Ocasio Cortez Chief Of Staff Faces Federal Investigation Over Potential Campaign Finance Violations
Ocasio Cortez Ex-Chief Of Staff Faces Federal Investigation After Abrupt Resignation. Saikat Chakrabarti is reportedly facing a federal probe having to do with the unorthodox way he conducted his campaigning businesses. Complaints had been filed over the way his private entities were handling cash, operating as LLC's instead of PAC's.Some worry that this method was used to conceal campaign contributions that exceeded the federal maximum allowed and served to obfuscate what otherwise should be publicly available campaign information. Though proponents of AOC and her staff feel it was just a way to campaign on behalf of many new progressive candidates at once.Saikat, Ocasio Cortez, and others were part of Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. Organizations designed to elect new progressive and far left Democrats as a direct challenge to establishment Democrats.Recently Saikat Chakrabarti resigned amid controversy over his tweets and infighting between AOC, her staff, and House Democrats. The Democratic Party has tried to reel in the far left congresswomen while Trump are exploited the tensions for political gain.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We have a major update to yesterday's story on Ocasio-Cortez's staff.
Yesterday reported Sycat Chakrabarty was leaving, as well as Corbyn Trent.
Sycat would be going to a non-profit to focus on climate change issues and the Green New Deal, and Corbyn Trent would be joining Ocasio-Cortez's re-election campaign.
So not really losing him, but kind of, although Sycat is seemingly out.
Many people said this may be the result of the controversy where Sycat was tweeting at Democrats and insinuating that they were racist, and this caused a massive internal fight with Democrats.
Looked bad for everybody.
But now we have another update, and perhaps this is the reason for his departure from the New York Post.
Feds probing AOC's Chief of Staff Sycat Chakrabarty after sudden resignation.
A while ago, there were some complaints about how they had organized their brand new Congress LLC and how they were funneling money in and out of their campaigns.
Some people thought this was an attempt to obscure how they were spending money on a federal election.
Now we can see there are real ramifications.
So I want to read through the story, but I also have some more news pertaining to the Democratic Socialists of America.
They're not necessarily the same thing, but I want to go through this as the lead, our main update on the story from yesterday.
But I want to talk about the current state of socialism in the Democratic Party.
And there is a viral video showing a Democratic Socialists meeting, which many people are likening to an episode of South Park in how absurd and insane it is.
Wait till you see this video, but let's get started with the story.
Before we do, make sure you go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary, which means if you think my videos are good, share them to help spread the word, and that's the most effective way I can grow my channel at this point.
And let me just stress, in the past few days, trust me when I say I have seen the deranking hit my channel's viewership.
and metrics across the board. It's happening. But I'll keep on keeping on. And if you like
the video, please share it. Let's read. The New York Post reports, the feds are looking
into possible campaign finance misdeeds by rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff and lead rainmaker, who suddenly resigned Friday, federal sources told the Post.
The inquiry centers on two political action committees founded by Saiket Chakrabarty, the top aide who quit along with Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbyn Trent, the sources said.
Trent left to join the Congresswoman's 2020 re-election campaign.
The brash Chakra Bharti, who masterminded Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and steered her proposed Green New Deal, had caused uproar in the halls of Congress with a series of combative tweets that contributed to a rift between his rookie boss and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Quote, People were not happy that he used his Twitter account to comment about members and the bills that he and his boss oppose, a senior House Democratic staffer said.
There was a series of colliding and cascading grievances.
The two PACs being probed, brand new Congress and Justice Democrats, were both set up by Chakrabarty to support progressive candidates across the country.
But they funneled more than $1 million in political donations into two private companies that Chakrabarty also incorporated and controlled, according to Federal Election Commission filings and a complaint filed in March with the regulatory agency.
In 2016 and 17, the PACs raised about $3.3 million, mostly from small donors.
A third of the cash was transferred to two private companies whose names are similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Congress, LLC and Brand New Campaign, LLC, federal campaign filings show.
I could be wrong, but I believe these may be the same company, but just a name change.
But again, I think I might be wrong about that.
Let's just read on.
While PACs must follow stringent federal rules on disclosure of spending and fundraising, private companies are not subject to the same transparency.
The complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group based in Virginia, alleged that the LLCs appeared to have been set up to obscure those federal reporting requirements.
In March, when the FEC complaints were filed, a lawyer for the PACs, the LLCs, and the Ocasio-Cortez campaign told the Washington Post that the arrangement fully complied with the law and the highest ethical standards, and that Chakrabarty never profited from any of the political entities he formed.
So here's, let me try and give you, to the best of my ability, the left and right view on this.
The left Uh, and supporters of Cortez have said that it was an unorthodox way to try and campaign on behalf of numerous different people.
So they used an LLC simply so that they could pay staff as consultants working on multiple campaigns.
Not the same thing as a PAC.
I think that's the general understanding, I could be wrong, but essentially they said they were trying to set up a new way to campaign for multiple people.
The complaint from these other groups, including from conservatives, is that this effectively allowed them to obscure payments, potentially allowing Ocasio-Cortez to pay her live-in boyfriend in ways that may be illegal or unethical.
I don't have the older stories pulled up, so forgive me if I don't have the details 100%, but there was concern That Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend took a job with one of these companies, or with Worth a Peck, I'm not sure which, and then after about two months, moved to New York to live with Cortez.
Some people were concerned that this was a fake job as an excuse to give him money so that he could move to New York, he could use that money to move there.
I'm not going to make any accusations, these are just what some people are saying, and it's hard to know for sure.
But where we are right now is the complaints have been filed.
There are some legitimate concerns.
Other members of the squad, notably Ilhan Omar, has had to pay fines for FEC violations.
Notably, I believe it was that she used campaign funds to pay a tax bill or something to that effect.
I don't have that story pulled up.
But now we have a legitimate complaint and a federal investigation, my understanding.
Okay, they're calling it a probe, but I believe colloquially we can say it's an investigation.
I don't know why they refrain from that language, but this is serious.
Now, the New York Post goes into detail about the issues, and it says, They may also have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint.
It is not known if any of that money flowed to Ocasio-Cortez's campaign.
Federal authorities are looking at new salary rules imposed by Ocasio-Cortez when she took office earlier this year, and whether they were put in place to let Chakrabarty dodge public financial disclosure rules, according to sources.
This is where things get really interesting.
Check this out.
Although Ocasio-Cortez raised the salaries of junior staffers in her office to just over $52,000 a year, Chakrabarty took a massive pay cut.
The Harvard graduate and tech millionaire agreed to an annual salary of $80,000,
far less than the $146,830 average pay for his position.
Because his salary was less than $126,000, congressional rules exempted the chief of staff from having
to disclose his outside income.
The legal quagmire comes on the heels of Chakrabarty's attacks on fellow Democrats.
This is very significant.
Let me explain.
I have an accountant.
I have talked to them and others about the issue of reasonable pay.
And believe it or not, you can't just, in many circumstances, you can't just pay someone a trash salary because the IRS will look into this, okay?
Typically, if someone is being paid a below-market salary, there's, you know, the IRS might want to know why.
It might raise red flags.
There are loopholes in corporate structures that allow CEOs to pay themselves very low salaries and then try and take the rest of the money as profit so they pay less self-employment tax and less, I believe, Medicare or Social Security.
It's a loophole.
Now, the issue is you can legally pay, you know, a CEO can pay themselves whatever they want, but the IRS will be, it will be a red flag if you're paying someone below market wages.
They're going to ask why.
And when it comes to elections, I'd be willing to bet you're going to have a lot of FEC inquiries into something like this.
There's a reason these people have to disclose their salaries, their incomes, their finance, because we don't want outside money influencing politics.
We have rules on this.
An individual can only donate so much to a candidate.
If you have someone come in at a below market rate so that they're not showing how much money they make, he may be getting money from other sources which influence his actions.
And I'll give you an example.
Again, I'm not trying to accuse anybody.
But let's say, by getting this low salary, he's not disclosing that a political lobby, PAC, or corporation is subsidizing what he's doing.
For all we know, an oil company could be paying him.
I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying.
That's why it's important that government actors disclose their salaries, or I'm sorry, disclose their income.
This might not be indicative of anything bad.
It could just be that AOC is trying to create wealth equality, which would be in line with her espoused principles.
Increase the wage for the lower staff and decrease for the higher staff.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate explanation as to what's going on, but then it would have been prudent of Cortez to have her staff members then disclose their finances, especially when you consider that Sycat himself is very wealthy.
But let's read on.
The story says in June and July, Chakrabarty accused Pelosi of being a weak leader and said that moderate Democrats were racists, hell-bent to do black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s.
I don't want to rehash this old story, but I will just lightly mention this because it kind of triggered the fighting, the infighting with the Democrats, which Trump capitalized upon to his advantage, pushing the squad front and center, forcing Nancy Pelosi to get behind them.
It worked out, in my opinion, very well for Trump.
Following this, his approval rating was up.
But let's do this.
So we have—this story's pretty much wrapped up.
They go on to say that her office would not comment on the staff departures, and Chakrabarty did not return several messages.
Trent declined to comment.
Well, there you have it.
Look, an inquiry, an investigation, a probe, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
We're in very early stages to accuse them of overt wrongdoing, or I'm sorry, to convict them in the court of public opinion.
I try to be reasonable.
While I believe these things are suspicious, it may be true they're just trying to do something new, and this federal inquiry or investigation will result in them being cleared of any potential wrongdoing.
It's also possible they'll be found to have done some wrongdoing, I believe if that would be the case, it's probably due to ignorance, but let's let the Feds complete their probe, and then I'll update should anything come of this.
Still big news, simply because of the repeated scrutiny on Ocasio-Cortez, and the fact that they are supposed to be the people advocating for clean government, to get rid of the corruption, and now they themselves are accused of wrongdoing.
But I want to take this opportunity to talk about the Democratic Party and socialism in general.
It is a bit of a non sequitur, but, well, that's not entirely fair.
This has to do with Ocasio-Cortez and the criticism around her, and I thought it would be worth bringing up.
We recently saw news about—I'm not going to go into this story, just because I clicked through it.
For those that are listening to the podcast, it's just basically accusing the Democratic infighting of costing Chakrabarty his job.
We don't know that for sure, but as I pass through this, I'll mention this lightly.
But I want to highlight the current position of the Democratic Socialists of America, of which Ocasio-Cortez is a card-carrying member.
Of course, I mean that figuratively.
She is a member.
I believe she has paid dues to be a member of the DSA.
And we have this story.
The Democratic Socialists of America National Convention in Atlanta was just these past few days.
I believe today is the last day.
And the big story here is that on the 2nd, the Democratic Socialists of America voted to endorse open borders and a Green New Deal program at the Atlanta Convention.
The story reads, delegates of the… Let me zoom in on this.
Sorry, the text is really small.
Delegates of the DSA convened in Atlanta for their 2019 National Convention, where they overwhelmingly voted in favor of resolutions that, among other things, call for open borders and endorsing a Green New Deal program.
Brandon Ray Ramirez, a DSA member and co-sponsor of the Open Borders Resolution, stated in a press release that DSA unapologetically support free movement for all people, it is unacceptable that a Fortune 500 corporation can ship a job across a border without consequence, While a mother crossing a border to see her child is put into a concentration camp.
The Open Borders Resolution calls for the uninhibited transnational free movement of people, the demilitarization of the US-Mexico border, the abolition of ICE and CBP without replacement, decriminalization of immigration, full amnesty for all asylum seekers, and a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizen residents.
These demands, aligned with DSA's growing presence in local and nationwide elections, are part of an organization-wide strategy of responding to the growing crisis of harassment, detention, and inhumane treatment of immigrants with their families.
I'm not going to read on.
They do go on to talk about a regenerative economy and a Green New Deal.
The reason I highlight this is to point out that Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the DSA.
She abides by their resolutions and their views.
Now, it doesn't mean she necessarily has to propose any of this in Congress, but she is a member of this organization.
Whether or not she's going to vote to propose these things, we are seeing the increasing influence of the DSA.
They are growing.
Many people in the Democratic Party align with the DSA.
The DSA is not a political party itself, necessarily, but they are using new far-left Democrats to get a foothold in the party, and they overtly call for open borders and support the Green New Deal, which is AOC's bill.
Now, here's the problem before we move on.
I just want to point out with these two conflicting narratives.
These resolutions conflict, if you were to ask me.
The Green New Deal calls for guaranteed jobs, universal healthcare, and college, among other things.
The problem with that is if you have open borders, people will just come here and then get those things.
Perhaps they mean open borders in the sense that non-citizens can come here, but that's also particularly worrisome in that if they're not combining open borders and citizenship with, like, equal rights, they're saying non-citizens can come here, but they don't have the same rights as citizens.
Well, that means there's going to be a permanent underclass, and I find that a bit disconcerting to advocate for.
We can see here, though, the tweet where they announced it, and people then making fun of them.
But let's get to the viral video.
This is a tweet by Andy Ngo, and I want to make sure I can play this so you can hear it.
Andy Ngo tweets, a look into what happened during one part of the National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America in Atlanta this weekend.
Now, I want you to listen to what these people are saying, and it plays like an episode of South Park.
unidentified
If we want to defeat capitalism, we are going to need a party that will organize working people to fight for the demands that we want and to win socialism.
For those that are listening on the podcast, they can't see this, but in the video, no one's clapping.
They raise their hands and they do what's called jazz hands because clapping is triggering.
But the reason I highlight this video, for one, it shows the sheer absurdity that is the Democratic Socialists of America.
Look, you can't have open borders and free healthcare in college.
It doesn't work.
People will come in, take it, and leave.
Or they'll come in and resources will be depleted rather quickly.
The proposals don't seem to make sense, but I think it becomes kind of obvious why the proposals make no sense.
When you look at the crowd and you see an image, that's absurd as this.
A man stepping up to the mic, saying, point of personal privilege, he, him, San Francisco, whatever, and then saying, chattering, is making it hard for him to focus.
Sorry, chattering happens.
It should be kept to a minimum for the most part when people are speaking, but you can see how this individual doesn't have the strength to overcome chattering and then demands everyone else stop to cater to them.
But more importantly, in the clip, he says, guys, can we keep the chattering to a minimum?
Someone then gets up and says, don't use gendered language, to which people once again agree.
It is a very strange cult-like gathering, if you were to ask me.
And we can see that, look, I have to say, What we see in this video shows an untenable situation where everyone is offended at everyone else.
It's a chain of offense.
Someone's speaking and people are talking amongst themselves, someone gets offended.
He then addresses the audience incorrectly, so then someone else gets offended.
I'm fairly certain the offense will continue.
Now, look.
The way they acted is in line with their own beliefs, so naturally people are happy about it.
But this is going to make a situation or an organization like this, it will have a very difficult time actually getting anything done.
And I think that's why we see what Obama called the circular firing squad.
This was a miniature, a microcosm of that firing squad where one person said, hey, you're doing something wrong, and someone responded, hey, you're doing something wrong, and the cycle continues.
It's in a circle.
So, in the end, if this is the real opposition, I jokingly mentioned about this video to a friend or someone I know.
I'm suddenly not so concerned about the Democratic Socialists of America.
I'm kidding.
It's actually very alarming to see this behavior becoming more mainstream.
Now, granted, this is their gathering.
There's not that many people there in this one room.
I don't know if there was a bigger room or what the deal is.
The video is just Silly and strange.
But think about this group of people.
Think about how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of this organization, or at the very least was.
I mean, the last time that I saw was that she was a member.
And then I want to show you a few things.
Over here on Wikipedia, it's actually kind of hard to see.
Let me see if I can zoom in so I can...
Show you over here on the right, you will notice it says ideology, democratic socialism.
Now, the ideology of democratic socialism is a bit different from the group, the democratic socialists of America.
But this is actually a recent development that democratic socialism was introduced into the Democratic Party.
And so I want to move on and show you a few examples of why I think.
This is important to point out.
The Hill says 64% say Democratic Party supports socialism, according to a poll.
This was from February.
And the data may be outdated, but yes, in general, people view the Democratic Party as supporting socialism.
And this is important, so let's move on.
In this YouGov poll, actually only from about a couple weeks ago, a week or two ago, actually maybe a week and a half, they say half of Democrats, 51%, say that Democrats are not socialists, but 64% of Republicans think they are socialists.
So, I have to wonder then, we can see 20% of Democrats presumably say they are yes, they are socialists.
That's a fairly decent amount of people in the Democratic Party who say they are socialists.
Now, this could mean that there's Democrats who think there are other Democrats in the party.
I'm not, you know, entirely sure, but it's a large amount.
Let's move on.
I bring this story up to make another point.
Capitalism is more popular than socialism.
It's from the Washington Post on June 25th.
So there's a reason I'm highlighting these stories.
We can see there's a growing trend, a new introduction of Democratic Socialism into the Democratic Party, an increase in popularity in Democratic Socialism due to people like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, but I believe there's a very, very severe misunderstanding of what the DSA actually is and what they represent.
Now, I think any rational person will say you can't have open borders and universal government programs.
The DSA has just advocated for both.
You can see them in this meeting fighting with each other about things that appear to any sane person to be nonsensical.
You're upset over chattering, point of personal privilege, I'm so-and-so, he-him.
Like, whoa, that's all kind of weird to regular people.
But I bring this up to show it is growing.
Now, recently, Chris Cuomo, I believe Chris Cuomo, on Seth Meyers said, when they look at the data, Trump going up against anybody who is reasonably considered a socialist, Trump will win by six points.
That's why this is important.
Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist.
Bernie Sanders has claimed to be.
These ideas and this name is popular among the far left, and we can see that there are 2020 Democrats embracing similar rhetoric.
They will lose, by a large margin, if they embrace socialism.
And they are.
Capitalism is more popular than socialism, according to a poll, and this is from the Washington Post.
I want to show you another thing real quick.
This is kind of like asides as we move on now.
I'm getting close to wrapping up, trust me.
I saw this tweet.
I may do a longer video talking about Bill Maher, but I think this is the important thing to highlight.
One of the reasons that I think the Democrats are going to lose, aside from all of this, Bill Maher.
I've been hoping for a recession.
People hate me for it, but it would get rid of Trump.
Josh Burrow.
Recessions are really bad.
People lose their jobs and homes.
We shouldn't wish for it.
Maher.
I know.
It's worth it.
Bill Maher is a more rational, centrist Democrat type.
He said that, you know, he makes fun of the woke left all the time, the social justice warriors.
But here he is praising the idea of a recession which would destroy people's lives, will lead to suicide, and he's saying it's worth it?
When the Democrats don't have a rational center, Bill Maher pushing these things, I don't see how they win.
I really, really don't.
Now, the last story I'll highlight as we wrap up here is just to highlight Bill Maher's position, the weirdness of the Democratic Socialists, the fracturing of AOC staff.
Democrats cannot beat Donald Trump unless they simply unify.
This story from this morning on the Hill.
I agree.
I agree with the opinion here, but I don't think it'll happen.
I really don't.
The Democrats are fractured as much as they can possibly be fractured.
Even Ocasio-Cortez's staff is fractured.
So I don't know what you can expect.
But, um, I'll wrap it up here, right?
I understand that showing all the DSA stuff is a bit, I don't know, disparate.
But I wanted to highlight this just to show, beyond the turmoil faced by Ocasio-Cortez, we are seeing an increase in Democratic Socialists, people like her, and we can see that in many ways, they are just in disarray themselves.
How this benefits the Democrats?
Well, I don't think it does.
Well, it may wake up young people, I guess, who are interested in the DSA stuff.
But that video, I think you show someone that video and they're gonna be like, get me away from whatever that is, and it is bad news for Democrats.
Now look, people have accused Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats of being for open borders.
And many people say they're not.
But I will end by stressing the most important, you know, wrap-up of the whole thing.
If she is a member of the DSA, and the DSA has passed a resolution calling for open borders, yes, there are at least some Democrats completely advocating for open borders.
Maybe Ocasio-Cortez tries to play it down, you know, a little to the more moderate side by saying she's not.
I'm sorry.
She's a member of the DSA.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
It almost feels pointless to say now, but of course I and everyone I know condemns what happened.
We've condemned political violence incessantly, and it seems to keep happening.
Overnight, or when I woke up, I saw news of another mass shooting, this one in Dayton, Ohio.
So we have the El Paso shooting yesterday, which was around, I believe, 10 or 11 a.m.
in El Paso's time.
And then about, I don't know at what point, maybe five or six hours from the filming of this video earlier, there was a shooting in Dayton.
Apparently this guy showed up with extra magazines and he was wearing body armor, so it sounds like this was planned.
I don't know what to say except I feel like nothing can stop the escalation.
And it will get worse.
And this is a sign because even though you will see everyone condemn this, the finger pointing won't stop.
Right now I'm seeing conservatives say we need mental health checks in this country.
I'm seeing liberals say we need gun control now.
I don't think gun control is going to be the solution, nor do I think necessarily mental health is going to be the solution, because I believe we're looking at the emergence of opposing ideologies, which will- actually very similar ideologies, that draw lines based on race, which can only result in... in this.
Now I want to stress, we don't yet know What happened in Dayton, Ohio?
So I'll read a little bit of the story from CNN so we can have the context.
We know a bit about what happened in El Paso.
I will say this right now, information can change, but as it stands, it appears the El Paso shooter, based on a manifesto going around that people now believe to be legitimate considering the name of the shooter has been released, They believe it was white nationalism related.
That this person was doing it because they didn't like the idea of, you know, immigrants coming in the country and something to that effect.
But it's being labeled, you know, white domestic terrorism, white supremacy, etc.
We don't know if the same is true for Dayton, Ohio.
But there's an interesting concept that I see people talking about, which we're going to see a lot more of, and it's called a standalone complex.
I believe this idea comes from an anime called Ghost in the Shell, of which I am a fan, but there's a series called Standalone Complex, and I'll tell you this, this is extremely relevant.
They say a standalone complex is a phenomenon where unrelated individuals act in a similar manner, which creates an appearance of a concerted effort.
As in, someone mentions something or does something that attracts the attention of others, etc.
So again, stressing I don't know exactly what happened with Ohio, but the person was wearing body armor.
So, I personally will lean towards this was probably, in my opinion, white nationalism related.
That may be a little bit irresponsible to say, but I don't know what else to say, right?
When the El Paso shooting happened, my first inclination was this is probably going to be a white nationalist there in El Paso.
That's a heavy, you know, that area is very much so the center of the immigration debate.
And that was my first assumption.
I'm not going to come out and start tweeting furiously like many of the activists will because it's irresponsible.
And I recognize it's potentially irresponsible to make the assumption here, but I will stress It seems, based on what happened in El Paso, and then not even 24 hours later something happened in Ohio, we're at least looking at a standalone complex where someone with body armor, a long gun, and magazines showed up to a bar and started shooting people, thus giving the appearance of a concerted effort.
Meaning, this guy's ideology might have nothing to do with the other guys, but it seems that way.
It's, you know, if I was gonna make an assumption based on, uh, Well, I don't know if it's the simple solution, but when this guy in El Paso does this, you have other people who are probably starting to feel emboldened.
In fact, it appears, based on a document, which I don't know if it's real or not, the shooter in El Paso was acting upon what the guy in Christchurch said.
So you have this emboldening of the ideology.
I don't think there is an answer.
Let's get to the meat and potatoes here.
I don't think this can be stopped.
Call me a pessimist.
Insult me.
Call me whatever you want.
I don't see this stopping.
I pride myself on pattern recognition and looking at the chain of events and where things can go.
I grew up playing chess, strategy games, and things like that where I'm constantly thinking about what is the result of this.
And I've been saying it for a while, that I really do feel its dominoes falling over.
I've had a lot of people say, it can be stopped, it can be stopped.
I don't think it can.
I really, really don't think it can.
I think people are inherently racist.
I really do.
And what I mean by that is not that an individual is going to go up to somebody and say like, ah, you're better or worse.
I think it's that, you know, we've seen the data that every group, like there's a study I've shown frequently about how every group except for white liberals has an in-group preference.
It's on a scale of 0 to 100, it floats around like 15 to 20, so it's not particularly great, but it exists.
And that means people will act towards the interests of their own racial group except for white liberals who act against the interests of their racial group.
And this is regardless.
I'm not highlighting this to point out the white liberal thing.
It doesn't matter what your bias is.
The problem is the bias exists.
And that means over time people will act for or against the interests of various racial groups.
That data alone says to me that You know, I believe we are going to see an escalation of left-wing violence because of the rhetoric.
You've got the media chasing outrage, and then we see this low-tier level of violence.
And now, of course, like clockwork, I'm seeing all these people come out and say, and people are complaining about Antifa, blah, blah, blah, and it's like, And I complain about the gangs in my neighborhood of Chicago.
And I complain about the various gangs in the gang fights.
Yes, I'll complain about all of them.
It's really fascinating, but this is the example of why I think it cannot be stopped.
Whenever there's an event like this, where you have some psychopath chasing an ideology who has some vision of a world that doesn't exist, and then goes on a murderous rampage, violating the inherent inalienable rights of other people who have nothing to do with what you're complaining about, we condemn it.
Everybody does.
And then they start drawing the comparisons to Antifa.
And then you have Antifa do something, and then they start drawing comparisons to white supremacists.
Why?
There are other dangerous groups that exist.
I've talked about cartels in Mexico.
I've talked about gang violence.
I've talked about Antifa and I've talked about white supremacists.
The thing about Antifa is that it's a widespread low-tier problem.
Situations like this are on the rise.
It would seem.
It would seem.
I don't want to act like I have all the answers.
But two events in one day where one We believe was motivated by some kind of sense of white nationalism, and this following incident in Dayton, Ohio may be that.
Again, I don't want to say it is because it's still too soon, but the guy showed up wearing body armor with a weapon.
That's where I'm leaning.
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
But again, citing the idea of the standalone complex, it appears that this person was acting towards a similar goal, even though they may be completely unrelated.
I think we're going to see this phenomenon of the standalone complex kind of escalate, because across the country, you will find there are people who are increasingly becoming desperate, dissociative, angry, Without purpose and reason.
While we are seeing a massive spike in suicides among young men, and I went over this yesterday, some of these people take it to the extreme.
Instead of ending their lives, they decide to end the lives of others before ending their own.
But I want to talk about why I think this is inevitable.
Go back to the point about Antifa.
I'm seeing a ton of tweets where people are, you know, talking smack and saying, oh, Antifa's not a problem.
Antifa is a problem.
And so is this.
And this is... I don't know how you quantify which is worse, right?
Certainly we can say that mass shootings are as bad as they can get.
And they're increasing in frequency, so I personally would say I definitely think this is worse, 100%.
But then you have the low-tier stuff.
You have Antifa widespread showing up to rallies and beating people.
You have their ideological allies and media calling everybody a Nazi, everybody a white supremacist, confusing the issue and making it difficult, and refusing to see outside the lines.
They see themselves as in opposition to these people and these shooters.
Well, of course, we are too.
But we are in opposition to the use of political violence, period.
And thus, it creates an untenable situation.
So, I've had people say, this can be stopped.
You know, Trump just needs to do X. Wrong.
No matter what Trump does, the ideological left of this fight is going to claim he's responsible, which they're doing already.
Some people on the left will say, all that needs to happen is, you know, these big media companies need to ban the white supremacists.
Wrong.
That's going to escalate things.
When peaceful conversation is no longer allowed, people become desperate and angry, feeling no opportunity to express themselves.
And admittedly as well, these small communities online where these people fester, are being made worse. Perhaps there is a solution in that
we need a main public square where people can communicate with one another. But as we see an escalation
from both sides trying to do what they think is the appropriate action, it just makes things
Trump is getting hard on border security and immigration, similarly to what Obama was doing.
They then say Trump's rhetoric and his actions are emboldening white supremacists.
The social media companies then say we need to ban the white nationalists, pushing them into small enclaves where they radicalize themselves without a chance for anyone to present facts and new information.
The ideology festers.
Both sides are doing things that will just escalate And you can say one side is right and one side is wrong.
That's fine.
I don't care.
The point is, it's happening.
I don't see this ending.
The other big problem I see is that I believe white identitarianism is going to escalate for several reasons.
Brett Weinstein talked about this.
He said, with the increasing, and I'm sorry if I'm getting his quotes wrong because I don't want to misquote him, but he brought up the idea, and now let me elaborate on kind of the idea outside of his quotes so I'm not quoting him or paraphrasing him.
It's the idea that as we see the escalation of anti-white rhetoric, particularly following incidents like this, the inability to disassociate a psychotic extremist who holds an ideology based on race with regular white people who don't actually helps the white identitarians recruit.
The New York Times hired a woman named Sarah Jong.
You've probably heard of this.
Sarah Jong is an overt leftist identitarian.
For years, years, she posted on Twitter anti-white racist rhetoric.
And people on the left think it's okay.
That's fine if you think it's okay.
I don't care.
The point is...
She was used as a recruiting tool by white nationalists to prove that there is a media bias against whites.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying that's the evidence they're citing.
They're citing her.
In fact, the New York Times hired her.
And then we heard this narrative about how white nationalists were outraged that they hired her, and that was fake.
And this is what I think we're seeing.
We're seeing dominoes fall over.
There are many left-wing identitarians who work in media.
I've pointed this out over and over again.
They are a dangerous problem.
It's the identitarians as a whole who are a problem.
The left-wing identitarians put out fake news because they don't bother to do the work or it's on purpose.
I have no idea why they're lying.
The truth was, when Sarah Jong was hired by the New York Times, white identitarians celebrated.
Okay?
You can look this up.
You can Google and read their posts.
They were saying things like, I wish we had a thousand more Sarah Jongs.
Now, many people would say, that doesn't make sense.
Why are they celebrating?
Because they want the rhetoric to become mainstream.
They are hoping for what they call a racial awakening among white people.
There was a comment on one of Brett Weinstein's videos talking about this where he said, speak of the devil.
And it was a person saying they didn't like the alt-right, they didn't like identitarianism, but they feel like they had no choice.
They were being pushed into that box because of the mainstream anti-white rhetoric.
A study from Tablet, which I've shown time and time again and I haven't pulled up right now, shows that white liberals have an outgroup bias, meaning they are more likely to dislike white people or act in favor of non-white people.
This results in BuzzFeed, Verge, The Vox, New York Times, mainstream and powerful media organizations saying it's okay to say anti-white things.
That results in Young, disillusioned, typically young white men feeling like they're under attack.
Now we hear from the left that, you know, from a point of privilege, equality feels like oppression.
None of this matters.
Perception is reality.
If you're someone who grew up in middle America, in an all-white area, And that's the future you were told that you were going to have.
You were going to get this job.
You were going to have a family.
And then you realize that future doesn't exist or that the establishment insults, belittles, opposes you and the rules don't seem to be fair.
These people go insane.
I think it's very dangerous to be censoring.
Let these people come out and express their opinions and expose them to other ideas.
We heard the story from Jack Dorsey about the Westboro Baptist Church woman who was de-radicalized by being exposed to different ideas on Twitter.
By having calm, rational discussions, you can tell people The problems you're bringing up are not, you know, what you think.
Instead, Facebook bans the idea.
So you have this circumstance.
Again, I am passing no moral judgment.
I'm trying to highlight the system, the circumstances, and the patterns.
You have a system that says, if you advocate for white people, you're a Nazi, you're a white nationalist, and then they're banned.
Where do they go to speak?
They go nowhere.
They feel angry, they feel without purpose, and then they go and do something psychotic.
It's absolutely wrong.
And it's not an issue, in my opinion, of mental illness.
It's an issue of festering ideologies.
We can easily say the fringe right, white identitarian, white nationalist, whatever you want to call it, violence, is worse.
I don't see how you can avoid it when you see stories like this.
Again, I want to be careful about pointing to Ohio, but El Paso specifically, Christchurch specifically.
These people are insane.
They have their ideology.
They imagine this future of like a world that doesn't exist anymore.
They imagine a future without liberal values and determination based on race.
They're doing this because we are seeing a similar action in mainstream media.
Identitarianism is becoming very popular.
In the United States, we have Identitarian Congresswomen.
They're members of the DSA.
We have seen their rhetoric.
Again, not passing moral judgment, pointing out that whatever your idea of right or wrong is, killing people, political violence is wrong, and it's being fueled, and it's not going to stop because what I see is dominoes falling over.
Now, unfortunately I believe the only real solution to this is going to be authoritarianism.
Or, I shouldn't say it like that.
I should say the result of this is going to be an escalation of authoritarianism.
I have been told by people, it can be stopped.
We can do something about it.
But you have to recognize, the left is saying, ban them, marginalize them, humiliate them.
What do you think that's going to do?
Do you think it's going to stop them?
No, it's not.
It's going to make them angrier and suicidal and desperate.
And I think that's what we're seeing.
I don't see a circumstance where you can just Shut them down and make them disappear.
They exist.
And they're getting desperate, crazy, and suicidal.
So it's going to keep happening.
Now, there is a potential solution in increasing police intelligence and authoritarianism.
Have more of a surveillance state watching these people to stop them before they can carry out these acts.
Unfortunately, that will result in a recoil as well.
An escalating authoritarianism in the government will get you an equal and opposite reaction.
I don't know what the solution is.
I really, really don't.
I pride myself on being able to solve problems and look for paths short of an alien invasion, a unifying common threat.
I don't see it.
I see people who are obsessed with the idea of race on both sides, and one side, as many people on the right have said, is more capable.
Now, here's the thing.
I've talked about a civil war and I still think it's going to happen.
I said we're going to start seeing insurgency.
This is, in my opinion, an example of this.
People rising up and going, well, actually, this is not a good example.
These are psychopaths who have no idea what they're doing and are genuinely psychotic.
Evil is the wrong word, but...
Probably, you know, it's hard to figure out what, you know, these people are deranged, desperate, they're just not seeing, their brains don't work.
It's not an issue again of mental illness in my opinion, it's an issue of a festering ideology where they just don't have information, so they go insane.
And so, the big problem we have here These people, who are not smart, who are clearly unwell in some capacity, who have been sitting in this festering ideology and then go to a mall and kill innocent people, they don't seem to understand that they're not doing anything.
Like, aside from hurting innocent people who have nothing to do with you or your life, you're not helping your cause.
There's no cause to be helped.
Like, man, it's complicated.
But let me just stop and kind of restart.
There's going to be more of this.
And the left is going to advocate for censorship and authoritarianism.
They are.
It's not making things stop.
They banned the white nationalists on Facebook.
Did that stop it?
It didn't.
It makes them go nuts.
It makes them angry.
I'm not saying, you know, I don't know what the answer is.
I do think there's a potential for de-radicalization by exposing these people to other ideas, by not shutting them down.
But then, you know, I just don't know what you do outside of... Even with an authoritarian push, it just creates a backlash.
It creates, like, a resistance idea.
Trump right now condemned the attacks.
They blame Trump.
I guess all I can really say, because I don't want to make this really long, is look, obviously everyone's going to condemn this.
When we see the low-level stuff from Antifa, it's excused.
That will make the problem worse across the board.
This will not stop, and I don't know what can be done about it.
I really don't think we can stop it, and it's going to result in an emboldening of the left.
In Antifa, we're already seeing a defensive Antifa, even though it is not I don't know.
Anyway, maybe this video was a waste of time.
groups committing acts of political violence with one being substantially
more lethal and dangerous. We need both to stop. How do we stop the rise of
identitarianism, be it left or right, I honestly don't know.
I don't know. Anyway, maybe this video was a waste of time, but I know I know
exactly what's going to happen, right?
I can make a video like this pointing out it's going to get worse, and I don't know if there's a solution.
I can point out these people are deranged and dangerous, and I find them to be substantially worse than groups like Antifa, but Antifa is still bad.
And invariably, I can predict what will happen.
The left is going to target liberal speakers, I mean liberal in the true sense, those who defend the rights of free speech and free expression.
Even after the condemnation, conservatives will already be blamed.
People like me, people like, you know, I'm not gonna name anybody else, I don't want to drag anyone else into this, but liberal speakers who condemn violence across the board and support free expression will be blamed the same as any conservative.
And they'll, you know, everyone will be lumped together that unless you get behind one fringe ideology, they will call you part of the problem.
Which, in turn, will exacerbate the problem.
And the lines are being drawn every day.
Further and further.
I don't know what's going to happen.
My prediction is I think we will see, and this is terrifying, a dramatic escalation in white identitarian groups in Europe and the United States.
I think it's going to get bad.
I think things like this are going to embolden both sides and it's only going to make everything worse.
I'll leave it there.
I don't know what else to say.
I don't think, you know, I think we go through the motions.
We all condemn the violence.
It doesn't matter.
The political left blames the political right.
The right says, hey, you know, like, I don't get it because I've seen conservatives, you know, Uh, condemn all violence, but of course, it doesn't matter.
You'll see people on the right say it's mental illness, the left will say it's guns, and it doesn't matter.
The escalation, in my opinion, is inevitable.
You know, so... Ah, man.
I guess I'll leave it there.
I feel like it's just kind of pointless.
I don't know what you do.
Government surveillance?
That seems like it'll just make things worse.
It'll make life worse.
It's just an increase in authoritarianism, which is literally part of the problem.
So you tell me.
You tell me how to solve this.
I really don't know.
The left thinks the answer is censorship and authoritarianism.
I think that'll make things substantially worse and that will precipitate a major collapse.
But you know what?
Far be it from me to have all the answers or tell you what is or isn't.
All I can say is these people are psychotic, dangerous, you know, individuals who believe in some kind of world that doesn't exist and are stuck in the past.
And because of that, they're becoming increasingly dangerous and unhinged.
And whether or not, you know, Dayton is another instance of white identitarian, white nationalist violence, I can't say, but it seems like it.
But I don't know.
I guess one of the ways I could say it is a mental illness issue is like, why would you target random people?
You know what I mean?
It seems like there's no real plan or there's no cohesive idea.
It's just young, insane people who live in this fake reality that's being made worse by I don't know, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 PM.
We'll see what happens.
I'll have updates as the story develops, but I'll see you at 1 PM.
On this channel.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, whatever, all of these companies have pledged to stop voter or election manipulation.
And in doing so, they've only made it worse.
A lot of the hysteria around the voter manipulation stuff in Russia came from a firm that is now known to have fabricated data and been called out for it.
In fact, the CEO of this company, it's been a while since I reported this, was suspended or banned from Facebook and several people got banned from Facebook.
I even brought this up to Jack Dorsey that these firms were making fake Russian bots to swing US elections and manipulate voter turnout.
So Twitter says we're going to do better.
We're going to ban disinformation.
Now here's the thing.
There's this meme.
It says don't let Russia interfere in 2020.
Demand voter ID.
These memes are getting banned, reportedly.
This story is from Human Events, saying, Twitter AI censors conservative voter ID meme.
There have been fake memes in the past that try to look like the DNC and says something that might dissuade or present a silly idea that some people might think is funny but actually could have repercussions on our elections.
However, my understanding with this meme image is that it's not pretending at all to be Democrat or anything, it's just, it's saying, don't let Russia interfere in 2020, demand voter ID.
The idea is kind of incorrect, but you can't really, like, so I guess it's fair to say they're making a joke and playing up the idea that people are scared about Russia interfering, so everyone should have an ID to vote.
But I don't see why this should be banned.
They're spreading an idea about why voter ID is important.
If Russia is interfering in our elections, shouldn't we have voter ID?
Several people have, I've seen the tweets, I've seen the images, reportedly been banned for tweeting just the hashtag DemandVoterID.
Now that's scary.
And I've seen some images.
I don't know exactly why or how many.
I've seen reports, and there's been a ton of viral tweets talking about this.
I have seen people who have not been banned for posting the hashtag, so I don't know what's actually going on.
What I can say is, if it's true that Twitter is banning people who use the hashtag DemandVoterID, we are beyond the gates of the dystopia.
We're living in the dystopia.
So let's read the story from Human Events.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video because YouTube is deranking independent political commentary, propping up the big corporate players.
So if you like this video, the only way, you know, it gets around and the only way my channel grows is if you guys are willing to share it.
So if you are, do so.
Otherwise, let's read the news.
Twitter is preventing US citizens from sharing certain political images.
Ian Miles Chong writes, Twitter has a new feature that automatically suspends anyone who shares certain meme images, including one which calls for the implementation of voter ID laws.
Word of this new form of censorship made the rounds today on Gab, an alternative social network to Twitter, after several posters complained they were subject to 12-hour bans on Twitter for posting an image that reads, Don't Let Russia Interfere in 2020.
It concludes with the hashtag, DemandVoterID.
Several Human Events readers informed us that they were able to replicate the suspensions by tweeting out the image, as were others on Twitter who tested it on secondary accounts to verify the claim.
Independent journalist Aaron Lockhart provided us with evidence of his findings.
A rabbit or duck has been locked for violating the Twitter rules.
Specifically, for violating our rules against posting misleading information about voting.
You may not post content providing false information about voting or registering to vote.
It's not.
It's an image of Putin and it says, don't let Russia interfere in 2020.
What's wrong with that?
We shouldn't let Russia interfere.
Now, it is true And it's fair to point out, there's no concern about Russians coming to the polls and voting themselves, so it seems like these ideas are a bit disparate, but this is a really important thing to bring up.
Are you allowed to be wrong?
The answer is no.
Let's say somebody made this legitimately like, oh man, we shouldn't let Russia interfere in Russia's, you know, falsely voting.
Are they wrong, stupid, or trying to mislead you?
Who makes that determination?
If I tweet something out because I'm just stupid, okay, as many people would like to claim, for sure.
If I stupidly tweet something out, should I be banned?
Should stupid people not be allowed to use social media?
This is one thing I've highlighted over and over again about how dangerous it is to call for the banning of people based on fake news.
Look man, I hate fake news more than anybody else.
I am the king of hating fake news.
But I also find it disconcerting when somebody tweets something just because they're dumb and then Twitter bans them.
Not only that, don't let Russia interfere.
What if people actually found that online?
We're like, hey, that's actually a good idea and a good argument for why we need voter ID.
Twitter is now banning them.
Regardless of whether you think the meme is silly, it's a legitimate political stance.
I don't care how or why Russia is interfering in elections, voter ID will only strengthen our elections, right?
How does that not make sense?
Well, Twitter is going to ban you apparently.
The story goes on.
It cost me my first Twitter suspension.
But I can confirm that there is a particularly aggressive AI at work on Twitter right now, he says.
It is targeting a particular meme.
Robert Barnes shared a tweet from Gab about it.
I decided to test it to see if it was rumor or true.
My account was suspended for violating our rules against posting misleading information about voting.
Another reader says that he sent his senator a tweet asking him to support voter ID with the image attached.
Surely this is illegal electoral interference with my ability to communicate with my member of Congress.
It is unclear whether Twitter is suspending anyone who posts an image that's already been flagged by the system, or whether the social media platform has implemented a way to read text within any given image.
Regardless of whether it is one or the other, what's certain is that the highly aggressive system is being deliberately used to target conservative support for voter ID laws.
The story goes on, the call for voter ID laws is a contentious political topic that has divided lines between conservatives and liberals, the latter of whom argue that requiring some form of voter ID is indeed a form of voter suppression.
According to a survey conducted by the Atlantic and the Public Religion Research Institute, black and Hispanic Americans are more likely than white to face barriers at the polls as a result of any such requirement.
A major study published in 2014, as reported by the National Review, shows that about one quarter of non-citizens who participated in the survey were registered to vote, favoring Democratic candidates by a landslide.
It stands to reason that Democrats benefit from the participation of non-citizens that the party would be opposed to any form of voter ID laws.
Look, you can make that argument.
I'm not here to argue any conspiracies.
And I think it's pointless to bring this up.
I don't care to argue about the concept of voter ID for the most part, but I will get into it a little bit.
If you think we need voter ID laws, the last thing you should do is accuse Democrats of getting non-citizens to vote.
That is a huge leap, and it will make Democrats cry conspiracy theory.
There's a simple reason why we should have IDs to vote, because you need an ID for everything, and voting is one of the most sacred institutions in this country.
If I need an ID to go see a movie, and yes, I've been carded the movies recently, I guess they thought I was under 17, Well, it makes sense to require an ID to vote.
If you need an ID to sign up with the electric company, to even get your car registered, I'm pretty sure voting is more important than all of these things.
Why shouldn't you need an ID to vote?
I think it's, you know, look, I think the solution is actually really simple.
We should have voter ID laws, but we should also decrease the barrier to getting an ID.
And look, I'm sorry, at a certain point, it's your responsibility to get an ID.
I can't imagine there are people who don't bother going to get IDs who do bother to go vote.
That seems kind of weird.
You know what I mean?
Don't argue about the non-citizen things.
I think that's pointless because that just sounds like a conspiracy.
Whether you think it's real or not doesn't matter.
The point is, make your position on principle, efficiency, and voter security.
That's all that matters.
So I do think it's silly that the idea and the rhetoric being pushed by the Democrats is a bit racist in my opinion, but let's read the end.
They say, I don't think this article needed the last little bit at the end.
I think the important takeaway is, I don't care what your political opinion is.
I don't care if you're an idiot or a genius.
of democracy in the United States from being undermined by forces both foreign and hostile.
I don't think this article needed the last little bit at the end. I think the important
takeaway is I don't care what your political opinion is. I don't care if you're an idiot
or a genius. If you think Russia is going to vote so you want voter ID laws, that's
your political opinion and you're right. Twitter is now taking people down for calling for a
a legitimate policy position simply because they're putting Russia in it?
I'm sorry, that makes no sense.
If I made a meme right now and said aliens are trying to undermine our election, require DNA testing, would they ban that?
Okay, maybe they would, but then my point stands.
Do we tell people who are stupid or crazy you do not have a right to speak in public and advocate for policy positions?
That is where things get weird, and it's coming from the left.
It is not the right, for the most part, saying, crazy people can't vote, although I think maybe a lot of people would agree, I don't know.
The point is right now, Twitter is removing things they don't like, even if it's a legitimate opinion.
Look, man.
Google took down Tulsi Gabbard's advertising account.
We're going to see more of this.
And you know what?
In my opinion, the reason the left doesn't care is because they're reaping the advantages of it.
I'd be willing to bet, in an inverted situation, you'd have the right saying similar things.
We've seen it all the time.
They've played these videos on the left where it's like, you know, a conservative pundit criticizing Obama for trying to meet with Kim Jong-un or something, but then praising Trump for doing the same thing.
Welcome to tribal politics.
Let's take it in principle.
Right now, we've got a serious problem with big tech interfering in elections.
How about we don't let them do that?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next video will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It's a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
We've got some updates in the second shooting, the one that happened in Dayton, Ohio.
I also want to highlight some reporting from a BuzzFeed reporter that's debunking a lot of the fake news that's going around the Internet.
Twitter is great for some things, it's really bad for others, and there's a lot of fake news flying around.
Now, I do have to somewhat fact-check this buzz of your reporter, but for the most part, credit where it's due, this is Jane Litvinenko, I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing your name wrong, who did a huge breakdown of a bunch of fake posts, and we'll go through it, so excellent work to Jane for calling these fake bits out and doing that groundwork.
The first update we have is the Dayton mass shooting suspect identified as 24-year-old Connor Betts.
Look, man, there's a lot of people arguing whether the people should be named and shouldn't be named.
I don't know what the right answer is.
What I can say is there's one argument that by not showing them, the media can put out whatever message or narrative they want.
Others claim it's going to glorify this.
I honestly don't know.
The New York Post is reporting it.
They had one of the first stories revealing the person's identity.
And I think trying to understand the motives is extremely, extremely important right now as we're trying to grapple with the rise of, like, white identitarian, white nationalist terror.
I don't know what you'd want to call it, but El Paso was certainly, you know, we believe this guy's manifesto was real.
For the most part, we don't know for sure.
It's being cited by everybody, and it was definitely, like, this call to not necessarily white nationalism, but bordering on, for the most part, calling immigrants invaders and things like that.
It's a complicated ideology that I think is founded in misinformation, ignorance, fear, and a lack of purpose.
So, you know, let's just read this news and try and go through some of the fake news, and then I've got some other stories for you coming up.
They say the body armor clad gunman who fatally shot nine people in Dayton, Ohio...
Has been identified in a report as Conor Betts.
He was 24, was shot dead by police moments into his rampage.
Was identified as the shooter by CBS News, citing law enforcement sources.
They say Betts 24, uh... They say investigators were tossing Betts' home in Bellbrook, Ohio, about 15 miles southeast of Dayton.
Nine people were killed, 26 people injured.
I also want to stress that they do not have a motive for the attack, and that he did apparently Kill his own sister, and I believe her boyfriend, so there's like a big update.
I don't have that pulled up right away, but this doesn't seem to be, at least for now...
I know earlier today I did make the assumption this was going to be a standalone complex.
The concept, for those unfamiliar, is different people acting in a similar way that are unrelated, giving the impression of a coordinated effort.
I believe that was accurate in the sense that his motive was not related to, at least for now we don't know, but it doesn't seem to necessarily be identitarian ideology for the most part.
Um, the killing of his sister.
It may just be another mentally ill, uh, crazy person who's suicidal.
But then again, I'm not entirely sure.
What I want to do is, again, giving all the credit to Jane for highlighting a lot of these fake posts and doing the groundwork on this one.
Jane Litvinenko over at BuzzFeed compiled a series of tweets showing the fake news that's going around.
I do have criticism of one of those posts, but let's read through this.
Jane says, I'm monitoring the shooting in El Paso, Texas for fake reports.
This is from yesterday going into today.
So I want to, you know, go through this and kind of break down some of the misinformation that she's highlighted.
She says, be mindful of far-right accounts spreading rumors about the identity of the suspect.
Many are saying, without evidence, the shooter was Antifa.
Right now, there's no information to that effect.
Well, we now know a lot more about the El Paso shooting, so that's the first.
Multiple people are trolling with fake identities of the shooter.
This happens all the time.
They always say it's like Sam Hyde or other people, and they'll superimpose his face.
A lot of people go into trolling and putting up fake news.
I gotta stress, They say this is not true according to a Breitbart report when asked about the motive of the shooter.
So this again, this is from yesterday, but I think it's really important to stress.
A story was going around of which I even retweeted where journalists were saying police confirmed it was gang related terror.
There were reports that there were three people.
Then we saw so this from Breitbart.
While it is incorrect, at the time was considered to be correct by many people, I retweeted a reporter, a local journalist verified with a local station saying the police have confirmed this.
That's the best we can do, right?
But understand this information changes.
I removed the retweet and the person eventually deleted the tweet.
I'm not sure if Breitbart took it down.
We also saw some fake images where people were claiming there were like a group of people storming this, storming the mall or something or the Walmart.
Jane says, the police have ruled out the possibility of multiple shooters.
Rumors are spreading on Facebook, Instagram, and messaging apps.
As of right now, police are ruling out multiple shooters.
A Gamergate troll just called KTSM station to troll them about the shooting.
Who on earth would do this at a time like this?
Fact check here for Jane.
There is nothing to indicate it was a Gamergate troll.
I don't understand why they're using this narrative.
It doesn't make sense.
The person did say gamers rise up and then blamed African migrants and named 8chan.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with any ideology or any group.
I'm confused as to why Jane did this.
This is a bad fact check if you were to ask me, but we'll carry on.
She goes on to say that the reports of gang-related terror was eventually removed, and this is correct to the best of my understanding.
Somebody photoshopped an image of Sam Hyde's face on the shooter's body, and I gotta admit, that's really well done photoshop.
Totally fake though, okay?
People do this all the time.
She goes on to say there's an unverified name of the suspect floating around.
Now, I want to go through this very quickly because I want to get to the more up-to-date stuff.
This is really important because this is still going around.
Number 11, an unverified photo.
Has not been reported elsewhere.
Image itself is old.
Anonymous account provides no proof it came from the suspect.
Do not spread.
Verified accounts are spreading an image where Trump is spelled out with guns and saying it came from the El Paso shooter.
This, to the best of my understanding, is not true.
You can do a reverse image search and see this image is really old and even BuzzFeed now saying there's no evidence to support this.
Now here's another fact check I gotta do on Jane.
Again, look, I want to give credit to Jane for doing this round of debunking.
A lot of it's sound and very important work.
But I do have some criticism.
One, the Gamergate troll, like, that doesn't seem to make sense.
You could call the person a white nationalist troll.
We don't know who the troll was.
It was just a troll.
We can see this here.
There's a post from The Blaze.
No, they're not.
Buzzfeed, you are wrong on this one.
Dan Patrick has powerful warning for Antifa after El Paso mass tragedy.
Should there's no evidence that anti-fascist activists had anything to do with the shooting
today, which is what the Blaze and Dan Patrick are implying.
No, they're not.
Buzzfeed, you are wrong on this one.
Okay.
There is an event being planned for El Paso called a border resistance.
This has been reported by other outlets.
There are flyers going around.
If it's not confirmed, fine, but the flyers are going around, and they're saying, look, we just had a tragedy.
Don't come here.
Okay?
Texas Lieutenant Governor warns Antifa to stay out of Texas in wake of Walmart shooting.
Blaze is not implying anything, and they're not wrong.
They are quoting a politician who is saying, we don't need this right now.
Guys, that's, you need to, this is not a fact check.
This is wrong.
Now, this is actually really important.
Don't fall for the troll campaign to say the El Paso shooter was a registered Democrat.
The screenshots are from a website anyone can edit.
Here's what the page looks like right now.
So this has been going around, and a lot of people are sharing this.
It is wrong, and I want to make sure I stress this.
There are a lot of websites that anyone can edit, and this site gets cited all the time.
He's a registered Democrat, Mr. Buttplug, they say.
However, someone edited it.
Hello, I am editing your internet.
Get off this webpage and find a reputable source.
Do not trust these weird screenshots.
The most important thing I can say, when stories like this happen, you cannot just look at screenshots and assume they're true.
This is what makes things very, very difficult in the internet era.
So let me stress this for instance.
What activists do when they want to spread misinformation, be it left, right, top, down, religious, whatever, is they'll screenshot something so you can't track down the source.
They make it extremely difficult.
They're creating barriers and obstacles so people can't figure out what's really going on.
The left does this with tweets of mine.
They will crop out the actual tweet and change the context on purpose so that people can't actually go and see it.
Or they won't know where it came from, thus spreading misinformation.
We can see this happening here once again with the left.
They don't know what the source of this is.
They are just spreading fake news.
We need to make sure... You know, I understand everybody wants to help.
Unfortunately, there are people who are willing to take advantage of the confusion, the fog of war, to spread fake news, okay?
This photo with the gun shaped like Trump, shaped to spell out Trump, not real, very old, but people will screenshot it and share it.
We also see screenshots of text messages and other things like this.
You know, I don't know what to say, but I can stress two things.
Like, I want to make sure I give credit to the journalists, like Jane, who are aggregating this information, but also point out that her own bias creates more misinformation.
I don't know what the solution is, okay?
But The Blaze was quoting somebody who actually said something.
Period.
It's real.
He said this.
It's reported by numerous outlets.
Referring to the troll calling NBC News and getting it on the air as a Gamergate troll once again spreading misinformation and sowing division.
I don't know why you included Gamergate in this.
That makes no sense.
And all that does is it's going to get more people on the left going, Aha!
Gamergate!
We knew it!
I just... We don't need this right now, okay?
It was a troll.
That's it.
But I'm going to wrap up there.
I'm going to do a longer segment on the Antifa stuff, explaining what's going on and why, and what we can expect for this in the context of this.
So stick around, I've got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
In an update to my previous segment, I want to do a longer segment about what's going on with Antifa and El Paso following this mass tragedy, and I also want to talk about how things are escalating.
They're escalating faster and faster.
I have warned over and over again.
I don't know what the solution is.
I don't see this going any other direction.
And I've said as much.
I've said it repeatedly.
Look, man.
During the Joe Rogan podcast, I talked about building a van.
I mentioned that civil conflict is coming, I'm building a bug-out van, okay?
It's not because I'm like a prep or anything, it's because it's just convenient.
The van allows me to cover news, do a lot of work, it gives me independent electricity in the event of power outages, which I mostly use it for, but it also does serve an important purpose in that these things are seriously escalating.
I'm not gonna tell you to stockpile food or anything, but let me just stress, we had a story.
About Antifa coming to El Paso, okay?
In response to the story, we see this.
Texans respond to far-left activists threatening murderous border rampage.
In this tweet from Andy Ngo, we can see – actually, let me pull this up so you can actually see the images.
For those that are listening on the podcast, let me describe to you what we're seeing.
Andy Ngo says, Antifa is leading a border resistance militancy training that will converge on a 10-day siege in El Paso, Texas.
The promotional image shows border enforcement officers being killed.
And government property firebombed.
In one of the images, we can see arrows being shot at buildings.
And yes, there is a man.
They're little stick figure type, you know, drawings.
There's a man with an ice written on his chest and arrows in his head at the bottom of the screen.
I don't know if you can make that out.
And people with ACAB and peace signs throwing Molotov cocktails.
This is the funniest thing about this image, is the peace sign in the back and the throwing of the Molotov cocktail.
But in response to this, we saw an escalation.
Sort of.
People, you know, Texans saying, bring it on.
I'll read a little bit about this, and then I want to talk about the response from Texas.
According to reporter Andy Ngo, the radical leftists are promoting a 10-day siege.
We get that.
I want to see the response.
Texans welcome Antifa.
With Antifa activists seemingly signaling their intention to bring violence to a red state, Texans have warned that the reception could be less tolerant reception than they might be used to.
Notably, residents are known to arm themselves with more than bows and arrows.
Red state writer Brandon Morse rallied his fellow Texans for the arrival of Antifa activists with a Thursday blog post response to No's tweet.
Great news, Texans, he wrote.
The domestic terrorist group known as Antifa is coming to our state.
If Anteba believes they're going to overcome the border agents, they've got another thing coming.
For one, it's not ICE they'll be dealing with, it's our military and Texas' National Guard.
Soyed-out communists, who have never operated outside their politically protected bubbles, are in for a hard lesson if they believe they're going to storm into Texas and have their way.
All they're doing is threatening Texans with a good time.
Don't care what your opinion is.
Escalation.
In response to this, but following what happened in El Paso, Texas Lt.
Gov.
warns Antifa stay out of Texas in wake of Walmart shooting, of which Buzzfeed called fake news for some reason.
But no, they said this.
Texas Lt.
Gov.
Dan Patrick told Antifa to stay out of Texas in the aftermath of a shooting at an El Paso Walmart Saturday.
Police have a 21-year-old male suspect in custody.
We know the details.
It's since been updated.
The Lt.
Gov.
referred to reports that an Antifa group plans to go to Texas and perform militancy exercises at the border.
Patrick warned the group to stay out of Texas.
I was looking at a story recently in the last couple of days where Antifa is posting they want to come to El Paso and do a 10-day siege.
Clear message to Antifa.
Stay out of El Paso, stay out of Texas.
Basically, we don't need them coming in on September 1st.
We didn't need them to begin with before this happened.
I would say to Antifa, scratch Texas off the map and don't come in.
It's not the time and place for them to come at any time, particularly in an aftermath of what happened in El Paso.
They go on to explain about the context of the border crossing, the border resistance.
Now, here's the thing.
In the past several days, we have had these stories.
Escalation is coming.
Look, man, I don't know what to tell you, right?
A lot of people cracked jokes when I was on the Joe Rogan podcast and said, this leads to escalation and civil conflict.
I don't know what it will look like.
It won't, you know, a lot of people think civil war and they think, you know, far right militias and far left militias.
I don't think that's what it's going to be.
I said it will be insurgency, people popping up.
And yes, that includes what we're seeing in El Paso.
A guy getting a rifle, going in.
I mean, now that guy's nuts, okay?
I don't know why he's attacking civilians and he thinks he's, like, these people are crazy.
It, look, a lot of people are saying it's an issue of mental illness, issue of gun control.
Let's just stop.
It's an issue of festering ideologies.
And they're only gonna get worse, nothing's gonna stop them.
These aren't people, necessarily, who are crazy.
They're, I wouldn't say they're of sound mind, because they're in these festering bubbles of insane information and insane perspective.
But it's got a working logic behind it, okay?
The intersectional Antifa types, they have their own weird, broken ideology.
It's all identitarianism.
It's people saying, they're basing the world on skin color and identity.
And then you have the white identitarians who feel threatened and are getting angry, and the leftist identitarians who are threatening the white identitarians.
It is a clash of ideology.
Take a look at this story from Epic Times.
Tom Arnold fantasizes about killing Donald Trump Jr.
And that's the tweet he put out.
Stories like this show us there's no, like, you know what, man?
What do I see?
I see centrists, moderates, conservatives condemning extremism non-stop all day every day.
From the left, I see condoning of it.
When Andy Ngo gets attacked, we see journalists and the left saying, but Antifa's not that bad because white supremacists are worse.
When white nationalists attack people in this way, they say, and you were mad about Antifa.
It's like they only see the world as two things, as if there's not 16 million colors.
They think there's two.
Black and white.
Gradients don't exist.
Antifa must be good because white supremacists are bad.
No, I'm sorry, they're both bad, and one is certainly more lethal, and we should do whatever we can to stop it.
But then you see stories like this.
Tom Arnold tweeted, He's making a reference to Tom Arnold potentially, you know, killing him in a safari or something.
Let's read the story.
Kaki's my cartoon-sized Daniel Boone buck knife in one hand with his teeny tiny tail in the other
He's making a reference to Tom Arnold potentially, you know killing him in a safari or something. Let's read the story
They say Tom Arnold fantasized on social media about killing Trump jr
Arnold whose celebration of violence against Rand Paul was recently shared by Ilhan Omar
posted a picture of Trump jr on on Twitter August 2nd.
The picture showed President Donald Trump's son holding a knife in his left hand and the tail of an elephant in his right, standing near the dead body of an elephant.
This is Donald Trump Jr.
is holding the tail of a beautiful African elephant he murdered as she got up from a nap.
Trump Jr.
is the real piece of garbage.
My understanding on that story is that it was a permitted killing in that there are errant and wild elephants that actually cause problem that decimate the elephant populations.
I'm not entirely sure.
But let's read.
Arnold later added, looking forward to the day we read that part.
A number of users noted the death threats and alerted the U.S.
Secret Service.
Arnold was visited by Secret Service agent last year after threatening President Trump.
Listen, I don't care what your opinion is on Tom Arnold alluding to the fact that he wanted to do something similar to Trump Jr., but we've had Kathy Griffin showing the head of Trump, Sean King demanding more action like they saw in Tacoma.
They're calling for violence.
They're escalating tensions.
And the result is going to be obvious.
I was talking to someone and I said, wow, two shootings in one day, it's starting to feel like a civil war, isn't it?
We had Tacoma.
Couple weeks later, we get El Paso.
A lot of people have said, in response to, you know, me saying there's gonna be civil conflict, that the right has all the guns, of course they'll win.
You're right.
You will.
But it's not going to be, like, all of a sudden a bunch of crazy leftists run around shooting people.
No, it's going to be crazy wackos with guns with crazy ideologies shooting people up.
There's not going to be clearly defined factions.
There's going to be insurgency among various groups.
The right and left wing, you know, militias that are coming into prominence and growing are not single groups.
There's a bunch of different groups of different ideologies.
So people are going to be fighting in various ways.
Think about Syria.
When Syria escalated, it wasn't just ISIS.
It was a bunch of different factions forming and fighting each other.
You know, I think we are going to see a rapid rise of white identitarianism.
I really do.
And it's scary.
It really is.
You have to understand, people like me and my family, we don't fit.
We do not fit any of this.
When you look at this guy's manifesto, he said, dirty race mixers.
He's talking about me and my family.
He called us dirty race mixers.
And the left will point the finger at me for being liberal and saying we should defend freedom and liberty and condemn violence.
They point the finger at me for that.
Because I won't bend the knee to their psychotic ideology, they accuse, like, they smear me, they smear other liberals who believe in freedom and believe in an open and free, you know, free expression and things of that, like, this matter.
Like, things like this.
But then you can look at the actual leaks from the Charlottesville logs where they refuse to even listen to my commentary and news because I'm a dirty race mixer.
I mean, actually, I'm technically not.
It's just my family that was, and I'm the product of it.
So, these extremist identitarian ideologies are bad news for people like me.
You know, we're effectively called global citizens, I guess.
I've been accused by even non-violent white identitarians, like people who have like talked to me and saying, I was told this.
I was told I have no identity because I can't associate with any group based on being mixed race.
I think that's insane.
I'm an American and identify as such.
But they say you'll never understand true racial identity.
And I'm like, okay, well, you know what?
I don't have a mixed race community.
I don't.
The point I'm trying to bring up by saying this, and you know, a lot of people are always like, Tim always brings up his mixed race.
Yes, to make this point, people like me, my friends, and those who believe in a liberal society, an anti-racist society, do not find security and safety with any of these extremist factions.
There are certain people in this country Who will be safe?
Absolutely safe, even if they disagree with white identitarians.
Let's say white identitarians actually do gain a foothold, fascism rises, and they're in power.
Oh yeah!
There are white liberals who will be fine.
I'm not so sure that's true for me and my family.
When the left identitarians take power, they still don't like me because I'm still part white.
This is the danger of these ideologies, and it flies in the face of what it means to be an American.
America is the great melting pot, bringing together different people from different parts of the world with different ideas to make a better, more free, you know, a perfect union, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But the escalation is in our faces.
And these extremists are going to make life hell for all of us.
Most people oppose this, you know, the extremism.
But it won't matter.
It won't, it won't matter.
Because here's what I think's gonna happen.
The extremists will keep fighting.
And they'll keep pointing the fingers.
And eventually, you will have people forced into one bracket or the other.
And I think we are going to see racial animus reach epic proportions, violent proportions, beyond what it already is.
The senior staff of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee resigned because they were white.
They said, the executive chair, I believe, the executive director or whatever her position was, said she was doing it for the mission.
Okay, I don't care.
I don't care if the Democrats want to resign because they're racists.
Fine.
But where do you think this leads to?
You have AOC saying the concentration camps on the border.
You have the DSA saying open borders, abolish ICE and CBC, do not replace them.
You have these same far leftists saying get the white people out of the leadership of the DCCC and they fall in line.
It all is leading to one conclusion.
I gotta say, it's like a nightmare come true.
Anyway, I'm gonna leave it here.
I'm gonna talk about something else coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up shortly.
I will see you then.
In this story from Human Events, they write, many millennial socialists, they put it in quotes, aren't socialists.
The majority of young people who call themselves socialists do not understand socialism.
That's true.
I've talked to some of my friends.
So I have a friend who said that she was a democratic socialist.
And I started asking her some questions.
I said, first, let me try and figure out where you are politically.
Do you believe that if you do work, you should be allowed to keep the fruits of that labor for yourself?
And she said, yes.
I said, congratulations, you're not a socialist.
And she was confused by this.
She's actually more likely a social democrat, somebody who believes in a capitalist system, but a strong welfare state.
But she insisted, no, I am.
And I said, okay.
Do you think if you do work, the product of your work should go into a pool controlled by a collective that determines who gets that resource?
And she was like, no, I did the work, it's mine.
Like, if you grow a stock, like some wheat, Do you think you should be allowed to eat that?
And she said yes.
Congratulations!
You're a capitalist!
The problem these people have isn't socialism or capitalism.
It's crony corruption.
It is corporatism.
It is elitism.
It is not capitalism in and of itself.
The idea of capitalism, what it really is, is the right of the individual to own private property.
Now, when I ask them about this, they change the narrative and they change the definition.
They now differentiate between private property and personal property, which makes no sense.
Because where do you draw the line?
So this is what they say when you ask about private property.
They say, There's a difference between you personally owning a piece of property like your shoes and private property like a building.
And I say, okay, at what point does personal property become private property?
Like, is your car personal property?
And they say, oh, well, yeah, like the car is yours.
You drive it, you park it.
That's different.
I say, okay.
What about a tractor?
Uh, but a tractor is part of the means of production.
Well, a tractor... Okay, what if I take a car and I modify it to be able to plow?
Is it now private property?
Uh... Then there's a bigger question.
What if I offer as an individual to do work for my neighbor to, like, mow their lawn in exchange for a resource?
Am I working for them as a wage slave, or am I generating a profit?
The problem with their ideas is scale.
Their ideas don't have a cohesive structure.
It makes no sense.
Because the reality is, socialism is very easily defined as the public ownership of all property.
It doesn't matter if it's a comb.
It doesn't matter if it's your shoes.
There is no distinction between personal and private.
An arbitrary organization of individuals who are doing jazz hands are going to figure out what you can and can't own.
Congratulations, welcome to authoritarianism.
What you're proposing makes no sense, and you're not really a socialist.
Let's read the story.
Before we do, make sure you go over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can donate.
Physical address, crypto, PayPal, or just share the video, help support the channel because YouTube is deranking my content.
And yes, I can see the number is declining, but you know what?
I'll keep on keeping on for the time being.
Let's read.
Human Events writes, According to a new poll, nearly 40% of college students
have a favorable opinion of socialism.
Polls like this astound older Americans who witnessed the economic stagnation and human
atrocities in socialist regimes during the 20th century.
Because most millennials we know seem like good people, how could so many good young people favor
such an awful system?
This new poll sheds some light on this question, and the light it sheds is consistent with what
I learned while researching a new book on socialism when I attend the largest gathering
of self-identified socialists in the United States.
Support for socialism is unevenly distributed across majors.
Support is greatest among the majors least likely to study how economic systems function.
78% of philosophy majors, 64% of anthropology majors, and 58% of English majors hold favorable views of socialism.
Yet in the disciplines most likely to study how economic systems function, economics and finance, 61% and 63% of students respectively hold unfavorable views of socialism.
Congratulations!
They've read a book on economics.
It's funny because Ocasio-Cortez apparently has like an economics degree or like an international relations degree too, and she doesn't seem to understand that 21 trillion dollars in an accounting error is not spendable money.
This is the craziest thing to me.
And this is a really good example of why millennials think they know what socialism is.
They grew up... Listen.
This is important.
I tried hiring someone once who was institutionalized their whole life.
And I don't mean an amendable institution, I mean an educational institution.
They didn't finish school until they were like 24.
They had no concept of influx, income, and outgoing resources.
They had no understanding of maintaining a system of revenue, of growth, what profit really meant.
I tried to explain these things to them, they don't get it.
The DSA holds up signs saying abolish profit.
So, you're advocating for slavery.
Like, in that sense.
Profit is the money you earn as an individual.
Now, of course, I understand they're actually arguing against the idea of a major corporation making money on top of what they already pay people.
But the individual who sells their labor is making a personal profit too.
The idea of profit is beyond your costs what you earn.
People who work in offices increase costs.
And then they get a wage.
The money they make on top of what it costs them to work is their profit.
So let me explain something to the socialists.
If I own a car and I drive my car to work, guess what?
I have to pay for gas.
I have to pay for the car.
That's coming out of my pocket.
The money they pay on top, minus the amount it costs me to maintain that job, is my profit.
If you are working a job that is paying you less than you need to actually work that job, congratulations, you're in the red.
It's no different from an individual to a business.
But for some reason, millennials seem to think money grows on trees.
They seem to think that businesses should be snapped into existence and the government should issue money to the various businesses to then pay their staff.
It's why we constantly see complaints at these woke media companies.
We should get paid more.
You realize your company doesn't generate revenue, right?
If you don't get money from people, how will they pay money to other people?
They seem to think money just appears.
No, it doesn't.
Let's read on.
The writer says, in my teaching experience, only a small percentage of students correctly identify socialism as an economic system that abolishes private property in the major factors of production and replaces it with collective ownership.
This was true of the millennial socialists I met at the conference last year.
A large portion of self-identified socialists didn't identify their version of socialism with abolishing private property and replacing it with collective ownership and central planning instead.
They adopted the socialist label while simply taking positions to the left of the Democratic Party on a wide variety of political issues.
I asked many young people why they were there.
One young woman told me, the urgency is because Trump, immigration rights, Black Lives Matter, indigenous rights.
Her answer was typical.
Others told me it was because of the environment, gender rights, abortion, or LGBT rights.
I was told that uncompromising socialism is fully committed to systematic change and ending oppression of all types.
That has nothing to do with the economy.
That has to do with societal factors, which can change irrespective of the economy.
And then they start pushing the narrative that, no, you can't, because capitalism is white supremacy.
And congratulations.
That's exactly what we see with the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal, pushed by Ocasio-Cortez and Saiket Chakrabarty, is mostly about socialist policy.
I'm not making that up.
That's actually coming— I'm para— Well, that's me giving my opinion.
Saiket Chakrabarty said the Green New Deal initially wasn't about the climate at all.
It was about changing the economy.
There you have it.
They're using environmentalism as a Trojan horse to institute economic policy.
They're using identity politics as a Trojan horse to institute economic policy.
Socialism can be racist.
It doesn't make sense.
And the people who are supporting it are doing it based on civil rights issues.
That makes no sense.
Let's read on.
He writes, The answers the attendees gave were also representative of the formal conference sessions.
Few sessions had anything to do with how to organize a socialist economic and political system, and the few sessions that did confused things more than they illuminated them.
The speakers on the session on Korea failed to mention that North Korea has a socialist economic system, while South Korea's system is based on private property and free enterprise.
Instead, we were told that suffering in North Korea has been caused by imperialism.
You know... He goes on to say...
Young people who identify with real socialism don't understand the connection between economic freedoms and political freedoms.
They seem to think it was a historical accident that every country that ever replaced private property with collective ownership became a totalitarian hell.
But centrally planned socialist economic systems necessarily concentrate economic power in the hands of government officials and planners.
With such power, they can't hope to run things.
Yet this same power limits citizens' ability to freely exercise their political power when they became dissatisfied with the government.
There are two kinds of power in a political sense.
There's the government and there's the corporations.
Growing up, I saw the right saying government bad and the left saying corporations bad.
In reality, there are two massive power structures that are centralizing and growing.
The government has power by force.
They can shut down any corporation they want, within reason.
Because if the government oversteps its boundaries, confidence will be lost in the government, and the government is made up of confidence.
Corporations use economic power to slowly grow.
Eventually, they become very large, and in reality, they're both part of the same problem—the centralization of power.
These people who are complaining are complaining for two reasons.
I've got to keep this segment short.
They're identitarians, so I don't know what economic policy has to do with it.
They say, oh, but, you know, the historical racism is propped up by capitalism and people who hold wealth and use that to gain more power.
Okay, old money exists, but you're not going to solve your problems doing this, you know, by blaming money, or more importantly, the solution you propose doesn't necessarily solve the issues of social justice.
Changing an economic system won't change who is in power.
It'll just make sure that those with ultimony maintain their power and get a stranglehold on it.
So ultimately the point is, they're arguing for either changing the economy because they think it'll be fair.
It won't.
It'll result in totalitarianism.
And they don't understand the concept of private property.
Or they're just identitarians who are using it as a Trojan horse.
Or who don't realize it is.
But anyway, I'm gonna leave it there because I gotta keep these short.
The point is, The people claiming to be socialists, in my experience, aren't.
