All Episodes
Aug. 18, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:30:07
Digital Media Tries To Purge Wokeness, Far Left Writers RESIGN In Outrage

Digital Media Tries To Purge Wokeness, Far Left Writers RESIGN In Outrage. A Top editor for a woke media outlet resigned amid controversy and a hit piece against their bosses.Great Hill Partners purchased the Gizmodo Media group recently and appears to be trying to remove overt politics from the sports website Deadspin. The Gizmodo union was outraged a few weeks ago when a survey appeared on the website asking readings what they disliked most about Deadpsin and politics was an option.Its a relevant question. Why would a sports website write about far left activist politics and woke social justice narratives? I don't care about the politics I care about the sports. Not only that but one of the main complaints from the far left activist journalists was that the parent company was hiring too many "white dudes." It seems their complaints were driven by ideology.This editorial rift seems to have resulted in the top editor's resignation but this comes just after we heard Gawker's relaunch was canceled.Gawker was set to relaunch as a different company but due to offensive tweets from the new boss two of the writers quit. They specifically cited the offensive posts.At least with these companies it seems that the people running the show know that sometimes getting woke means going broke and that getting rid of the wokeness will bring a path to success.One of the problems isn't necessarily the politics however, its the fact that almost every company is chasing the same narrative of wokeness and far left politics. This means every website is basically the same thing over and over. Eventually it gets boring. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:29:43
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
I often highlight this Twitter thread, which I think is very interesting.
It shows us the escalation of the far-left intersectional political ideology and how it emerged in media very, very rapidly.
I've shown this before in the context of politics, but today I'm going to be talking about what appears to be an ongoing civil war with people who run businesses and the ideology.
I made a video a little while ago talking about how you really can't run a woke media company.
Because they're not going to agree with anything you do and they're going to smear and slam you because their mission is ideological, not business-related.
So we've seen examples of this.
We've seen over and over again the Gizmodo Media Group woke activist journalists slamming their own company.
We saw this story at the beginning of August.
This is how things work at Gizmodo Media.
We saw the same person along with others, slam Gizmodo when it was owned by Univision.
Seems like no matter who buys it, they will rebel against the people who own it.
You really can't run a business that way.
Not only do these stories present a conflict of interest, they shouldn't be reporting on themselves anyway.
It just hurts the business and causes it to collapse.
Well, here's the latest news.
Deadspin's editor quits, rails against bosses I've been repeatedly lied to and gaslit.
I'll give you the quick version.
After reading through this story and the recent events over the past several weeks, it seems like the company that bought Gizmodo, which used to be part of Gawker, is trying to get rid of Wokeness.
And they're having a hard time of it.
But they are firing people, and I think they're winning.
In the end, I think the principle of get woke, go broke makes a ton of sense pertaining to media.
For those that aren't familiar, I worked for a company called Fusion.
It was a joint venture between Univision and ABC News.
Initially, they said, we are non-partisan.
They talked to me saying, we want you to do your thing.
I was at Vice News at the time.
At the time, Vice News was just on the ground reporting.
There was no agenda behind it.
I'd tell you what I saw.
And it did great.
We were getting millions of views on the docs I was producing and the coverage I was doing.
Fusion wanted that.
But something happened.
In a few months, Fusion went woke.
And all of a sudden now, they were, you know, I was off in my corner doing my thing.
I went to Fukushima, for instance, talked about some refugee stuff.
But they wanted wokeness.
They said, we've gotta, quote, side with the audience.
Not realizing, these people on Twitter are not a real audience.
And as others have said in criticism of some of these woke media brands that have failed, Traffic is not an audience.
So they chase after outrage, spinning everyone into a tizzy, and it doesn't work.
So, Gawker gets sued into oblivion.
That's a different story, right?
Hulk Hogan's sued.
Funded by Peter Thiel.
Gawker collapses.
They sell the Gizmodo company and all of the affiliates to Univision.
Gawker stays in limbo.
Somebody else buys Gawker.
Univision gets slammed by their own employees.
Didn't seem to work.
The company I initially worked for, Fusion, changes its name to Splinter, joins the Gizmodo Media Network brand, and is sold off to a new company.
It now seems that they've realized wokeness doesn't work.
It may work in the short term, but traffic isn't audience.
So now it seems like they're trying to get rid of these people.
So let's read this story, but I want to show you some important context to let you understand it really does seem like they're trying to purge woke ideology.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but hey, The best thing you can do?
Share this video.
I am competing with these companies, and YouTube is giving them the advantage.
They are deranking independent political commentary on journalism and propping up corporate channels.
Channels that have massive funding from the likes of CNN or NBC, etc.
Well, CNN, I don't think they're funding anyone else, but you know what I mean.
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News are getting propped up in the algorithm.
Companies like this are getting propped up, and we're getting pushed down.
We can resist that by sharing content.
So if you like my videos, just share it.
If not, whatever.
Let's read.
They say, The new bosses in charge of what used to be the Gawker network of websites have drastically upended the culture, Greenwell said, leaving her no choice but to resign.
Deadspin's editor-in-chief has left the company, saying the new leadership of parent company Gizmodo or GeoMedia have made it impossible for her to continue working there.
I have been repeatedly undermined, lied to, and gaslit in my job, Megan Greenwell said in a brief phone call with the Daily Beast on Friday.
They say, Geo Media was formed earlier this year when Gizmodo Media Group, the former Gawker Media Company that included sites like Deadspin, Gizmodo, and Jezebel, among others, was purchased from Univision by private equity firm Great Hill.
As the Daily Beast previously reported, Geo's new leadership have occasionally clashed with some of the company's famously independent and outspoken editorial staff.
Greenwell said Friday that she feels heartbroken about leaving, and that while she does not want to be seen as a victim, recent decisions by Company Brass left her with few options.
Among the many grievances, Greenwell said, GEO leadership refused to guarantee editorial independence for Deadspin, and asked for the site to quote, stick to sports.
A long-running source of frustration for a staff that also covers media, politics, and culture beyond sports.
That's not something I feel I can ethically do, the departing editor said.
Let's stop right here.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is a sports website talking about politics?
I honestly have no idea.
The woke activists have infected specific verticals and changed them all into the same thing.
They've put everyone in a neat little box and molded them into the exact same thing.
Why is a sports website talking about politics?
I don't care.
I can go to the hill for politics.
I don't need to get my opinion from the person who's supposed to be writing about, I don't know, football or UFC.
But let's jump from here.
Let's go back in time.
Check out this post from the GMG Union.
The Gizmodo Media Group Union was outraged just a few weeks ago when a survey appeared on the front page of Deadspin that said, what do you like least about Deadspin?
Let's read their statement.
The Gizmodo Media Group said earlier this week this oddly worded survey went up on Deadspin without communication with Deadspin's editorial staff.
As you can see, it is clearly designed to question the editorial value of the site.
That's just not true.
We sent a request for an explanation and after more than 24 hours did not receive a response.
We have heard management plans to run the survey again.
Even after we expressed our clear opposition, our questions about it have gone unanswered.
These actions are clearly management attempting to target and even intimidate staff into changing their editorial stance in spite of our contract-protected independence.
In addition to being an embarrassment on every level, it invites harassment of our staff.
We will not let it stand.
The people who make money and who purchased this media company are probably asking themselves, why is our sports brand talking about Bernie Sanders?
I'm just being hypothetical, I don't know what they're talking about, but talking about politics, check it out.
They say, what do you like least?
Uncompromising commentary, sports stories I can't find anywhere else, knowledgeable writers, broad scope of coverage, political coverage and strong political point of view, criticism and coverage of other media companies, Uh, or other.
And I think you can check how many you want.
Seems to me.
The company that owns Deadspin is trying to figure out how the business survives.
And I'll tell you what.
Get Woke, Go Broke.
Now, Get Woke, Go Broke isn't universal.
It's not a law.
I say this all the time.
That means there are certain circumstances where getting woke makes people rich.
But this is in the Get Woke, Go Broke tree.
So again, there's no guarantee going woke will destroy your company.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
This one shows how, in media at least, a sports brand probably shouldn't get woke.
But there's some interesting criticisms of what's actually going on.
Take a look at this.
In the story, we got this picture.
They say, according to company sources, Deadspin in recent weeks has been working on a story about how Spanfeller has operated since taking charge.
In the words of one staffer, the thrust is to show that the CEO has put a, quote, bunch of white dudes in charge and has a poor grasp of the media business.
Along those lines, the Daily Beast's Maxwell Tanney reported earlier this month that Spanfeller had stepped over key boundaries separating editorial from business operations.
Which, to an extent, is a bad idea.
But you see what their primary complaint is, as reported by the Washington Post.
They didn't like white dudes who were in charge.
In fact, in this hit piece that was published, they talk about some kind of public recruitment process, as if a business owner needs to publicly allow all people an opportunity to apply for a job instead of just hiring someone he thinks can do it.
Well, what ended up happening?
As it turns out, the guy who runs this business, who purchased it, said, we need an upheaval in leadership.
In my opinion, when they talk about cultural complaints, when they put a survey up saying, do you not like our politics?
It sounds like what this guy is really saying is, I think the business fails because they're writing about politics instead of sports.
Do we make a new sports website?
How does any of this make sense?
Let's read on.
In a statement to the Daily Beast, GeoMedia editorial director Paul Maidment said,
We are laser-focused on serving Deadspin readers sports and everything related to sports.
Our former editor had a vision and we wish her well in her future endeavors.
Interestingly, at the time they got the statement, she hadn't quit yet.
Also contributing to Greenwell's exit was an email CEO Jim Spanfeller sent in July
to the entire staff criticizing a then-impending story published earlier this month by Deadspin.
highlighting how new leadership has operated since taking charge.
This is another really fascinating point in the Wokeness Civil War.
The email, as it was posted, I believe I have it here, posted in great detail by Eric Wempel of the Washington Post, shows that, for one, the guy running the company, I believe it's Spanfeller, I could be wrong, Jim Spanfeller, I think his name is, was trying to have everyone see what was happening in negotiations.
But according to the email, was basically looking for an independent review.
He says, after much back and forth, The editorial department has been crafting a policy regarding best practices when reporting on ourselves.
At this point, I believe the solution is to have that reporting reviewed by an impartial outside editor, a public editor if you will.
This review would be around journalistic standards and objectivity, and would remove the leadership team from walking an impossible typewrote.
This discussion is clearly not finished yet, and I am sure there will be more back and forth as we go along.
For what it is worth, I am very much for a public editor, and not just for these situations, but for any situation where someone within or without the company has issues with our coverage or reporting.
It sounds like a pretty smart thing to do.
A company shouldn't report on themselves.
It's a conflict of interest.
We'll look at it this way.
They're upset about white dudes.
And that's a quote from the Washington Post that quote a bunch of white dudes in charge.
That's what they're upset about.
Can I then trust them to be impartial when they're writing about the person they're angry with?
No.
That's actually a violation of standard journalistic practices.
So it's interesting, then, that this woman is resigning partially over this email, where he says, let's have an objective third-party review this.
And they didn't like it.
She resigned because of this email.
I don't know about that specific clause or portion.
But interestingly, they wrote a hit piece on their own company and were upset that he wanted a third party to review it.
At least to a certain degree.
I don't know.
Look, there's going to be nuance in the discussion.
Perhaps they were for it.
But in the end, they shouldn't be reporting on themselves.
Someone else should write the story and they can give a statement.
It is a conflict of interest for you to be upset with your boss and then write a piece because it's going to be biased.
But guess what?
These people don't believe in objective journalism.
It's part of the decline and death of journalism.
They don't think it's possible and they think they're justified to write a hit piece about white dudes and about the fact that this guy is trying to reform the site into just sports like it was supposed to be.
They say, In the email, Spanfeller said he was greatly concerned about the objectivity and core intentions of the piece, and questioned the editorial standards of Deadspin's editors.
The CEO alleged that the piece was pre-written, with its conclusions and that any responses he may have would be mere window dressing.
While he did not specifically name any individuals, Spanfeller singled out the Deadspin reporter and editor-in-chief.
I'm making the gamble that Deadspin will be better off once the team leader is someone the leader of the company wouldn't feel the need to smear in front of 400 people, Greenwell said.
That's what— That's the editor who resigned.
But perhaps she's right.
If the boss is saying— Here's how I see it, as an outside observer.
We should do a sports website.
I agree.
We shouldn't have politics on our sports website.
Seems to make sense.
We shouldn't write hit pieces about ourselves.
Well, definitely.
How can you run a business if you're smearing yourself?
And they smeared Univision when Univision owned them.
And then they need to resign because of it?
Sounds about right.
They're angry the culture is being changed, but it's getting back to the core media business.
At some point, I don't know how, it's why I highlighted this, a sports website became political.
Why?
Why are video game websites political?
Why are sports websites political?
I don't care.
Look, if Kaepernick wants to kneel, we can talk about it on your sports website.
But when we're talking about stats and UFC and football, skateboarding, whatever.
We don't need to talk about politics.
That's weird.
Jezebel can talk politics.
Gizmodo can talk technology.
But why is this whole network becoming woke?
Why is everything through the lens of woke politics instead of what the product is?
I don't care about the political affiliation of somebody who throws a football.
I want to know how far he threw the football.
That's what sports is about.
Someone else can be a political website.
We saw this though, and I've highlighted this in the political context, the hockey stick of all of this woke ideology, it is not necessarily associated with the left, because there certainly are white and far-right identitarians, but it is a strange fringe ideology that is expanding.
And so there's an interesting thing here.
Take a look at this.
This is a New York Times story.
Gawker The Reboot is once again in limbo.
And do you want to know why?
Well, actually, let me walk back.
I don't know exactly why Gawker was basically double-canceled, okay?
Somebody bought it, they wanted to bring it back, they hired people to do it, and then it fell apart.
But I'll tell you this, they saved.
I'll give you some context first.
Univision bought the Gawker Media properties, minus Gawker.com, at an auction that same year.
Earlier this year, Univision sold that remainder of the original company, now known as GeoMedia, and includes sites like The Onion, Deadspin, and Jezebel, to a private equity firm, Great Hill Partners.
Mr. Goldberg appointed the journalist Carson Griffith as Gawker's top editor in January, about eight months ago.
The move backfired shortly afterward when the site's two full-time writers quit.
After telling the Daily Beast, they had objected to comments made by Ms.
Griffith on black writers and the gender identity of a potential hire.
That's right!
The writers were woke and refused and left.
And since then, Gawker has been shut down.
Get woke, go broke.
So here's what I see happening.
Media is facing massive layoffs as it is.
We have this story from a couple days ago, Gatehouse Media.
They say, last week, Gatehouse and Gannett announced their intent to merge and form the largest newspaper chain in the country, but it comes with mass layoffs, right?
So they announced 37 staffers are being laid off.
Um, in total I believe, oh no no, I'm sorry, maybe more than that.
There's, you know, 14 here, 5 here.
So laughs happen.
The media is hurting, period.
But I gotta stress, Mike.com wasn't woke when they started.
An expose was written about how in the short term they were chasing the woke narrative because the outrage culture worked.
And eventually, I believe they had a value of something like 60 to 100 million dollars, and they sold for around like 5.
Complete and total collapse of the business.
Traffic is not an audience.
So they're not generating fans.
There's not people who are really supporting them, saying like, we love you specifically.
It's just woke rage bait on Facebook.
Here's the thing.
How many subscribers do I have on this channel, right?
I've got 600,000.
It's amazing.
Thank you very much for subscribing to my channel.
I appreciate it.
I have a second channel with about 500,000.
And the subverse channel, which is pure news and editorially independent from here, has about 150.
But we get substantially more unique viewers than that.
I understand what this means.
It's quite simple.
Every day, I'm getting about 1.2 million views between all of my segments.
I'm doing six.
My main channel does the best.
But, of the 300 or so thousand people who watch my videos every day, Most of them are not subscribed.
That means my subscribers don't mean my audience, my viewers don't mean my audience.
In order to see who my real audience is, I have to look at unique concurrent viewers.
It's actually hard to discover.
They seem to think they're getting all these numbers by making woke rage bait, not realizing it's just people being enticed by the specific topic and they don't care about you.
I have that too and I know it.
I'm not crazy enough to think that's not the case.
All of these companies that are making tons of money, you snap your fingers and they're gone.
Because, in the end, when people move on from the subject and they're not outraged anymore, you've desensitized them, they don't care.
So I'm not saying I'm gonna be long-lasting necessarily, I'm just trying to point out that when I look at my metrics, I know way more people watch my content than who are subscribed.
But many people who watch my content never come back.
Maybe that's a good lesson for all these media companies that don't seem to realize it.
And then what do we get?
Well, big firms have tried to buy these companies.
And I think they've recognized now that the big numbers attached to all these companies were not an audience.
What do you end up with?
So when mike.com is valued at all these really big numbers because they've got real and fake numbers behind them, it's a whole other story.
There's a thing called like traffic assignment rights where people would sell the numbers behind their sites.
It's complicated.
They realized that these companies used woke rage bait to generate traffic.
At a certain point, it's not going to work.
You have no audience.
Unfortunately, when these sites got sold, the people buying them were looking at this portfolio thinking, wow, look at all those views.
And then all of a sudden, the views were gone.
And they said, what happened?
Well, you didn't really have an audience.
No one cared about your brand, and no one believed in you.
So now you're left with a very, very small and thin valuation.
The money is not there.
These companies don't seem to understand that.
I feel bad for these guys who bought these media companies.
Because check it out.
This guy, Mr. Goldberg, who hires Carson Griffith, probably didn't realize what was happening in media.
He saw the views, he said, there's money here, he hired someone he thought could do the job, and they revolted.
And so now Gawker is in limbo.
And you can walk it all the way back to the Washington Post, they're complaining about the white dudes again, get woke, go broke, and here we have the main story.
They write a smear piece on their bosses saying, oh, how dare they?
Then the editor is forced to resign.
Let's read a little bit more of this story to try and go through.
I guess we're going a little bit long, but it is what it is.
They say, Greenwell said that following the report's publication, she was repeatedly asked to commit to GEO and its management.
When she inquired as to what that entailed, Greenwell said that she was never given a direct answer, nor would the company guarantee she and her team would not be punished for its reporting on Company Brass.
I tried over the course of a week to get somebody to say there will be no retribution from this.
Your team will continue to have the independence that it has done so well with.
When I was unable to over a period of many days, I decided that was putting the team at too big of a risk to not leave.
So in the end, I'll jump to the end and say, in the months since taking over GeoMedia, has also not been afraid to drastically change how the former Gogger websites look and feel.
The company has clogged the mobile versions of its sites with display ads, trying to make money, suggested brand new website taglines, and on several occasions seemed to suggest shaping coverage in a way that benefits potential ad buyers.
Site leaders said they dismissed such requests, and Geo bosses have not interfered in coverage about other companies.
But despite the internal turmoil and Greenwell's exit, the company has recently garnered positive attention.
Deadspin was nominated for its first National Magazine Award earlier this year, and according to ComScore data, it reached 17 million unique visitors in June, a record for the site.
Sounds to me like the changes might be good news for... I believe it's Deadspin?
If they're a sports site, if a month ago they said, hey, how about we make some changes, if this person is resigning and in the meantime traffic is going up, it sounds like the changes coming in are beneficial to the company.
They're trying to figure out how to make the company work.
And therein lies the big problem.
Journalism does need to be fiercely independent, but how do you function when your journalists don't care about their core product and just want to write woke rage bait?
It won't work.
You then have these ideological staff members that are slowly leaving.
I'll give you my prediction.
These companies that are being bought by, say, investment companies, know this.
And they're going to get rid of the woke editors and the activist journalists, and those people are going to end up unemployed.
You know, Carlos Maza is no longer employed by Vox.
I wonder why.
I think we may be seeing the complete death.
The bell curve of woke media is coming back down.
Companies buying up these companies, you know, the investment firms buying up these companies, they don't want this.
It's not valuable.
It's toxic.
It's volatile.
It's dangerous.
It's a short term gain and a long term loss.
To my point, Chasing WokeRageBait will get you clicks, but not an audience.
Because people don't wake up every day wondering, you know, I want to be angry today.
No.
People see it on Facebook and click it and go, interesting.
What you really need is, you know, so I guess to kind of clarify the point I was making earlier, those who truly are my audience will watch any video I make.
The people who don't watch every video are just passers-by, right?
These companies need to figure out how to make a core product that people love and want to come back to.
If you're a sports website, and you talk about politics, your sports fans leave.
And then what do you have but more woke rage bait, and eventually you just have people who are angry looking through the window and walking away.
You need regular customers, and that's what I think they're trying to do.
I think wokeness hurts that, especially when everyone's woke.
How do you carve out a piece of the market when every website says the exact same thing?
Man, gone are the days of, or it's seeming now that soon gone will be the days of every media website trying to be woke because they're gone broke.
But I'll leave it there.
It's interesting.
We'll see what happens.
It's the next emergence of this ongoing battle internally.
But look, Gawker... Gawker is shut down.
Like, Gawker is shut down.
They tried to bring it back.
They failed.
I think this is a struggle where they're trying to not have another Gawker situation, but you gotta do something about woke editors who are— Look, one of their principal complaints is that he hired white people.
Like, that's insane!
Like, is it some kind of violation for a union to complain about white people?
I'm not saying the union, I'm saying the people in the union are like, how dare you hire white people?
Is that your complaint?
That's discriminatory.
Like, how do you legally do that?
Again, the union didn't come out and say this, but these are like union members who are upset about what's happening.
Writing hit pieces for that reason?
Well, I'll tell you what's gonna happen.
I think over time, the wokeness will be purged, but we'll see.
Could be wrong.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all on my second channel.
My favorite analogy for talking about irony is a fire truck on fire.
It is the thing that is supposed to put the fire out being engulfed in fire.
I find it quite hilarious.
But it's actually a really easy way to explain irony to someone, because people often get confused by it.
Because there's different ways it can be used, whether it's like a linguistic use or representing action of some sort.
Take a look at this story.
We don't want you.
Portland warns it won't tolerate violence around far-right rally.
And you know why this is... I mean, maybe it's not perfect irony, but what is is Antifa saying, you know, we're here to resist violence from the Proud Boys.
Well, there was an event yesterday, and guess what happened?
For the most part, the Proud Boys showed up, walked around in a circle, and left very quickly.
And that was it.
However, Antifa, on the other hand, stayed around and picked fights with random people who happened to be walking around.
Now, some of these people who got into fights were Trump supporters, or one guy had, like, a Pepe clown button on, and so they targeted them, though these people didn't start the fight.
There was one guy.
Who apparently was just walking by with his wife or something, and they started hooting and hollering at him for no reason.
He stood his ground.
They knocked him out.
Pepper sprayed him.
And then he had to be carried away.
Not a demonstrator.
So in the end, what do we get?
The far right didn't do anything.
They came and did exactly what you'd expect them to do.
Look.
You don't have to be fans of these people.
You can call it whatever you want.
If you want to be rational on the left, then play it like this.
They want good PR.
They know not to get into fights.
So what happens?
They show up.
They said, don't bring weapons.
Don't fight.
And that's exactly what happened.
So I think this might be the clip here.
Ford Fisher, journalist, reported, the Proud Boys came and left pretty quick.
But this was the closest anything of theirs got to violence.
When one guy tensely approached a counter-demonstrator, a different Proud Boy got in the way and said, what are you doing?
Stop, stop.
Police removed the guy without a fight.
Ford Fisher, who is a journalist that Kathy Griffin tweeted out saying everyone should follow.
Kathy Griffin, mind you, someone who blocked me, says the closest thing the Proud Boys got to violence was them telling someone to stop because they didn't want to get into a fight.
That's the closest they got.
Now, there's footage of their bus being attacked.
There's footage of some of their people, or I should say Trump supporters being attacked.
But in terms of the actual Proud Boys event, it looks like, and this is just Ford, so there may be other sources, but from what I've seen, Proud Boys didn't do anything.
And that's what I've been saying over and over again.
If the left doesn't show up, they walk around, wave their little American flags, and they go to a bar and get drunk.
Apparently, that's what they did.
I guess they showed up, marched around, and went to a barbecue and had a party.
Welcome to America!
That's all they're doing.
Yet we see all these reports about, are the Proud Boys done?
Are they just getting started?
Getting started what?
They've been involved, like, the worst thing the Proud Boys have been involved in is that New York scuffle.
And if you show up to an event, they got into a fight, and some Proud Boys got charged because they took things too far.
But the funny thing is, and this was my big criticism, you have to recognize the Proud Boys have zero, have no leeway.
No matter what they do, the moment they do anything, the media will descend on them like vultures looking for meat.
Antifa has been doing these things over and over and over again, and uh...
Where's the media?
No, we see Chris Cuomo.
I think it was Cuomo saying, they're just like the soldiers on D-Day.
Oh, that's right.
Beating an old woman named Dolores wearing her spandex and frilly shirt is just like what the World War II soldiers were doing.
And yes, I'm referencing something specific.
When I was in Berkeley and I watched an old lady get knocked to the ground because someone threw an M80 at her, I said, that old lady is just some old lady.
And she's wearing her frilly clothes or whatever.
That's not a Nazi.
unidentified
OK?
tim pool
It's an old lady, not a threat.
So here's what I tweeted.
Seems like the right will take the PR victory in Portland.
Videos circulate of Antifa getting arrested, smashing bus windows, pepper spraying people, and the right seems to have left.
After the event, there's even a possibility for police clashes.
We have seen this in the past.
I also tweeted this.
There are videos where you can clearly see mobs attacking people who are non-violent.
Antifa may as well be Trump's re-election committee, and he doesn't even have to pay them.
In this video from Ford Fisher, what do we see?
And I'll play.
I mean, you won't be able to see it if you're on the podcast.
It's just a guy with a bike, walking calmly.
He doesn't react.
They silly string him in the face.
He just keeps walking, ignores them.
Someone throws an egg.
He ignores them and keeps walking.
And that's what you get.
Now, here's the thing.
Afterwards, as this guy just minds his own business, and is going up, just leaving, because, hey, people live in this city too, he gets on his bike, and they run after him, throwing things at him, and then some other guy, who is unrelated, gets knocked down, and then a fight breaks out.
So this guy on the right, these two guys are saying, come on, bring it, bring it, which they shouldn't be doing because I don't know what their involvement is.
But sure enough, it turns into Antifa attacking this lone guy and they're beating him with what looks like a monopod for a camera and jabbing him with a skateboard.
So where's the footage of the Proud Boys being violent?
Everybody said, oh, the far right better not get violent.
Yeah, they didn't.
And this is exactly what you can predict would happen.
So now we have, I don't think I have the video pulled up, but there's a video of Joe Biggs saying, we came, Trump tweeted about it, we got press attention, we're done, we're leaving.
Check this one out.
I tweeted, so now that the Proud Boys left, roving bands of Antifa go around beating people who are by themselves?
To which Andy Ngo said, yes.
And Here's the video.
No police in sight as Antifa mob descends on men.
A fight involving weapons breaking out.
Video courtesy of the Postmillennial.
And that's the guy from earlier.
There's his monopod.
And apparently they start beating him with it and breaking it.
Now there's another video that I don't have pulled up where you can see this guy.
Okay, so we have it right here.
Check it out.
This guy on the ground, who was knocked unconscious, He's wearing a shirt that says like redneck.
It's like a duct, a gaff tape, a duct tape vest that says redneck.
And this is an older lady who's like his spouse or companion.
These people apparently had nothing to do with the event.
That's the reporting I've seen from various journalists.
It was just some guy who was in Portland because, hey, people live there too.
And Antifa gave him the business and he said, screw you.
So they said, knock you out.
Pepper spray you in the face.
And now, so let's talk about the PR victory.
Let's talk about the reporting.
Are the Proud Boys done or are they just getting started?
Well, they showed up, did nothing, and took a PR victory.
Look, I've been reporting on this stuff and this is entirely predictable, it's entirely obvious, and it's what happens every single time.
Look at what happened in Boston.
These people live in a... You know what, man?
I say there's going to be some kind of civil war.
I don't know what it will look like.
I don't know if it's going to be 300 million people up in arms.
I don't know.
All I know is, we cannot continue down a path where there are people in our country who have no idea what's going on, thinking it was the Proud Boys who started the fight.
That's the rhetoric they put out all the time.
Boston.
Vashiva, an Indian Republican, with people holding signs saying, Black Lives Matter too.
And he was saying, listen, we have to, you know, I don't know his full speech, but that was kind of the gist of it.
Like, Republicans need to support Black Lives Matter, right?
Outside was around, what, I think 40,000 people protesting Nazis?
How can we as a nation exist when an Indian guy, a Republican, is trying to talk about how Republicans should support Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter 2, and I don't know what the full capacity was, but they were holding up the signs.
And people are outside screaming Nazi at the top of their lungs.
When we see article after article going, oh no, the Proud Boys are coming, and then every single time something happens, it is like clockwork.
Sure, the Proud Boys might get into a fight here or there.
There's the one incident in New York where they absolutely crossed the line, and they got in trouble for it.
But typically, we see Antifa show up, then once the right leaves, Antifa stays and fights with cops.
And I think that may have been the big strategy for the Proud Boys.
They knew they were going to create a big press moment, and their plan, in my opinion, I don't know what their plan was, but I think it was probably just to leave as quickly as possible.
They needed to get there so that Antifa would act a fool, and then leave.
I did an interview with Mike Cernovich, I think it was last year, and I asked him, or maybe it was two years ago at this point, I asked him why he was going to Berkeley.
And it was him and Milo, and he said, he just straight up said, well, you know, the plan is we come here, we just say a few words, Antifa shows up, acts a fool, and then we get press attention.
And I was like, wait.
Wait, wait, wait, you're just like, coming out and admitting it?
Like, wait, what?
And he's like, oh yeah, yeah, you know, we just show up, Antifa will go crazy, and then the press will make Antifa look bad.
And I'm like, I'm paraphrasing, I mean, it's been a while since I, the interview, but it was something to that effect.
So here's the point I'm trying to make.
The Proud Boys came, did nothing, and left.
And that's what you can expect from the Proud Boys.
They're just like Trump flag-waving conservatives, and that's about it.
Now, they'll get smeared by every name in the book, but certainly something is wrong with our media and our country.
When you have people who read articles like this, they won't tolerate violence around far-right rally.
You mean the violence around Antifa?
Look, there's a weird argument that comes from these people at the same time where they're like, Antifa's not a terrorist group because other terrorists exist.
And I'm like, dude, there can be two terrorist groups, right?
Antifa is not an organization, but I'm gonna avoid saying specific names, but there are branded cells.
They have their own merchandise, and I'm gonna avoid saying their names because I'm not trying to cause a brigade of any kind, but they exist.
They fly a flag.
They have unique flags with their unique name.
It'll say like XXX Antifa, you know, like blank name, blank city Antifa.
That's an organization.
All of Antifa is different.
Okay?
There are certainly people who are anti-fascist activists who just do food, not bumps.
But what we typically colloquially refer to are the branded cells who show up with weapons and bash out bus windows and attack people.
Yet the media is completely irresponsible.
It's mind-blowing to me that you can actually have journalists on the ground covering this, and this is what we get.
This is what we get.
You know what, man?
The media is infiltrated by lunatic, agenda-driven, far-left activists.
And they're still good journalists.
I mean, they're tweetin'.
But it's only gonna get worse.
And this is why I think something is going to happen.
You know, I've- I've- people- Stix said he dis- Stix Hacks and Hammer says he disagrees, he doesn't think so, but I'll tell you what, man.
When these two worlds are forming that make literally no sense, like, these people live in some kind of paranoid, delusional state.
Is Antifa the worst threat in existence?
Of course not.
Are they annoying?
Oh, they're annoying.
And they are dangerous.
But, for the most part, it's not the biggest problem in the world.
But it is something that needs to be pointed out, because it's ever increasing.
I pointed it out the other day.
During Occupy Wall Street, I was physically attacked by Black Bloc far-leftists.
Occupy Wall Street offered me private security.
The left-wing activists offered me security.
Today, the left-wing activists have been dominated by pro-violence rhetoric, and they no longer support the press.
You can see why it's becoming a problem.
Do I think they're worse than, say, ISIS?
Of course not!
That's ridiculous.
But the media points at a bunch of frat bro type guys who want to go have a drink and wave American flags and acts like they're the nightmare descending on Portland.
It's like, dude, Portland has bigger problems.
Antifa went around after these guys left beating people.
So, you know what?
You get the point.
PR victory for the Proud Boys in the right.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all there.
So I made a video the other day talking about how Bill Maher slammed the woke far-left and the BDS movement, and I gotta say, I really like this Bill Maher guy.
I don't agree with his calling for a recession, and the left doesn't, and the right doesn't, so I gotta say, Bill Maher's walking a thin line right now.
He routinely calls out the woke, ultra-woke far-left.
He's called the Democrats crazy and said all they had to do to beat Trump was be less crazy than him, and they're screwing that up.
Bravo, Bill Maher.
Now, there's a lot to criticize the man for.
You know, as someone who's fairly moderate, he doubled down and tripled down on calling for a recession.
Not a good idea.
But you know what?
I'll put aside my criticisms for now, because Bill Maher's in trouble.
Bill Maher's in trouble because the right doesn't like him, and the woke left doesn't like him, And although his ratings are pretty good, it looks like he's getting around 1.5 million viewers on his show, which makes me kind of happy that his show is doing well.
I have to admit, the way the political trends are going, you know, we've seen the study from the University of Missouri that says the moderates are being drowned out of the conversation.
It seems like Bill Maher's show is the last vestige of moderate Democrat policy, but it's got a big audience.
Now here's the thing.
He's been elitist.
That's why he's calling for a recession.
So he's not a populist, right?
He's on the other side.
He's in a weird position.
I'm glad someone like him is challenging the wokeness, but he's also saying, you know, as much as nobody likes Biden, Biden will win.
So Biden has his vote, man.
I vote in principle not to win.
Here's the thing.
It's getting close.
Rashida Tlaib suggests a boycott of Bill Maher's show.
Oh, Bill.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.
You wake... Look, it's one thing when you criticize these people.
They never liked you in the first place.
But you just stepped into the fray.
And I have to admit, it looks like they're worried.
They don't know if they have the power to go up against someone as big as Bill Maher.
But I think it'll happen soon.
And I got some tweets pulled up.
Verified tweets, okay?
Not some randos on Twitter, though there are randos complaining about Bill Maher.
They always do.
No, I got some verified people slamming Maher.
And I think Bill Maher may get his, his time may be coming soon.
He's got an audience.
But does that matter?
When they call him alt-right, when they call him a white supremacist, how long until they say it's, it's, it's too much?
You know, Bill Maher, I think his show, his original show, Politically Incorrect, was cancelled for, for criticizing the Iraq War, something like that.
I, you know, I was too young, I can't remember.
But it was something like that.
Well, he's no longer politically correct, of course not.
And now he is going to reap what he sows.
It's unfortunate.
You know, he had Miley and Apollos on.
He's had some, you know, Ann Coulter.
He has no problem having these conversations.
I respect that.
But at a certain point in time, he's going to get shut down.
He will.
So now, here's the thing about Rashida Tlaib.
She's calling for a boycott.
But she said, maybe folks should boycott this show.
Because she doesn't know if she can actually go up against Bill Maher and win.
That's the interesting thing.
So let's read this and see what she tweeted.
And I've got some other stories about Bill Maher.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical option.
But the best thing you can do is just share the story because YouTube is deranking independent political commentary.
And when you share, it really, really does help.
It overcomes that bump put forth by YouTube to prop up the big corporate players.
Let's read.
Maybe Foulkes should boycott his show.
I am tired of Foulkes discrediting a form of speech that is centered on equality and freedom.
This is exactly how they tried to discredit and stop the boycott to stand up against the apartheid in South Africa.
It didn't work then and it won't now.
Oh heavens.
South Africa was extremely different, okay?
It's not the same thing that's happening as Israel and Palestine.
I think it's fair to make some parallels and some comparisons and highlight similar things in history.
But as Bill Maher accurately points out, these people just get... Actually, they mention this Rick Wilson.
Says that, uh, essentially they ignore history when it becomes convenient.
So I don't know if I... Well, let's read it, actually.
As Adelai was responding to remarks by Maher during a Friday night episode of the show,
the BDS movement, which calls for a boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel, is a BDS
purity test by people who want to appear woke but actually slept through history class.
After the audience applauded his line, Mark continued, It's predicated on this notion, I think, it's very shallow thinking, that the Jews in Israel mostly white and the Palestinians are browner so they must be innocent and correct and the Jews must be wrong.
As if the occupation came right out of the blue.
That this completely peaceful people found themselves occupied.
Forget about the intifadas and the suicide bombings and the rockets and how many wars.
After reading a quote from a BDS founder, Maher argued that the movement comes from people who don't want a Jewish state at all, adding that this side doesn't get presented in media.
Rick Wilson affirmed Maher's complaint, arguing that opposition to Bush and Trump were causing many on the left to adopt an ahistorical outlook when analyzing the Arab-Israel conflict.
So there's the point I want to make.
Orange man is bad.
Therefore, they're going to be—everyone's going to immediately choose a side that's opposite to Trump.
You know, the joke is, if Trump came out for oxygen, the liberals would hold their breath.
I shouldn't say liberals.
I hate that.
That's not true.
These people are criticizing.
You know, Bill Maher and Rick Wilson—Rick Wilson, I guess, is a conservative—but they're criticizing the woke left who would hold their breath if Trump said oxygen is good.
Trump comes out and says he supports Israel, so they all start riling up and saying, oh, we should boycott Bill Maher.
Oh, how dare he?
But interesting.
They're scared to take him head on.
They have no problem saying, you know, shut down Tucker Carlson, but they're scared to go up against Bill Maher.
Why?
They know they still need the moderates.
And this is something interesting to me.
A lot of people have asked, if a moderate candidate is nominated for the Democratic primary, will the progressives get behind them?
I think the answer is no.
But this would suggest they might.
They know they need the moderates.
Now, it may be that the progressives know the moderates will get behind them.
If Bernie Sanders or, you know, Gillibrand—she won't, but if she did because she's, you know, left-identitarian—if she got the nomination, The moderates would fall in line.
The moderates are going to be like, I will take it.
It's better than Trump.
Maybe not all of them, but enough of them.
That's what they're hoping.
So I think the reason she's not going full speed ahead in targeting Bill Maher is because those are the moderate liberals they still need.
And if they go to war with Bill Maher, and they kind of already did, whether she wanted to or not, she said maybe folks should boycott this show because she didn't have the strength and the confidence to say, shut him down, like they do about Tucker Carlson.
So here's her tweet.
And, uh, I don't need to go through a tweet.
We already saw the statement in Ceylon, but I have a couple other tweets.
Emma Vigeland, she is with the Young Turks, said, Bill Maher says he's an atheist, but like Sam Harris, his
deepest animosity for religion is reserved for brown Muslims.
It's xenophobia cloak in truth-telling.
I'm ashamed to say that I used to watch him as a hero.
His show has become unwatchable.
Did you know that Bill Maher made a documentary called Religulous, where he traveled around the country challenging Christians?
Heavens, it's almost like Bill Maher is an atheist, And he's come out against religion, period.
Right now, there's a focus on Islam, and he's gonna come out all the same.
Uh, so this guy said he's right on BDS.
Someone said LOL Dems eating each other.
This guy, Adam Best, who is he?
He's, uh, the left activist and entrepreneur, fansided, not familiar with it.
He said, exactly.
Used to be a fan, and now I can't even watch him.
Back in the day, it was where I first took notice of Bernie.
But Marr seems to have regressed quite a bit.
He sounds way more like the intellectual dark web clowns than the Marr of 15 or 20 years
ago.
I don't think you watched Bill Marr 15 or 20 years ago, because Bill Marr hasn't changed.
So there's a couple other tweets.
I'm not going to dig through all this.
I've got one more here.
It's much more simple.
I don't know who this person is, but again, it's a verified user saying, F. Bill Maher and his white supremacy.
Yes, Bill Maher, famed white supremacist.
Exactly.
Although he spent most of his career ragging on conservative religious folk, they just don't like it when he challenges their religion of choice, which is Islam.
It's a really confusing space, isn't it?
I have no problem with Sam Harris or Bill Maher ragging on any religion.
It's consistent.
They don't like religion.
And here's the thing.
I'm fairly anti-theistic myself.
Here's the difference, right?
In between the ideologies of the non-theistic religion of the left, the intersectionality, versus Jewish, Orthodoxy, or Christian, there are certainly people who want to push their religion on others.
They've kind of waned in recent time.
Ben Shapiro, one of the most famous, if not the most famous, Orthodox Jewish commentator said, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, I'm going to make choices for myself.
But he will vote and act on those decisions.
That's very different from showing up and shutting down your events and yelling at you.
Quite the opposite.
Ben Shapiro is on the side of free speech.
For whatever reason, whether you like him or not, that's not the point.
The point is The woke left is the new religion, okay?
And they're authoritarian.
I don't care if you believe in a giant clown in the sky who does, you know, who spins spirals around in the universe shooting clown love.
Whatever your religion is, I really don't care what you believe.
If you believe it was the miracle birth of a carpenter child who died for our sins, if you believe the stories of, like, you know, Abrahamic religions in general, Judaism, or Islam, don't care.
If you're a Buddhist, don't care.
You have your own internal worldview, you have your beliefs, you have your faith, Just don't be an authoritarian.
And that's the issue right now.
They kind of are.
Now, if Bill Maher and Sam Harris don't like religion, don't be surprised when they call out Islam.
Oh, but what did she say?
Brown Muslims.
Bill Maher was right.
BDS was about some misguided belief that because the Jews are mostly white and the Palestinians are browner, they must be innocent and correct.
And there it is!
Bill Maher?
Look, it's one person tweeting, but it shows kind of what Bill Maher is saying.
The woke left is acting like the Palestinians are innocent simply because they're brown.
Not all of them, but some of them.
And yes, like Rick Wilson and Bill Maher said, they're adopting an ahistorical view of the conflict.
And that's what it is.
I don't know the answer.
I don't know what to do.
But I can say this.
Bill Maher, days are coming for you, okay?
So, here's a story from The Nation.
Rooting for a recession is dangerous, especially under Trump.
This is, once again, the left calling out Bill Maher.
Unless Democrats offer real alternatives, an economic downturn will only lead to more misery and social strife.
But I agree with them.
I completely agree with this criticism.
This is just another kind of light story to show that Bill Maher is getting dangerously close to the edge.
Wokeness is expanding.
The squad, they have millions of followers.
And they're getting very little support from their own districts, but they have national support.
And it's because wokeness isn't centralized.
It's not regional.
It's not part of a district.
It's just spreading all over the country, mostly due to the internet.
It's actually happening in Canada and the UK and parts of Europe.
So I think I have this here.
Real time with Bill Maher was one of the highest 18 to 49 ratings.
This is huge.
In the ratings, I don't exactly know how the ratings system works.
We can see a .3, whereas Tucker Carlson got a .2.
I think this is specifically referring to the key demo.
So, it looks like Bill Maher is doing better in the key demo than Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson.
Total viewership, however, is much lower.
It's 1.5 million, where Tucker is 2.7 and Maddow is 2.4.
But I think Bill Maher is winning in the key demo.
I think that's what we're seeing right here.
I think that's 300,000.
I could be wrong.
The point is, that's the good news.
I like that.
I like that Bill Maher still has people 18 to 49 who watch his show and hear him calling out the wokeness.
He's a bit of an elitist, that's for sure.
But how much time does he have?
Because they've come for Tucker Carlson, right?
They try to get him shut down.
Rachel Maddow, no one really cares about her.
She's like Alex Jones as far as I'm concerned, talking about Russia all day and night.
She's lost it.
But is this the beginning?
I don't know.
But they have tried to go after Bill Maher and now we're seeing them dip their toes in the pool to see how cold it really is.
Maybe Fawkes should boycott his show.
Ah, just a maybe.
Just a maybe.
Let's see, I don't know.
I don't know if people are actually— Here we go.
Here's another.
Torian Walker, Bill Maher has been trash for a very long time.
I hate his idiotic racist show.
Maher is an all-around racist.
He continued to utter racist stereotypes following his use of the n-word after he was confronted
by O'Shea Jackson on his show.
Maher's show should have been cancelled a long time ago.
Dems shouldn't appear as guests on his show either.
If the woke left keeps growing, Bill Maher will face the chopping block.
But, moderates and the far left are split right now, with the moderates in the advantage, okay?
55- I think it's like 54- 55 or 54 percent of Democrats want more moderate policy, and 44 want more progressive, and the rest don't really know for sure.
But that means, Bill Maher is in the majority for now.
As soon as the woke left takes the majority of the Democratic Party, or the majority of the Democratic Party joins the woke identitarianism, Bill Maher's out.
His base will start shrinking, and once they feel they're strong enough, they won't say maybe, they will say, shut him down.
They will call him a white supremacist.
They're getting close to doing it.
They're getting close.
We need Bill Maher.
He's one of the last sane, rational liberals for all of his faults.
For all of his Trump derangement syndrome, calling for the recession, yes, but at least he's calling out wokeness.
At the very least.
So I can criticize him for some policy stuff, but there's a lot of things he gets right.
And as the saying goes, you know, the eagle needs two strong wings to fly, and right now the left is fractured.
With the wokeness, hating people like Bill Maher, and the moderates actually watching a lot of Bill Maher.
Interestingly, I wonder how much of an overlap there is between my audience and Bill Maher's.
I will also say, I think I'm doing way better in the key demo than Maher is for TV, but I'm pretty sure Bill Maher gets, I don't know if he's on YouTube or whatever, on YouTube he's probably getting way more than I am, but I think I get like 800k in the key demo.
And that says something.
I'm not trying to brag, I'm just trying to point out that whatever's happening on TV, There's something different happening on the internet.
So, I'll leave it there.
You know, take it for what it is.
I don't know how much time Bill Maher has left.
I mean that, you know?
I like the guy.
I think he's deserving of criticism, but I say the same thing about conservatives, you know?
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
The Epstein conspiracy grows!
What is going on?
Now, the medical examiner has said it is a suicide.
And Epstein's people have said, no way we're going to release a statement.
The mainstream media, like the New York Times, they're saying, everybody calm down.
It's just a coincidence.
Everything's a coincidence.
It's just a case of an incompetent facility, and it was a suicide.
Take a look at this story.
The tantalizing mystery of Ghislaine Maxwell's burger bar makeover as conspiracy theorists ask why she took off her glasses while reading a book and had two drinks next to her.
Here's the thing.
When I first saw this story, I said, oh please, who cares?
So there's two photos of her.
And then I started reading through it, and it looks like one of the photos may have been photoshopped and taken with a long lens.
This is all very weird, and I can't really explain it.
So I thought it'd be fun to read this.
It's from the Daily Mail.
It's not, I mean, the Daily Mail's not like the Wall Street Journal, but they're not some fake news trash site.
I mean, they're clickbaity, they're tabloidy, but that's not wrong.
It's not fake news.
In fact, they're rated green by NewsGuard, and NewsGuard's only real complaint is that they're not particularly responsible of how they present information.
Whatever that really means, the Daily Mail has its faults, but this is interesting.
So let's do this.
They say, there are discrepancies in the images of Maxwell at the Hollywood Burger Bar.
She is pictured in front of a Good Boys poster that was allegedly photoshopped.
Also, the diner who chanced upon Maxwell appeared to use a pro camera.
It's all very strange.
So let's read the conspiracy theory.
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 the best thing you can do, share this video.
We're talking about Epstein.
They're gonna derank this thing to oblivion.
If you like the content by sharing it, we overcome that hurdle, so I really do need your support in that regard.
If you hate my content, I'm confused as to why you're even watching, but hey, thanks for being here.
Why don't you leave a comment and tell me why you hate me?
But let's read.
They are the photographs that raise more questions than the answer.
When Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, an alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, was snapped for the first time in three years last week, it was claimed a fellow diner had chanced upon her at a Los Angeles burger bar.
Now, I thought that was weird when I heard that because I don't know who this woman is.
I mean, the people who are tracking the Epstein case do, but most people, no.
It's not like anybody's gonna walk by and say, hey, you're that lady who worked with Epstein.
But I'll tell you this, Most people don't recognize celebrities at all.
For real.
There's a... I don't know if you know who that Billy Eichner guy is.
I think his name is.
He's the Billy on the street.
He did one where he runs around with Chris Pratt and half the people are like, I don't know who that is.
And then he's like, you know, when he tells them like, oh yeah, of course.
So how would they recognize her?
A Z-lister?
Like she's a prominent socialite, but...
Famous?
Let's read.
They say.
But like everything connected with this extraordinary case, conspiracy theorists have leapt on apparent discrepancies in the images of the 57-year-old eating at In-N-Out Burger in Hollywood.
Why, for example, does Ms.
Maxwell remove her reading glasses before posing with an open book?
So here's the first photo, and there's two cups, and the In-N-Out food, her purse, and she's looking at the camera.
This seems kind of candid, until you hear there's an advertising agency saying this ad's fake?
Is this a fake photograph?
Did they photoshop her into both of these?
I don't know.
That's certainly what some people are saying, I guess.
If they're fake photos.
They say, Jeffrey Epstein's former right-hand woman tucked into a burger and fries at a fast food joint in LA.
Now look at this photo.
I thought this was weird immediately, because when I first saw the photos emerge, I was like, she looks really nice in this photo right here, right?
Where's her purse?
She's reading a book, but there's two photos.
I don't understand.
Did two different people take photos?
Like, she took her glasses off, opened up a book, and then she looks a lot nicer.
I have no idea.
I kind of dismissed it.
You know, when I first saw that, I was like, I don't care.
Here's where it gets interesting.
They say, and if she had been dining alone, as is claimed, why are there two drinking cups on the table and two mobile phones?
That's a good point.
It seems like maybe she was having food with someone who knew her and took the photo on purpose.
But why?
Let's read on.
The mystery deepened last night when an advertising agency claimed a poster on the bus shelter behind Ms.
Maxwell had been photoshopped in.
The socialite is seen in front of a poster for Good Boys, a film that opened in the U.S.
on Friday.
But when the Mail on Sunday visited the area on Friday, the bus stop was displaying an advert for a local hospital.
Advertising agency Outfront Media, which I think you can see right here, it's blurry, said the hospital ad had been there since July 28th, with Ms.
Maxwell said to have been photographed on August 12th.
Spokeswoman Carly Zipp said, we think the poster in the Maxwell picture was photoshopped in.
unidentified
What?
tim pool
What is happening?
Is the Daily Mail making this up?
Is this fake news?
This story seems crazy.
Now think about this.
My first thought, my first reaction was, maybe the photo was taken a while ago, before the 28th, and was only just released today, like it was planned.
Because, you know, maybe people are trying to confuse us, and so that may be the case, but, the agency would have said, the Good Boys ad, which opened on Friday, was there at this point, right?
They would say, they would, no, the spokesman said, we think the photo, the poster was photoshopped in, but then, Why?
Why would someone add this poster?
It makes literally no sense.
If it was an advertisement for a hospital, then what would it matter?
Who cares?
Why change an advertisement in the background?
Unless it's possible the ad agency is just wrong.
But when the mail went there, the ad wasn't there.
So what is happening?
It seems to make no sense.
I love stories like this because it literally makes no sense.
I can draw no conclusions.
I can tell you nothing other than what?
But that's kind of a good thing, because I'll say this.
A lot of people want to act like mystery solved, everybody go home.
Well, what this does say is that the mystery is not solved.
In fact, the mystery is getting a bit crazier.
Now, they do have some theories.
They say...
Uh, you know, there's the photo.
The socialite is seen in front of a poster for Good Boys, a film that opened in the U.S.
on Friday, but when the male visited, it was a hospital.
We checked, and we have no evidence or record of Good Boys ever being there.
That's what the spokeswoman said.
Meanwhile, the regular diner who took the pictures appears to have done so with a sophisticated camera and long lens, offering greater depth of focus than any smartphone.
Which could just be the average person having a DSLR.
I know a lot of people who have point-and-shoot cameras.
They say, others quest... But I guess the narrative was, it was someone who happened to see her, so that would... It's possible somebody was walking by the camera and said, oh hey, I know who you are, which is weird, because who knows who she is?
Others question why Ms.
Maxwell, who appears to have restyled her hair between snaps, spent long enough at the burger bar for the customers behind her to change twice, yet her food remains untouched and she never puts a straw in either drink.
One suggestion is the pictures were staged to throw people off her scent.
A legal source said, quote, the FBI want to talk to her and a lot of lawyers are trying to find her.
Perhaps this whole photo at the burger joint is a setup.
Let's look at this real quick.
The people behind her have changed.
There's what looks like a middle-aged woman and a middle-aged guy.
He appears to be looking at the camera.
He's got a purple shirt on.
And it looks like the same woman.
And it looks like the guy here is... So, based on the photos, it doesn't look like...
Interesting.
unidentified
I don't know.
tim pool
This is kind of weird.
They did change.
This woman seems to be the same woman, but this guy maybe went to the bathroom.
I think that's a silly argument, actually.
We're looking at it.
There's a guy.
There's two guys missing.
That's about it, but the same woman.
And they say that she kind of restyled her hair.
I don't know about so much.
It may just be that she said, oh, I look dreadful, and she took her glasses off and did her hair and said, take a picture of me now.
It could have been that simple.
It could be that she's somewhat famous, knew something like this was gonna happen, and just said when the guy took her photo, like, no, no, no, no.
I mean, look how awful she looks right here, right?
I'm not trying to be a dick, okay?
I mean, she's presumably a bad person, maybe innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not trying to rag on someone's appearance.
She's an older lady, doesn't look that good.
Now, this photo...
She looks pretty good, right?
Like, I mean, just like, she's exiled nice, she's kind of, she's not as frumpy.
It may just have been that somebody had a camera, saw her, took the picture.
Now what I can't explain is the good boys thing.
That is weird.
But maybe it's just, like, I really don't like playing conspiracy games.
Maybe it was, I'll say this, the simple solution in my opinion, is that someone walked by and snapped this candid photo of
her.
And she said something like, oh please, I look dreadful,
which is a common thing I've heard people say.
And then she took her glasses off and like, brushed her hair a little bit and then opened her book and
leaned forward, knowing they were gonna try and publish this photo and she
wanted to look good for it.
That doesn't seem...
absurd.
There are stories I know of, like, some celebrities who, like, people will try and take photos of them, they'll panic, and they'll, like, go to the bathroom and snip nose hairs, and be like, okay, okay, okay.
So, maybe she's just extremely pretentious.
But I can't explain the good boys thing.
It could just be that the agency was wrong.
Like, let's be real.
However, I want to wrap up on this thought.
This is from, uh, what is this, what is this website?
Hip-Hop News or something?
A hot new hip-hop.
Which is, certified by NewsGuard, better than the Daily Mail.
So don't rag on Hot News Hip Hop.
They say, Epstein's reps not ruling out cover-up murder plot.
What?
Is this where we are?
This is nuts.
I don't know what to say.
Okay.
But they say that Epstein's reps have grown frustrated with the lack of cooperation at the Manhattan Metropolitan Correctional Center and the medical examiner's unwillingness to fork over pertinent information or material evidence.
Evidently, Epstein's people are missing the resources they would need to conduct their own investigation.
Besides the three stress fractures, Epstein's reps are suspicious of two fractures on either side of his thyroid and another sign of struggle close to his Adam's apple.
In their opinion, these fractures are consistent with the kind of pressure one would apply in a stranglehold.
Not to mention, they find incredulous to believe Epstein could have hung himself with the presence of two guards looming over his shoulder.
To be quite frank, they aren't alone in their beliefs.
I think it was Chris Reagan.
He tweeted out something where he was like, I got in an Uber, and the first thing the driver says is, yo, they killed that guy in that jail.
And it's a hilarious tweet.
I think it was a tweet.
But he was like, finally, we have unity in this country, or something like that.
And it's like, dude, I feel you, man.
I know people who are like, dude, that guy was killed.
And I'm like, yeah, I know.
Like, we don't know what happened, but look, if his reps are saying this, we're not in, like, fantasy land.
We are in the realm of real possibility here.
This is reality, okay?
We're not talking about moon cheese.
We're not talking about, you know, aliens.
We're talking literally about a powerful guy who's gonna bring down powerful people with broken bones in his neck.
I think it's fair to ask questions, especially when you get weird stories like this.
Anyway, stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I feel like this is kind of a silly subject, but let's be real.
This narrative is persistent.
It won't stop.
I kid you not.
Okay, let me be totally real with you guys.
I'm chillin' here.
I pop up OK Cupid, checkin' out some fly honeys, right?
And I see all these beautiful ladies, and I'm like, let's go through their questions and figure out if our personalities mesh.
And they all believe in the wage gap.
Okay, let's be a bit real-er.
I don't really call women fly honeys.
I'm kind of joking.
But no, I really was.
I'm okay, Cupid.
Now I'm just kind of like browsing, you know, sitting here in my, you know, just kind of killing time for a few minutes.
And I really did notice that, like, all of these women believe the wage gap is a real thing.
It's just not, right?
But I want to make sure I clarify in the instance that there's going to be someone who's like, who really believes it, who may be watching.
There is a disparity in the amount of pay between men and women.
But it is not believed to be due to discrimination.
It's due to national average behavioral patterns between males and females that are different.
And typically it's due to the fact it is believed that men are more likely to demand or negotiate.
So an anecdotal example is There's one story where they said, they found like a school wasn't hiring high-level females in the administration.
And when they asked the administrator why, he said, none of them asked for the high-level jobs.
So what happens is, you have guys who are arrogant, who are overconfident, or just confident in general, and they'll go to someone and say, I want to be the boss.
And they'll say, you have no experience to be the boss.
I don't care, I want to be the boss.
And then eventually asking, you get what you ask for, right?
So this is one thing I gave, the advice I give to everybody is you get what you ask
for.
Right?
What that means is sometimes they'll say no.
But if you ask someone for $10, if they consider, they'll give you $10.
So I used to work in fundraising and we would always say this, ask for a million dollars,
okay?
And then the person laughs and then you pull it all the way back down to $100 and they'll
say 100 is way too much, say how about a 20.
So when you're doing fundraising, you get what you ask for, right?
I would go out and I would see somebody and I would say, hey, you know, I used to do canvassing.
I was a director for some non-profits and I'd say, we're fundraising for, you know, X, Y, and Z. And then they would say, so what are you looking for?
And I'd say, I want you to sign the check for a thousand bucks.
And they would be like, what?
And I'd be like, I'm just kidding, I'm just kidding.
We're not, we're looking for about a hundred dollars.
And they'd say, well, I can't do a hundred, but I can do, you know, a twenty.
I'm like, you got it.
The biggest mistake was that new people Would ask for five bucks, or a dollar.
Well, you're gonna get what you ask for.
And the problem is, once you ask, you can't ask again.
So there'd be some people being like, uh, um, a dollar, and they'd say, sure.
And you'd say, well, would you do two dollars?
And they'll be like, no, you get a dollar, bye.
You get what you ask for.
So this is the thing, here's the story.
I kinda dragged out, I don't know, I just wanna say that, right?
Talks break down between U.S.
Women's National Team, I don't, I think that's what it means, U.S.
WNT, and U.S.
Soccer over Equal Pay.
They say mediation talks between U.S.
soccer and the United States women's soccer team over a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the players earlier this year have broken down, according to a spokesperson for the players.
I think I know why.
Both parties had agreed to meet in New York this week, but statements issued Wednesday indicate that they are far apart, and with no further talks scheduled, the case could result in a showdown in federal court.
Now, I think I know why.
Before I jump into this, go to TimCast.com slash... See, I gotcha.
So you can support my work, PayPal, crypto, physical address or options, but of course the best thing you can do is just share this video.
You were getting so close, the suspense was building up, but don't worry, I'm not going to keep you hanging.
Sharing this video helps me get around the demonetization and the deranking, but let's get back to the news.
The Daily Caller reported, U.S.
Soccer Federation President says the women's national team has lost $27.5 million since 2009.
unidentified
Oh.
tim pool
You mean they're losing money?
Listen, I don't care if you're male, female, black, white, Mexican, Muslim, Buddhist.
Those things don't matter to me.
What matters to me is function, right?
You know what I'm saying?
So, if you run a business and you are in the hole, We can't pay you more money if there isn't more money to pay.
It seems like even with this data, or at least he says it's true, I'm not saying it is, there's been counter arguments, counter stats, but we have at least one instance where a couple weeks ago the guy said they've lost nearly thirty million dollars.
They get a higher percentage of pay relative to the game and they're still losing money.
So how can there be talks to increase your pay When you're losing money.
Now let's assume they're not losing money.
Let's assume this guy's wrong.
You're still, the women team still get a higher percentage of pay and a guarantee that men don't.
And this is what's crazy to me.
They're different businesses.
It doesn't make sense.
Like the way I put it last time is If I had a Starbucks, or I don't want to say any proper, let's just say Tim's Coffee, and across the street is John's Coffee, how does it make sense that the staff over at John's Coffee demand higher pay because my business is paying more to my staff?
They're different companies.
Now, let's say there's two stores.
Let's say I have two locations, and the one location a couple miles away says they get paid a dollar an hour more than we do.
Well, it's actually quite simple, I'll tell you.
That location is downtown.
A higher cost of living, I have to pay my staff more, and it makes more money.
You're in the burbs.
You make less money.
It's a lower cost of living.
Now admittedly, I don't want to use the cost of living arg- I should say the- I shouldn't say admittedly, but the cost of living argument isn't fair when we're talking about gender.
The point I'm trying to make is, it's a different business with a different fan base.
And, according to this one guy, it makes less money.
The problem is, it's not so simple as just point the finger and say, women should get the same deal as men.
If a guy gets paid 100 grand, it doesn't make sense to just give them 100 grand if we're not talking about the same business.
So here's the point.
Although they're under the same federation or whatever, what is it, US soccer?
It is not the same product.
It's not the same business.
They're not selling the same thing, okay?
People want to watch men play.
It would be kind of like saying, how come the store that sells chocolate ice cream makes more money than us, who sells vanilla ice cream?
Well, because they're different things.
They're both ice cream, but they're different, you see?
And some people might like one more than the other.
Vanilla might be a little boring to a lot of people.
I don't know.
Some people like... I actually like vanilla more, to be honest.
Let's read.
We ended this week's mediation with representatives of U.S.S.F.
full of hope, the player's spokesperson Molly Levinson said in a statement to CNN Sport.
Today we must conclude these meetings sorely disappointed in the Federation's determination to perpetuate fundamentally discriminatory workplace conditions and behavior.
It is clear that U.S.S.F., including its Board of Directors and President Carlos Cordero, fully intend to continue to compensate women players less than men.
They will not succeed.
We want all of our fans, sponsors, peers around the world and women everywhere to know we are undaunted and will eagerly look forward to a jury trial.
I do too.
But here's what I would offer.
I would say, here's what I will do.
For the men's and women's team, we will guarantee X percentage of proceeds per game.
How does that sound?
You know what the problem is?
That would reduce the pay of women.
It would make them get paid even less.
When you actually pay them fairly, a percentage of earnings, The women will make less.
Why?
Because the women get a higher percentage.
Now, I will stress this point too.
If you're a larger organization with subsets, I do think it is not out of the question for women to say, you have a marketing problem.
That's fair.
If the men and women are both producing the same amount of, so let's go beyond the argument about how much money a business receives.
If I had a business in downtown called Tim's Coffee, and one of the suburbs called Tim's Coffee, And they were doing the same work.
You know, the best female players are doing the same work as the best male players.
It's just that the best male players are, you know, they're men.
They're taller, they have more muscle mass.
That's not the point.
The amount of work is relatively similar.
If I then said, I'm only going to advertise and promote downtown because it's more successful, I think that's where we start getting into unfair territory.
And if my employees on the burbs came and said, you're not even investing in growing this business, so we're getting paid less.
However, the reaction shouldn't be, then, pay us more.
It should be, promote our business so we make more money and give us a cut.
You see where this goes?
The argument shouldn't be, the women should get more money.
The argument should be, they should get more marketing support.
I believe, if the best solution would be, take a percentage of their marketing, whatever they normally do, and promote the women's more to generate more business.
That's a fair argument.
Now, in the end, the business can do whatever it wants.
If soccer says, we don't care because no one cares anyway, well then, there you go.
And perhaps the solution is for them to form a new organization.
Look, if U.S.
women's soccer stopped playing, that'd be a big problem, right?
And that's why I think collective bargaining can be great.
You don't need a formal union in laws.
You could just literally say, we're not going to play.
We're not going to play.
And then what's going to happen?
They have no choice.
They have no choice but to invest and help promote the business.
If they came out and said, we want more money or else, we won't play.
Well, then they'll just say, okay, well, the money doesn't exist.
You can't have it, right?
We can't pay you money that's not there.
They've already lost, according to at least one source, $30 million.
So they can't pay them more.
What they can do is invest from other areas to make the business work.
I'm not saying they have to.
I'm saying that is the better argument from the U.S. women's team is how can you better
promote our company?
In fact, Megan Rapinoe, I think I'm getting her name right, said the best thing you can
do is support us and buy our products and they're getting a ton of press for this.
That might actually be what they need to increase revenues and it might make everybody happy in the end.
So here's the thing.
All this press attention may actually be the solution.
If this rallying cry generates more ticket sales, there will be more money to pay them.
And hopefully they get out of the red, because for now, at least according to this source, which could be wrong, they're in the red.
You need to be in the black.
You need a surplus to pay.
Right now it seems like they are investing in women's soccer, hoping it will someday become valuable, because I think it's fair to point out, I could be wrong about this, but women's tennis?
Ridiculously valuable.
Right?
I actually know the guy.
I haven't talked to him in, like, a decade.
But I knew that I once briefly worked with a guy who helped start and promote, like, women's... I don't know to what capacity, but he made women's tennis really, really big.
He did, like, some marketing play.
He also worked in skateboarding.
That's how I know him.
He got... Along with many of the female athletes, I don't know to what extent he... I don't want to give credit to people who don't deserve it, but I know he was involved in getting female skateboarders equal pay at the X Games.
So I do think there's an argument to be made, and the same problem happened there, where the women's events don't make as much money.
Less people want to watch because the skill gap is... Look, I can't tell you about the skill gap in soccer, but I can tell you in skateboarding, where I have, like, decades of experience, the skill gap between the world's best females and the world's best males is... it's like...
I don't know how to explain it, but it's night and day.
It is night and day.
And I mean no disrespect, a good friend of mine is a famous female pro skateboarder.
I have several friends who are top-level females.
But I'm not trying to be dismissive or a dick, but the reality is...
The best female skaters in the world are about as good as maybe, like, a 12 or 13 year old male skater.
Don't ask me why.
I'm not saying it's absolute.
There are certainly some female skaters who are, like, around, like, you know, average male skill levels, for sure.
But the skill level, you watch the X Games, and you will see the male skaters, and you will be like, wow.
A 12 year old did a 900 on a mega ramp, 30 feet in the air.
You don't see that at all.
I don't even know if they have women's vert anymore.
I think they actually got rid of women's avert skating.
So that's where there's the half pipe and you go up and down.
The men are doing like back-to-back 540s, 900s, crazy flips.
And the women were doing like basic just up like airs just like going up and coming down.
And I think they actually got rid of it because it just was not generating money.
So here's the thing.
I think in skateboarding, it's of all sports, women absolutely could perform at or near male levels.
I completely think so.
The sport is very much an art form.
It's about doing tricks.
Not always ridiculous feats of strength and agility.
Sometimes it's about conviction and confidence, and I think women have a much better opportunity, but for whatever reason, it's not there.
So I'll leave it there.
I try to keep these segments short.
But look, if you want to quantify the gap between pro men and pro women, it might be hard.
If I watched a soccer game of men, I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference if I watched a soccer game for women.
I wouldn't be able to check technique or anything like that.
But go watch X Games Men's Street and watch X Games Women's Street.
And I mean this in no... I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the female skaters.
I think they're rad.
I know many of them.
They're cool people.
They're super nice and they're super deserving.
But you can see the difference.
A female will do a kickflip, basic flip trick down a ramp.
A guy will do a switch 540 big flip.
Which probably means nothing to you, but is so glaringly crazier.
Like, and harder.
It's just the skill gap is insane in skateboarding.
Anyway, enough controversy.
I'm gonna get in trouble for all that.
Anyway, whatever.
Stick around.
I got... I won't hold anything back.
You know I don't.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all then.
I don't quite understand how they persist in this narrative, but they do, talking about how the far right is so incredibly violent when video after video after video shows the Proud Boys milling about, singing songs and waving flags, and Antifa beating random people.
This morning I made a video and I thought it'd be good to put a little bow on it, tie off today's segment talking about Antifa and the news.
So here's the thing.
Vox calling out Trump.
Says, you know, effectively that he's not challenging the alt-right.
Well, there was no alt-right in Portland.
Because apparently you didn't do a Google search.
The Proud Boys denounced the alt-right.
And while you can criticize them for having some people who are affiliated or who... So at a certain point, the Proud Boys did have alt-right people.
They denounced it.
They complained about it.
You can't call the people who denounced the alt-right alt-right.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense.
They purged these people, criticized them heavily, and the Proud Boys can be criticized, for sure.
Just make sure you're in the realm of reality.
And it makes no sense when Vox says the Proud Boys are alt-right.
No, the leader of the Proud Boys is actually not white.
So that doesn't make sense, does it?
But they try to play up this narrative, right?
So Vox is doing this.
Trump did not address members of the alt-right gathering for a Portland rally, but did say he's considering designating Antifa an organization of terror.
Now, let me stress, that means nothing.
Trump can't... Okay, Trump can say, I hereby designate Antifa whatever he wants.
There's no formal way to do this.
There are no domestic terrorist organizations.
That's not how it works.
But I will stress, They have already been labeled as domestic terrorists by numerous agencies.
This argument is a waste of time.
It was the FBI, it was the DHS.
They put out statements where they referred to them as domestic terrorists.
We're done!
Congratulations!
There's no formal labeling process.
We don't have official hate groups or terrorist groups.
Foreign groups, yes.
So here's the thing.
I love how they're acting like Trump won't address the alt-right, and this was yesterday at 5pm, after we already saw all the videos of Antifa beating regular people.
Here's the best part.
Willamette Week, which once smeared me, says, Proud Boys wander lost through Portland as police allow wild goose chase by anti-fascists.
Police strategy allowed the group's broad leeway to move along streets and sidewalks so long as they remained far apart from each other.
Now listen.
Trump calls out Antifa.
Why?
Well, because Antifa has beaten people in the streets.
Like Andy Ngo.
He got beat, everybody saw.
Andy Ngo, you don't have to like the guy, but he writes for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, okay?
We're not talking about Infowars, we're talking about a gay child of Vietnamese immigrants who was beaten by Antifa.
So Trump sees it, he calls it out.
Why?
It's a real concern to conservatives who want to walk around with their little American flags.
Look, you go to Walmart, you can pick up an American flag and walk around the streets, and then people show up to beat you?
Listen.
The Proud Boys came, smiled for the cameras, and left.
They know what they're doing.
And then all of a sudden we hear this narrative that, why won't Trump call it the far right?
Because the far right did nothing!
Check this out.
In this story, they actually bring it up.
They say, uh, let me just read through this because I don't want to just try and just dig and find it.
Police made 13 arrests, and the few moments of violence arrived mainly as the right-wing groups attempted to leave downtown in two small buses.
Anti-fascists were seen on videos throwing rocks and using a hammer to shatter the bus windows.
Later, police clashed with frustrated leftists, arresting several and tackling at least one woman to the ground, drawing an angry crowd for a tent standoff near the Portland outdoor store.
Those moments will add to the highlight reel of right-wing groups who seek to portray Portland as a hotbed for leftist violence.
But none of the mayhem feared in recent weeks occurred.
A major triumph for Mayor Ted Wheeler and the Portland Police Bureau, who have been the subject of intense national scrutiny from right-wing media.
Yet, the visiting Proud Boys declared the day a victory, saying they had achieved their aim of draining Portland's law enforcement resources.
They pledged to return once a month until Wheeler excises the alt-left groups from the city.
I'd like to point out Willamette Weekly is biased.
But yes, the Proud Boys declared victory.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
They didn't do anything!
They showed up and waved American flags.
Look, it's literally what they do.
And I tell people all the time, if the Proud Boys are coming to your town, Just don't look.
You ever see that Simpsons episode where the advertisements come to life?
And they're like, just don't look.
Yes, the advertisements won't survive if no one pays attention to them.
And the same is true for any one of these right-wing groups.
But you know what?
They're allowed to march.
They are.
And so let them march.
We're good.
Okay, I'm sure there are people on both sides who are aching for that fight.
There are right-wing individuals who are like, ooh, I'd love to see that fight.
I want to go down there and fight.
The core of what's happening is people demanding their right to march wherever they damn well please.
And you know what?
Both... Everybody would be a lot happier, not Antifa, but the regular people and the right-wing people marching, if they got to just march and wave their little flags!
And then it's like, aha!
Congratulations!
The First Amendment.
There we go.
Instead, Antifa wants to, they live in this delusional state where they think it's like we're in occupied Nazi Germany and they're fighting under, I'm sorry, occupied France, not Germany, and they think they're la resistance, and they're like, oh, we must defeat the Nazis, and like, dude, no, like, these old dudes walking around with little flags they got from Walmart are not Nazis.
Sorry, you live in a paranoid, delusional state, and they do.
There's one really epic video where this, like, this black dude comes up...
So there's an Antifa guy.
He snatches someone's MAGA hat and he grabs it and refuses to let go.
And the Antifa guy is yelling, I'm like, let go!
Let go!
And this guy's like, why, brother?
Calm down.
Calm down, brother.
We don't need it.
At what cost?
You're not fighting hate.
You need to calm down.
And I'm like, bravo, man.
Bravo.
I was scared they were going to beat that guy up.
Because they beat up a lot of guys.
And this guy who was doing this, holding the hat, refusing to let go, he's saying, it's not your hat.
You've got to give it up.
He had earrings.
And I'm like, damn, dude.
Someone's going to yank those earrings, man.
They're going to hurt this guy.
I was scared for him.
Well, they didn't.
Good.
Probably because, you know, these groups are, like, very weirdly racist.
Let's read a little bit more.
Let's read, because I want to make sure I highlight the point about how they said Proud Boys declared victory, there was no real violence.
A lot of people were scared.
They were thinking it's going to be like Charlottesville 2.0.
But instead, the right-wing side didn't come with the militias and with weapons, and nothing happened.
That grand rhetoric contrasts with what their day actually looked like.
Wandering lost and anxious through unfamiliar streets while warning each other Antifa was coming.
After retreating east across the Hawthorne Bridge, many of the Proud Boys and their supporters got in their vehicles and drove away for a barbecue.
That's exactly what I've been saying!
Please!
Okay, months ago, a year ago, okay, Sean King is going, these Proud Boys coming to our town.
I kid you not, he's like laying in his bed with his face like this, and he's like got the camera all twisted, and he's like, Proud Boys.
unidentified
KKK.
tim pool
Coming to our town.
Disgusting.
I'm like, dude, calm down.
The real story, it was like three guys who were at a bar somewhere, and then a bunch of people marched to this bar, and it turns out they weren't even Proud Boys.
And the point I've always made is like, dude, If the Proud Boys are coming, and you ignore them, they'll stand there with their little American flags, or big ones.
They'll go to a bar, have some beers, and go, America!
unidentified
Woo!
tim pool
And high-five.
And they'll leave.
I don't see what the problem is.
But I think when you live in this delusional reality, they're panicked.
They're terrified.
You know, regular people don't know what's going on, and they don't watch the news.
So when they're told by some random person something's happening, they just believe it.
They just believe it.
And when these Antifa people who truly live in this paranoid, delusional state tell them that neo-Nazis are coming to march in their town, regular people are like, I don't want to have anything to do with this.
But if they just paid attention for five minutes, they'd be like, wait, you mean those, those, like, I don't know, Trump hat flag guys who went to the barbecue?
Nothing happened.
Literally nothing happened.
I'll tell you what the problem is.
Now, fortunately, Willamette Week is forced to admit nothing happened.
They wandered around lost and anxious and then went to a barbecue.
I don't know if they were lost.
That's a bit of an editorialization.
But then you have Vox being like, why won't Trump call out the right?
President Trump issued a stark warning to Antifa, the collective of militant anti-fascist leftist groups, ahead of a rally on Saturday in Portland, Oregon, where Antifa activists were widely expected to confront far-right activists.
Notably, the president did not warn or criticize the controversial right-wing group organizing that rally that Antifa was planning to protest against, organizers Joe Biggs and Enrique Tarrio, who did not receive a permit for that rally.
I love that clarification.
Thank you.
I forgot that the Constitution doesn't exist.
You know what they used to say during the marches at Occupy?
I don't know what the chant was, but it was like, we have a permit.
It's called the First Amendment.
And everyone on the left was like, here, here, we agree.
Who didn't get a permit for the rally?
You don't need a permit!
For a bunch of people to show up and walk around, you don't need a permit.
Now, you can get one, right?
If you want to have a designated space, if you want, like, police protection.
But when people on the right say, when anyone says, everybody meet here, you don't need a permit.
Nothing you can do about it.
Now, police can declare it unlawful.
There's a lot of questions, but they can be sued.
It is a constitutional challenge.
So, thank you, Vox, for reminding us that people aren't allowed to assemble, apparently, much in defiance of what Occupy Wall Street stood for.
They say our members of the Proud Boys, a group of self-proclaimed white chauvinists with links to white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, even though they denounced it months before and kicked out the people involved.
So it's silly to say they have links when they've spoken out against it.
I am not a fan of their ideology, okay?
I have openly disagreed to their faces, much to their like, they're like, really?
They asked me if I would, you know, defend the West, refuse to apologize.
I said, of course not.
I will apologize for things the United States have done.
I'm so anti-war.
I point to the things America's doing all the time, and yes, apologize for the history of the U.S.
Not all of it.
This country's fantastic.
I'm just not a hardliner.
I'm not going to be like, everything America did was just.
Well, it wasn't.
But our founding principles created a pathway towards a better future for everybody.
And we now have one of the greatest, most prosperous nations in the history of the world.
I think it is.
The most prosperous and free nations in the history of the world.
Well, it won't be if the fake news won't stop.
The fake, you know... So, anyway, I try to keep these... The 6pm segments are always a little shorter.
So here we have it.
The media wants to play this game of, but what about the right?
Yes, you want to call out the freaky weirdos like El Paso?
Go for it.
But these people showing up with their American flags are polar opposites to that ideology.
They're constitutionalists.
They don't believe you have a right to violate the autonomy of other individuals in the way the guy in El Paso did.
They're not the same people.
Stop acting like they are.
The same is true for regular liberals and Antifa.
And everybody is guilty of this to an extent.
I see a ton of people on the right saying, liberals, liberals, liberals.
I'm like, please.
We really need, as a nation, conservatives and liberals, to differentiate liberals from the lunatics.
Because I will tell you this now, Antifa hates liberals.
Hates liberals.
They're not liberal, they hate us.
They hate us, and they even challenge Bernie Sanders, though they like him more than they like me.
Because Bernie's been criticized as being a capitalist reformist, which is where I am!
Bernie's a little to the left of me.
Therein lies the main point.
If we can single out Antifa as a fringe faction of extremists, not liberals, we will do better.
We can then bring normalcy back to politics.
They need to do the same thing and stop calling everyone who's conservative a Nazi because it's not true.
The Proud Boys have tried to distance themselves, specifically even before Charlottesville ever happened.
But these people in media, I think, are more aligned with the fringe extremists, and that's why they play the game.
That's why they play the game.
The thing about conservatives calling, you know, all liberals, all Antifa liberals, is because... Let me put it this way.
When you're on the right, and you look to the left, you see the normal lefties in front of you, and the crazy lefties behind them, and it looks like a single group.
The left does the same thing.
They look to their right and they see a bunch of conservatives and a bunch of crazies behind them.
So both sides are lumping everyone together.
But the difference is that when the left looks right, they see me, a regular liberal, and think I'm standing with the conservatives and the crazy people.
That's the problem.
So there's definitely criticism to go to the right for labeling all Liberals the same as leftists.
I've tried to avoid that.
I think I've done a good job.
But the left tries to label even liberals as right-wing.
They're calling Bill Maher right-wing!
Come on!
I'm done.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Podcast every day at 630 p.m.
Export Selection