can see the longer form reports.
So we definitely want to leverage the power of YouTube, but that alone is an excellent point you made at the power of how they will control elections.
Listen.
They're not going to snap their fingers and delete a conservative for, you know, saying they're going to run for office.
They will ban people for saying bad things like demand voter ID, which we're seeing now.
The bigger issue is they'll say, hey, from now on, it's just a part of our rules that no one can say this word.
It has nothing to do with conservatives.
But then what if that word is gun?
And there you have it.
That will mostly affect those advocating for gun rights.
Those who are trying to shop for weapons, and that's a real example.
They will ban a word, and that word will predominantly fall on the conservative side.
I am willing to bet money on it because we've seen it happen already.
So anyway, check out Subverse, subscribe, we're going to be doing a lot of great stuff.
I am not in charge of editorial content, it is editorially independent.
They can report what they want and I can't stop them, but I can challenge if I think they're violating ethics.
Expect to see content from me more from a collaboration standpoint as a contributor, meaning I am planning trips to the border, and interviews and mini-docs which will appear on Subverse, but the editorial decisions will come from someone else, because we're going to do things right.
We're going to have fact checkers.
We're going to have people reviewing the ethics, making sure that we don't have any rogue employees injecting their personal agendas.
They will be independent, not of someone from a different company.
So we're playing this one as formal and ethical as possible.
Anyway, check it out if you'd like.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all then.
I can't tell you whether or not you should be happy about this story.
There will be many people who are going to reject this as something humans should not be doing, while many others will be praising the scientific breakthrough.
The story.
First, human monkey chimera raises concern among scientists.
Researchers reprogrammed human cells before injecting them in the monkey embryo.
They are making monkey people!
Now, I don't want to be overly hyperbolic.
It's just like, they want to grow organs inside other animals so that they can provide human organs for transplant but not use humans to do it.
However, regardless of what they're doing it for or why they're doing it, we are going to see a moral dilemma of people saying, this should not be done.
Now, it's a challenge.
Should there be limits on how and why?
Absolutely.
I'm not going to tell you what those limits are.
You should not, like, look, I'll give you my opinion, but you should have your own morals and comment below, if you're watching on YouTube, what you think about this and what you think is right.
I don't believe to be an arbiter of morality.
And personally, I find this questionable.
Questionable.
I'm a big proponent of science.
I love the idea of scientific development.
I think genetic engineering is a very important tool for curing diseases and helping people.
But then we get into some really dark questions.
You know, engineering humans before they're born for the right eye color, for height.
Is that okay?
What if we're getting rid of defects, like you find out the baby is developing with some DNA that's gonna give it, you know, a spinal disorder?
I don't know what the line is, nor do I think I will ever be the arbiter of morality, so don't take my word for it.
Let's read the story and learn about the human monkey hybrids.
I love okay I guess that I saw this story and I was like my god Alex
Jones was right wasn't he?
Ah and now they're gonna take that clip and smear me. No Alex Jones has been talking about animal hybrids for a
while But we got a story here from the Guardian
I'm not gonna call The Guardian fake news, right?
So, um, let's read the news.
Actually, speaking of fake news, before we get started, check out youtube.com slash subverse news.
You can see right on the screen.
Subscribe.
Click the notification bell and share the videos.
This is going to be straight news, 99.9% news.
There will be some commentary.
We have live streams talking about issues, but we are going to be focusing on on-the-ground reporting and bringing you the news without the spin.
This content is editorially independent of me.
Other people are running it.
I will not have a say in the day-to-day content being produced, though I will be contributing to the platform with news I will do.
Point being, we are doing everything, you know, I's dotted, T's crossed.
It is going to be legit, ethical, fact-checkers, all of that stuff, straight across the board, following standard practices for journalists, following like SPJ guidelines and Thomson Reuters.
It is going to be legit because we need this in news today.
Check it out, subscribe, share, because we really do need the support if we want to make something like this work.
But let's get back to the news.
The story of human monkeys. Efforts to create human-animal chimeras have rebooted an ethical
debate after reports emerged that scientists have produced monkey embryos containing human cells.
A chimera is an organism whose cells come from two or more individuals,
with recent work looking at combinations from different species. The word comes from a beast
from Greek mythology which was said to be part lion, part goat, and part snake.
The latest report, published in the Spanish newspaper El Paez, claims a team of researchers led by Professor Juan Carlos
Esposia Belmonte from the Salk Institute in the US have produced monkey-human chimeras.
The research was conducted in China to avoid legal issues, according to the report.
I'm not surprised China is... They're doing it in China because China is... Okay, whatever.
You get it.
It's China.
Chimeras are seen as a potential way to address the lack of organs for transplantation, as well as problems of organ rejection.
Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside animals.
The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body.
They are then introduced into the embryo of another species.
Belmonte and other scientists have previously managed to produce both pig embryos and sheep embryos which contain human cells.
Alex Jones was talking about that on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
I think his reasoning for it was pretty kooky, but I mean, yeah, this stuff's been going on for a while.
Although the proportions are tiny, in the latter case, researchers estimate that only one cell in 10,000 was human.
Pig-human and sheep-human chimeras are attractive in part because pigs and sheep have organs about the right size for transplantation into humans.
The details of the work reported this week are scarce.
Belmonte and colleagues did not respond to a request for comment.
However, Alejandro D. Los Angeles from the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University said it was likely monkey-human chimeras were being developed to explore how to improve the proportion of human cells in such organisms.
Making human monkey chimeras could teach us how to make human pig chimeras, with the hope of making organs for transplantation, he said.
It could teach us which type of stem cells we should be using, or other ways of enhancing what's called human chimerism levels inside pigs.
De Los Angeles pointed out, That, as with previous work in pigs and sheep, the human monkey chimeras have reportedly only been allowed to develop for a few weeks, i.e.
before organs actually form.
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, a developmental biologist from London's Francis Crick Institute, agreed.
I don't think it is particularly concerning in terms of ethics, because you are not taking them far enough to have a nervous system or develop in any way.
It's just really a ball of cells.
Ooh, where have we heard that before?
This is really interesting.
There's going to be an overlap here on the pro-life, pro-choice argument.
And I have to wonder how U.S.
legality will determine what is or isn't life.
This is where things start getting tricky in terms of ethics.
In the U.S., they're doing this in China because China is lax on this issue.
The question will likely come up in U.S.
debate though.
And if in the US, this is London saying this, we also have someone from Yale,
if the opinion emerges that a clump of cells is not life so they can do experiments on it,
but in the legislation, the laws that come out, they say, no, you are putting human DNA
and creating human life with animals, that's gonna have repercussions
on the pro-choice, pro-life debate.
I'd imagine, I'd imagine, it's my opinion.
If you're calling it just a ball of cells, I can understand that, but you've gotta consider, man,
We don't know enough about reality to make a determination.
So there was one story about a woman who had cancer and they still have her cancer cells.
She is still technically alive because her DNA and her cells exist.
It's a whole other thing I don't know a lot about, but it...
It's worrisome and disconcerting because we don't know the nature of what life is beyond what we can touch, smell, see, and hear, and then, you know, other tools that can expand beyond visible reality.
But look, these are questions best left to philosophers and people of faith and scientists.
I just watched an episode of Star Trek last night.
It's a famous episode called The Measure of a Man, where they're trying to determine whether or not data and Android is sentient life.
And it's incredible.
It is incredible.
There's a scientist who believes that data and Android is not sentient.
He says, it's a machine.
He has no rights.
And Picard says, what makes something sentient?
The doctor gives his answers, and then Picard says, prove I'm sentient.
And he goes, well, of course you are.
Of course you are.
Why?
We don't know where that line is, and that makes things incredibly difficult when dealing with issues of life, thus the question of ethics, of which I am not the person to be answering that question.
Don't come to me for moral guidance.
I am a milquetoast centrist sitting on the fence, confused by a lot of these things, and my opinions are mostly about more extreme ends, and I'm looking for rational arguments.
Now I'm gonna get all the enlightened centrist criticism, I get it, but let's read on.
They said, LevelBadge added that if chimeras were allowed to develop further, it could raise concerns.
How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ that you want to make?
If that is a pancreas or a heart or something or a kidney, then that is fine if you manage to do that.
But if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from human cells, then that obviously becomes a concern.
Why though?
Man, this raises a whole bunch of ethical conundrums about life.
If we make little monkey people, and then we say, but they're just monkeys!
But they're smart!
Do they have class rights?
Do they become a new species?
Is it all of a sudden now, two different intelligent species inhabiting the Earth?
What rights would they have?
Could we make them do work, or is that slavery?
These are questions best left up to the ethics professors, the philosophers, scientists, and people of faith.
Not for me.
But I think it's damn interesting, I gotta say.
They say the news of monkey-human chimeras comes shortly after it was reported Japanese researchers Such as professor Hiramitsu Nakauchi received government support to create mouse-human chimeras.
In March, Japan lifted a ban on allowing such embryos to develop beyond 14 days and being implanted in a uterus meaning these chimeras can, if permission for an experiment is granted, be brought to term.
So we get the point.
They basically reiterate the same points, right?
These are going to cure diseases.
These could cure Alzheimer's and things like that.
So I get it.
I'm more interested in the, uh...
Ethics of it.
So let's read the end.
While making monkey brains more human is a red line for some, in some ways it has already been crossed.
In April, scientists in China published a study in which they claimed to have introduced a human brain gene into monkeys, with the animals showing features including better short-term memory and shorter reaction times.
These animals are not chimeras, but it is clear that new boundaries are being pushed.
Lovell Badge said he thought it possible the development of human-monkey chimeras to study a part of the central nervous system could gain approval.
That it could take a while.
Let me know what you think!
This is a really interesting question.
As science continues, we'll come to a point where humans will start cyberizing.
You know, we've got Neuralink.
People will start doing genetic modifications.
Where is the line?
Don't ask me.
I'm not the right person to be a guide for morality.
