Far Left Democrats Fundraise For Antifa Charged With Injuring Cops At Straight Pride Parade
Far Left Democrats Fundraise For Antifa Charged With Injuring Cops At Straight Pride Parade. A few days ago in Boston hundreds of people came together for a 'straight pride parade' that seemed to be intentionally silly. One person dressed as a clown and another dressed as a frog.The idea behind the event seems to be to troll the far left and Antifa into 'acting a fool' which is exactly what happened. There were 36 reported arrested and at least 4 officers were reportedly injured. 9 people arrested were charged in some way with hurting the officers.In response to an obviously silly event the far left came out in a rage. Far left Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ayanna Presley have pushed a fundraiser for those arrested.These people seem not to live in reality, don't fact check, and are easily enraged and coaxed into these events. The fact that AOC and other far left democrats share the same worldview is alarming.Antifa was protesting citizens, not the government. The whole thing is alarming and absurd.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A few days ago in Boston, there was an event called the Straight Pride Parade.
The event was basically one big troll, and it was people who were conservative or just a troll who showed up to be silly.
Some people dressed like clowns.
Milo Yiannopoulos was the grand marshal.
He's a gay man.
The whole thing was meant to probably, in my opinion, get a rise out of the left.
Several anti-fascist organizations organized protests, many people associated with the far left.
They ended up getting into clashes with the police.
I'm not going to play the game of who did what, but several police were injured, and I believe there were about 36 arrests.
In my opinion, the people who showed up to protest a troll march are nuts.
I don't know where they're getting their information, but they genuinely believe they were going after fascists.
Yes, the man dressed up like a clown.
The true fascist.
I think they were intentionally trying to be absurd.
But whatever they did, Antifa showed up, and there were many, many arrests.
I've talked about the prospect of a civil war.
I don't know what will happen.
But I have to say, it feels, right, that this is the end result of what's going to happen.
Take a look at this story.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez promotes fundraiser for Boston protesters associated with Antifa.
Let's be real.
They are Antifa, okay?
Antifa is not like a club with a membership card, right?
It's just an ideology.
It's a far-left militant ideology now receiving support from far-left Democrats that are actually in Congress.
Not just AOC, but Ayanna Pressley.
So yes, it's the far-left Democrats unsurprisingly supporting People who are out of their minds.
I've never seen a—I don't know of any situations where American citizens were protesting their neighbors.
I mean, maybe I'm just wrong.
Maybe you can give me an example.
But at least in my life, most of what I've seen from the left was protesting against the government.
Now they're showing up to protest a guy dressed like a clown?
Or a middle-aged guy carrying a Trump flag?
I don't really understand.
If somebody wants to march around and be silly, who cares?
But they did.
And they did get violent.
And people did get hurt.
And now they're fundraising on their behalf and calling the people at the Straight Pride rally white supremacists.
I believe this shows that we may be rolling downhill with no way to go back up.
There's no way to stop the flood.
It's coming.
This is how insane things are.
That you have high-profile politicians with 5 million followers saying they're white supremacists.
It was like a guy was wearing a clown suit, dude.
I don't know what you think is happening, but we don't see the world the same anymore.
And there's nothing we can do to stop it.
I want to talk about what's going on with the Straight Pride rally and AOC, but I also want to get into what's happening with Trump and the fracturing of media and this breaking of reality.
I believe the left lives in its own parallel universe now because they're unwilling to actually do the research.
So let's get started with this story.
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 is share this video.
YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
So, you know, they're propping up CNN, MSNBC, Fox News.
If you think I do a good job, sharing this video on any platform really does help.
But let's read.
The Daily Caller reports.
New York rep AOC promoted a fundraiser for bail money for a group of counter-protesters that included Antifa members after a straight pride parade in Boston, Massachusetts.
Quote, well I'll just read her tweet right here.
One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston's white supremacist parade?
Contribute to the bail fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.
Any money left over goes to Massachusetts' bail fund.
And there's also the tweet from Ianna Presley.
Join me right now in making a contribution.
Thank you to the allies and accomplices who stood in the gap and laid their bodies on the line today in a front LGBT hate march.
To everyone feeling unseen and vulnerable today, we got you.
Equitable outrage.
Our destinies and freedoms are tied.
Here's the point, at least the way I see the straight pride thing.
They want to prove that simply minding their own business would be offensive and get a rise.
You might say, why does someone need a straight pride parade?
It's actually a good point, and the reality is, they don't.
They know, however, by simply minding their own business and being proud of themselves, the left will come and protest.
It's the same thing as those signs that said it's okay to be white.
They know that by simply being tepid, not supremacist, just literally saying, hey, it's okay, it's fine, they would get a rise out of the left.
They're trying to expose hypocrisy on the left, they're trying to troll them, and it works.
Check this out.
They say, indeed, arrests did occur.
36 individuals were arrested Saturday with numerous charges of assault and battery on a police officer, and one juvenile arrested for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, according to the Boston Herald.
They say reports from USA Today and The Herald indicate that many counter-protesters identified with Antifa, a far-left group that embraces violence to achieve political goals.
One member of Antifa told the Herald, quote, we're covered in black, so when we attack these guys,
we can't be prosecuted.
They are fascists 100%.
How else are you going to get them to shut up?
From what?
Wearing clown costumes.
I kid you not, there was a guy just like a clown.
Walking around as a clown.
And many of these people do this.
You know why?
It's intentionally embarrassing to the outside.
Think about it.
They know they look absurd.
And they want that to be the case.
They want Antifa to show up and protest clowns.
And they are.
They really are.
It's a meme, right?
The clown world meme.
But when these people show up like clowns, the left goes, oh my god, how embarrassing for these people.
That's the point.
They want to look absurd and silly and embarrassing so that when people, you know, in black clad outfits show up with crowbars and weapons, they look insane.
Here are the ramifications.
We see this story from the Boston Herald.
Call Antifa what they are?
Domestic terrorists.
Well, I'm not going to read through this story.
It's from the first, the day after the event.
I'm not going to read through this.
They do mention the 36 arrests and 4 police who were injured.
I want to show you this from 2017.
They already do.
The FBI and Homeland Security already refer to what they do as domestic terrorists.
They say confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists domestic terrorists.
Well, let me explain something to you, okay?
People are dressing like clowns.
They're not fascists.
They're literally just walking around minding their own business.
Antifa is the authoritarian, you know, scourge.
But it doesn't matter.
Look, I've talked about Antifa on many occasions.
They're out of their minds.
We'll get to that point and why.
But I want to stress, what really matters is that people on the left and the right don't see the world the same way anymore.
It's actually moderates and conservatives who are united, and then the left, which has gone off the rails.
And I believe this is partly due to media.
And boy, do I have a really, really great example showing.
It's so ironic.
You know how I love using fire trucks on fire as a good analogy for irony?
You know, a firetruck's supposed to put out fires when it bursts into flames.
It's funny.
Funny in the hypothetical, not if it was literally happening, I'd be shocked.
But I have an article from Axios that talks about Trump allies trying to, you know, accuse the media of lying, and this story literally gets it wrong.
It's a story that manipulates or lies about what's actually happening, and then claims it's Trump who's trying to do it.
And I have the data to actually back it up.
But let's go back to this story.
They say, Call ugliness and violence what it is.
Mob rule has no place on Boston streets.
This is from the Boston Herald editorial staff.
It's an editorial statement from the newspaper itself.
There's a reason why I'm not going to read Andreana Cohen's.
No disrespect.
But this is her personal opinion, which the Boston Herald has published.
While we already know that Antifa is described as domestic terrorists, there's no classification system for making a group a hate group or a terrorist group.
Doesn't exist.
So to all the people saying, we must label Antifa as terrorists, that doesn't happen.
It doesn't work that way.
But here we have the Boston Herald themselves pointing out that these people who showed up engaging in large-scale intimidation and thuggery, it was the left.
It was extreme leftists bullying and arrest anyone they deemed divergent from their groupthink.
They spit and punched and yelled hateful things at law enforcement.
And by Saturday night, there were 36 arrests and four injured officers, according to Boston police.
Nine people face charges of assault and battery on police officers.
Our elected leaders need to call out Antifa for what they are, a hate group.
Now, listen.
Like I said, there's no classification for that.
But here's what's alarming.
The Boston Herald can point out exactly what this was.
Who cares if these weirdos want to march around like clowns?
They're doing it on purpose, but they're allowed to, and they're not violent, and they're not hurting anybody.
When Antifa shows up and claims they're fighting against fascists, and far-left Democrats in the House support them, I gotta say, that's really alarming.
AOC doesn't seem to know what she's talking about half the time.
She has gaffe after gaffe.
She lies.
She turns her gaffes into policy positions.
She does.
She once claimed a $21 trillion accounting error, like not real money, could pay for more than half of, you know, universal healthcare.
She then claimed that billions of dollars in tax breaks was the city of New York giving money to Amazon.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
And she's rallying a base that is clueless as to what's really happening because they don't read the news.
She's rallying them to give money to groups that have been called domestic terrorists by federal law enforcement.
I just don't understand it.
Here's what's happening.
There is a fracture in the media landscape.
And this is what we're seeing.
We're seeing a left and people like AOC that don't do research.
They're essentially playing a game of telephone with themselves and believing this fictional reality.
And that's why moderates and conservatives tend to be united.
Moderates and conservatives actually look at the source material.
Take a look at this story.
Trump allies plot new war on social media.
This is sort of in line with what the New York Times did.
For those that aren't familiar, the New York Times claimed that Trump allies were trying to target them over social media.
Interestingly, the latest update from Axios is that since the New York Times smeared this loose group of Trump supporters, they've actually used the press to start fundraising.
But we'll come back to this.
In this story, they claim Trump and his allies are lying about social media bias to attack the press.
Okay.
I'm not a fan of the Trump guy.
Everybody knows it.
I have no problem saying disparaging things about him, and I was on stage at an event recently where I said I actually quite enjoy when people make fun of the guy, okay?
I just don't have Trump derangement syndrome.
Like any regular human being who's been involved in politics in this country, you don't like everybody, and you can make jokes and insult the politicians you don't like.
It's fine.
It's how it's always been.
Certainly there are extreme and hyperbolic statements about every president, George Bush, Obama, whatever.
Look, Trump is the guy who won and he's gonna do his thing.
It is what it is.
But here's what I realize.
There's a reason why I don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I check the facts.
I read the source material.
The people on the left who don't think they're actually looking at, you know, the worst of the worst.
The nightmare return of fascism.
So they put on all black and they go on the street and beat random people.
They've gone nuts.
They've been indoctrinated by a fractured and broken media and they're not really getting the truth.
And I know it's probably pointless for me to say because they'll accuse me of doing the same thing.
However, I use left-wing sources on purpose, okay?
I check all the facts and I use a third-party rating agency, NewsGuard, on purpose to check my own personal bias.
And I have to say, if moderates and conservatives are seeing the world in a similar way, and according to at least data I believe was from Pew, They have a healthier news diet from left and right sources.
I think the left has gone nuts and they're just consuming and producing fake news.
Let me prove it to you though.
Check this out.
They say, President Trump's campaign and key allies plan to make allegations of bias by social media platforms a core part of their 2020 strategy, officials tell Axios.
Well, we've known this has been going on.
I actually went to the White House summit over this.
They say, look for ads, speeches, and sustained attacks on Facebook and Twitter in particular, the sources say.
The irony?
The social platforms are created and staffed largely by liberals, but often used most effectively in politics by conservatives, the data shows.
Okay, let's assess that situation.
That's true.
I wouldn't say liberals, I'd say progressives, because I'm a liberal.
But they are used most effectively by conservatives, and the data does show it.
The left can't meme, that's the joke, right?
Here's the thing.
Because conservatives are so effective, it looks like they're being kneecapped by the media companies because they don't like that.
The left has become humorless.
Look at their reaction to Dave Chappelle's comedy special.
Universal panning among the left.
Almost universal, okay?
Yeah, they're not funny, and they're ineffective at spreading a message.
For whatever reason, I don't know why.
Conservatives and moderates have had a good time making memes.
So what do these companies do?
Kneecap.
Slow them down, hurt them, because the left can't figure it out.
Let's read on.
Why it matters.
Trump successfully turned the vast majority of his supporters against traditional media, and he hopes to do the same against the social media companies.
That's just not true.
First of all, this is an op-ed.
Did they say op-ed anywhere?
Well, they should.
Trump didn't turn people against the media.
The media created Trump.
And if we're gonna play a game of, you know, derivative, you know, finding the root cause, then I think that's the fairest assessment you can make.
The media was so, so sure Hillary Clinton was gonna win.
She didn't.
The media, look, look, Trump didn't create this phenomenon.
He's a symptom of whatever is happening, this fracture between the media and the people.
They claimed Hillary Clinton had, what, 97% chance of winning, and then Trump ended up winning.
It could just be statistics.
But the media couldn't see it.
They were shocked it happened.
And Trump got elected because whatever was happening was happening BEFORE him.
Let's read more.
They say, In the same way we've seen trust in legacy media organizations deteriorate over the past year, there are similarities with social media companies a top Republican operative involved in the effort told me.
Between the lines, they say.
The charges of overt bias by social media platforms are way overblown.
Several studies have found.
But if the exaggerated claims stick, it could increase the chances of regulatory action by Republicans.
Let's just stop right here.
I'm gonna give you some basic proof.
Everybody knows that Twitter bans misgendering.
It's a fact.
Now, most people understand.
Ben Shapiro, for instance, one of the highest profile conservative pundits in the world.
One of the top podcasts.
He doesn't agree with that definition of misgendering.
Nor do any of his fans.
Well, most of his fans.
They don't believe that you can just change your pronoun.
Okay, that means Twitter has a rule that specifically targets conservatives.
That's the easiest way to explain the bias.
Of course, there are many other examples.
Case in point, the Gizmodo story that broke the news that staff at Facebook were biased and were removing conservative stories from trending.
Or how about the leaked emails from Project Veritas?
You don't gotta like the way they frame things, but the emails are legitimate, showing that Google staff were seeking to hinder moderate and conservative personalities on YouTube by kneecapping their channels, reducing recommendations and suggestions.
It's a fact.
It's not over-exaggerated, because exaggeration is an opinion.
It's literally happening, and people get banned every day, and they're upset by it.
Trump knows this, and people have a right to express themselves.
This story is trying to claim there's no bias, and it's Trump who's trying to fracture, you know, trust in media, but they're literally presenting a biased opinion on what's really happening.
Look, we can claim it's exaggerated or under-exaggerated or over-exaggerated.
It's irrelevant.
There is bias, period.
Period!
Whether or not you want to claim it's a serious issue or not is an opinion, but it is happening.
Let's read more.
They say, tech execs see it this way.
They know the escalation is coming, so they are cranking up outreach to leading conservatives and trying to push hard on data showing that conservative voices often outperform liberal ones.
Irrelevant!
The performance of a conservative voice has nothing to do with whether or not smaller channels are being deleted or banned or suspended.
Just because some conservatives are better at the internet than liberals doesn't mean their rules aren't biased.
The story goes on.
Reality check from Axios chief tech correspondent Ina Fried.
What is real is that most of the platforms have policies against bias that some conservative figures have run afoul of.
And there's the reality check.
Okay, I'll accept that.
You know why?
If you have rules, and it tends to be conservatives that run afoul of those rules, isn't it fair to say that perhaps those rules overwhelmingly target conservatives?
Are we done here?
They don't seem to understand what bias means.
Does it mean the tech executives are saying, we hate conservatives?
No!
It means they said, here are a list of rules.
Conservatives say, excuse me, we don't agree with your idea of misgendering.
Too bad, they say, and then ban those people.
Right, that's called bias.
It means that the internal worldview of the people running these companies is at odds with conservatives who have a legal right to speech.
This story is incredible, but here's the main point, because I don't want to spend too much time on this.
A nation without shared truth will be hard to impossible to govern.
It's true.
And that's one of the reasons we have Trump.
Trump didn't create this problem.
The media didn't see it coming.
That shows you that the media has already lost whatever shared truth with the public.
It's split.
The public doesn't trust them.
There you go.
Now, Brian Stelter recently ran this story, saying why Trump's constant attacks on an independent press are so dangerous.
An independent press, actually.
It's quite the opposite.
Trump is railing on the corporate mainstream press, and he's actually supporting the independent speakers.
So, no.
In fact, I was invited to the White House summit, and you know what's really funny?
I routinely rag on the president and call him boorish, and I make fun of his character and his behavior, and I've criticized many of his policies.
It's funny, though.
I'm not gonna make a million and one videos screeching that Orange Man is bad, because CNN does it for me.
I don't need to.
And also, I don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I don't think it's the end of the world.
I just kind of don't like the guy.
And that's OK.
I understand there are conservatives who don't like my people either and say, Tim, how could you support someone like Tulsi Gabbard?
And they say, ah, you're nuts.
You're wrong.
Great.
Totally respect your opinion.
But you don't see Tulsi derangement syndrome.
In fact, conservatives tend to be supporting her because the DNC is cheating.
So look, the moderates exist.
And Tulsi is actually a progressive.
OK?
But the media, they want you to be in their cult of orange man bad or else.
And they claim they're independent?
Sorry, I was invited to the White House and I am not an ally of the president or his policies.
Quite the opposite.
But I guess the way they see it is if you're not walking in lockstep with Trump derangement syndrome, you must be supporting him.
It's mind-blowing to me.
I can literally be like, okay, well, that thing he did was kind of okay, but I don't like that military thing he did, and that's considered support.
Seriously.
Tepid criticism of the president, like, leaning away from, they consider it support.
They're trying to claim that Trump is creating the problem, but that's the point.
He's not.
But here's the best part.
They say, look at this.
Some of what Trump posts about the media is legitimate criticism, but much of it is misleading.
At the root of it, all is a lie.
That legitimate news outlets are fake.
When he says journalists routinely make up sources out of thin air, for example, he has no proof of the charge.
He either misunderstands how the press operates, or is misleading people on purpose.
He's been saying it for years, and he's been corrected for years, so at this point, the latter is more likely.
There's actually a story about some German dude, I don't have it pulled up.
Who literally made up news.
But, uh, let's play a game.
I've actually pulled up evidence of fake news.
What you're seeing here is one of my favorite citations, because it's actually a bit old, too.
The life and death of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory by the Washington Post.
Change log.
From a website called NewsDiffs.
And we can see that it was first archived May 24, 2017.
But for some reason, it was changed in November.
I wonder why that is.
Well, thanks to News Diffs, we can compare with previous.
The reality is, it's quite complicated.
But the story itself is fake.
It's fake.
The story claimed that Kim.com may have been hacking into the private Gmail account of Seth Rich or something to try and create proof of a conspiracy.
But Dave Weigel literally made it all up.
He did.
And then six months later, he went in and changed it.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing, but, you know, it's there.
You can search for the story.
You can go to Newsdiffs and pull it up.
You can see how he changed it from trying to insinuate that Kim.com was hacking into this person's account, into Seth Rich's account, Into, oh, it's just, you know, oh, you know, it's just speculation.
The point is, here's a story where they literally framed it as though Kim.com did this.
Several high-profile reporters shared it.
It is fake news.
And then six months later, he changed it.
You know why?
That way, if you go back to the original story, it doesn't, you don't see the fake news.
So here's what happens.
When the story goes public, it gets a ton of traffic.
Six months later, he makes the changes and says, what happened?
I don't know.
But the internet is forever.
And we know.
But I got a couple more stories, or at least one more.
I'll leave on this note, okay?
Look, I want to make sure that the main point is what you get.
A straight pride march.
A troll.
People dressed like clowns.
Clearly not serious, very tongue-in-cheek, and meant to be ridiculous.
But these people are serious who show up.
These far-left extremists who show up are serious and deranged.
Completely... Excuse me, completely inundated by fake news.
But they live in this parallel reality where they think Trump created it.
They seem not to have the ability to do any research.
They don't seem to understand basic policies.
They don't seem to actually hear the interviews, and they believe they're right, and it's scary.
Fake data, fake research is produced by organizations, and it gets published with impunity, just without fact-checking.
And now we're all stuck in this world.
They claim Trump and his allies are trying to claim that there's a social media bias, or there's a bias in the press.
Um, Trump didn't create the bias in the press.
The bias in the press exists.
Channels like mine exist because we cut through the noise and we call out the BS.
Unfortunately, I have seen many people, I'll give you actually an example from today.
I made a video on my second channel about this study claiming that YouTube feeds people down a radicalization pipeline.
It's not true.
The study actually just mixes and matches channels claiming they hold ideologies they don't, and even one instance claimed one person was two people.
It made no sense.
But the data is fake.
I made a video pointing it out.
A far-left activist posted on Facebook and someone told him it was fake and they said, nope, it's real.
They posted my video.
I refuse to watch it, they said.
Well, there you go.
They refuse to read the news that can break their bubble.
And it's this bias that humans have where they've invested too much into this reality and they refuse to break it.
Could you imagine if you worked for years to build something only to find out you were wrong the whole time?
Your entire life was a lie?
Humans refuse to acknowledge it.
But the scary thing is, if they want to live in this parallel reality of insanity, they're going to drag us all down with them.
And that's what we get now.
AOC is calling for these people to donate to these lunatics who show up and think they're fighting against fascists, and they were literally protesting like dudes dressed up like clowns.
That's how insane it is.
Look, I know it's funny, but I have to stress this point.
People marched as clowns.
They had no weapons, they had no shields, and the police said, okay, we're gonna let you march.
You're legally allowed to.
And these La Résistance-types, people with delusions of grandeur, are marching around getting into fights with cops, and politicians in the House are supporting it!
We have some kind of growing, I don't know what you want to call it, infectious ideology.
These people have lost it, and they're dangerous.
They're very dangerous.
I'm not going to get into bigger details because I know YouTube's going to punish this channel for talking about it, but it's getting bad.
What we saw with the immigration facilities, numerous facilities that were attacked, it's getting bad.
I think we're at five now.
And that's being pushed by people like AOC.
These people are nuts, okay?
I'm going to say it one more time.
I'm sorry, but I have to drive this point.
Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, far-left Democrats, A raising money for a group of people who showed up to protest with violence, to riot against people who are dressed like clowns.
Not all of them.
But seriously, that's what was happening at the Straight Pride event.
Clowns.
What do you think is happening?
They've gone nuts.
Go home.
Crack open a soda, watch some TV, man.
Chill out.
But if people can't dress up like clowns and wave little flags and wear red hats anymore, I don't know what to expect next.
But you have politicians supporting it, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out again, and I'll see you all next time.
Suicide rates rise to 16 year high across the UK.
The story is from today.
We also have a story from June.
Suicide rates for US teens and young adults are the highest on record, driven by a sharp rise in suicides among older teenage boys.
I can't tell you exactly what's going on.
I can only give you my thoughts and opinions on why this might be happening, but I think social media is playing a huge role in this.
People aren't really interacting anymore.
I think that may be, like, a big issue.
But for young men, I think there's also a lack of purpose, a lack of drive, and perhaps men are just more likely to succeed.
I've read before that men and women aren't necessarily more likely to try suicide, but men use more brutal methods, which work more often.
I've also read that women might try more, but use methods that result in them being saved.
I don't know.
I can't tell you for sure.
We'll read the story.
What I can say, though, is that in my opinion, we have seen a ridiculous trend of heightened anxiety and fear and panic among so many people, and we've also seen a dramatic loss of purpose.
Young men are virgins until a large amount of them.
They're not having relationships.
They're not doing anything.
They're playing video games.
They're living in their parents' basements.
They're not finding jobs.
They're not going to school.
We have a serious crisis.
There's a cultural crisis outside the culture war.
And I don't want to act like it only impacts guys.
But I don't know where it goes from here.
You know, I don't know what to expect, but I can say when we see stories over and over again about, you know, Orange Man Bad, and a woman the other day saying, please stop wearing red hats, it seems like anxiety is reaching a tipping point.
And now we're going to see stories like this.
Well, let's read the story and see what's actually going on, and I can save the commentary for afterwards.
But this is in the UK, and I've got a couple other stories I want to highlight.
Increase largely driven by suicides among boys and men, while self-inflicted deaths among females under 25 also see a considerable rise, reaching highest rate on record for their age group.
I just want to make sure I say before we start reading that if you're feeling depressed or sad or concerned, you know, reach out to somebody.
Every single person on this planet has a purpose and value and if you can't find yours or you're feeling like things are hopeless, you can do it.
Trust me when I say that.
And you can reach out to someone and you can find your drive.
And I've talked about how I think Jordan Peterson is a great example of this.
And we even now see some people on the left, there was a Guardian story talking about how he's right.
Jordan Peterson says, find the heaviest thing you can carry and carry it.
Find your purpose.
It exists.
You can do it.
Even if you just build a little, you know, go out to the woods and start whittling a stick into a little statue, just do something.
Do something.
Find your passion.
The Independent reports the rate of suicide in the UK has hit a 16-year high after surging in the past year following a half-decade of decline, new figures show.
Data from the Office of National Statistics, ONS, reveals 6,507 suicides were registered last year, marking a 12% rise on the previous year and the highest rate since 2002.
That's insanely high.
That's a huge increase.
The rise appears to be largely driven by suicides among boys and men, with the male rate having significantly increased from 15.5 deaths per 100,000 to 17.2.
There was also a rise among girls and women, but this was not judged by the ONS to be statistically different to that observed in the previous year.
So it would seem like this is exclusively a male phenomenon.
And it's so funny.
I think one of the contributing factors is that there are people increasingly looking for a community to try and deal with the anxiety, the fear, the depression they're feeling.
And all of these communities are attacked and belittled in the mainstream.
I have to imagine if you're a young guy and you're feeling stressed out and depressed because of certain issues you can't overcome in society, and you turn to a group, a community of say, you know, MGTOW or something like men's rights, you're belittled for it.
They make the problem worse.
There's a subreddit called inceltears, and I think it's one of the most disgusting and nightmarish things I've ever seen.
You're talking about people who have social anxiety disorders, who, you know, sure, they may be narcissistic, angry, they may be, you know, have really- they may say really nasty things, but it's because they're suffering, and they're angry, right?
The purpose of that subreddit is to bully people who are suffering.
And sure, maybe they're lashing out.
We understand that when people suffer, they lash out.
But there's a subreddit.
I see it pop up on rslashall.
Maybe they did something with it so far.
I don't know.
All I know is it's a subreddit dedicated to bullying men who are in pain.
Yeah, there are people who are not developing socially.
Well, and then what happens is, when they try and turn to a community to try and find some solace, they're belittled and mocked.
And it's okay.
The media allows the attack on men.
Listen, I understand the whole argument about patriarchy and, you know, feminism and all that stuff.
But you have to recognize, not every single guy has power.
They don't seem to get it.
There's a bell curve, right?
There are certainly men on top, but the average woman in the middle is slightly above the average man in the middle, and then the back end of the bell curve for men goes beyond women.
Meaning, in most circumstances, like, you know, women judge men to a really, really high standard, like the OkCupid data shows this, that they view almost every guy as below average.
Then you have intelligence.
You have a lot of factors.
This is going to create a lot of men who are suffering and incapable or... It's also, you know, society itself.
When you have a mainstream media that thinks mocking and belittling men is okay.
Like the Gillette ad.
You wonder why this happens?
I don't.
Let's talk about the Gillette ad for a second.
You look at Gillette's ad for women, and what do they do?
They show a morbidly obese woman, and they say, you go.
You do whatever you want, even though it's toxic and unhealthy.
Literally.
It's toxic.
Being morbidly obese is dangerously unhealthy.
For everybody, men or women.
The point I'm making, though, is that Gillette shows this morbidly obese woman, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the woman herself, I'm just trying to make this point, and they say, good for you.
Then they make a commercial about toxic masculinity and they say, what you do men, you're bad, you're bad, you're bad.
Okay, now you have a bunch of young men growing up hearing this.
Women do no wrong, men bad.
Yeah, and then we see a spike among men.
It's a culture that thinks it's okay to tear someone down, period.
And if you try and call this out, I'll probably get criticized for simply saying it.
Seriously, let's read a little bit more.
They say, however, self-inflicted deaths among females under 25 saw a considerable rise, reaching the highest rate on record for their age group.
So that's interesting even though they don't think it's statistically different from last
year.
It's still also reaching the highest rate on record for the age group.
Males continue to account for three quarters of suicide deaths in 2018.
Nick Stipe, head of health analysis and life events at ONS said, we saw a significant increase
in the rate of deaths registered as suicide last year, which has changed a trend of continuous
decline since 2013.
While the exact reasons for this are unknown, the latest data show that this was largely driven by an increase among men who have continued to be most at risk of dying by suicide.
Chief Exe- What does that mean?
Chief Executive of the Samaritans Ruth Sutherland said the figures were extremely worrying and called for the issue to be considered as a serious public health issue, urging that suicide was not inevitable and was a gender and inequality issue.
Every single one of these deaths is a tragedy that devastates families, friends, and communities.
Whilst the overall rise has only been seen this year, and we hope it is not the start of a longer-term trend, it's crucial to have a better understanding of why there has been such an increase, she added.
She also raised concern that there are no cross-departmental... I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of the hospital stuff.
We'll read the conclusion here.
They say, well, you know what, let's move on to the next story because the issue is not just confined to the UK.
I did cover this story back in June when it came out.
Suicide rates for US teens and adults are the highest on record, and they say it's driven by a sharp rise in suicides among older teenage boys, according to new research.
No passion.
No community.
I think that's one of the big issues.
But I also think...
You know, I was reading something about power dynamics.
I don't know if this is true or not.
It was kind of just someone's comment on, like, a Reddit thread.
And they said the male power fantasy, like we see in movies, is to be the hero who saves everyone, is to protect everyone.
And the female power fantasy is to live in luxury and have everyone love you.
And so when you look at, like, the rom-coms, you know, or versus, like, the action movies, you can see what truly plays into that, you know, whatever you want to call it, cultural or otherwise.
But I do believe men need something to do.
It's why men have hobbies.
It's why, you know, men are more likely to do certain things than women.
Now you can call it a cultural or societal, whatever, that's fine.
But in my opinion, I'm not surprised that with everything we've seen in the culture war, outside of just, you know, young men not going to school and not getting jobs, you have the derision from media.
But, you know, in my experience, I grew up with low-tier positions being almost exclusively for women.
So, let me try and step this back and try and explain what I'm trying to say, because I think I'm going to get confusing here.
When I was younger, I dropped out of high school, and I was trying to find work.
And all of the entry-level positions in, like, the service industry, for instance, which is, like, most jobs working register, being a server, you know, working at a clerk at a shop, were all being given to the younger females and not to me.
I ended up homeless.
Couldn't find a job.
When I was 21, I went to a bunch of bars, and they wouldn't hire me.
They said they hire young women, not guys.
And I think we are seeing this trend, or I feel like it's anecdotal for me.
You know, naturally, my response to this was not necessarily anger, but drive.
Like, I will solve this problem and I will figure it out.
And I did.
But I think things are getting worse.
And I think there's a lot of contributing factors to it.
I think we're seeing this shift from, you know, you had the roles, gender roles, and now you don't.
And I think we're at a hybrid point now where I can't tell you if it's possible for us to live in a society with no gender roles.
But I think we're at a point now where you're seeing a bunch of young men who did grow up hearing about their role in society, and now it's being eroded, and now they don't know what their purpose or passion is.
So, I don't know, it's probably too complicated.
All I can really do is say that it's happening.
And we're seeing another story that's happening in the UK and the US, and we're also hearing that it's even happening in the Air Force.
So, the reason I bring up this story From just a couple days ago is that I, you know, as much as I might think it's a loss of purpose, if you're in the Air Force, you know, you've taken that step towards doing something, but even that might not be enough.
So while we were definitely seeing an increase of suicide across the board, maybe it's nothing to do with gender roles.
Maybe men are just more likely to succeed, or maybe it has to do with social media hysteria.
You know, maybe everybody is hearing this insanity over and over again.
They're being told that, you know, There's nothing you can do to solve the problem or that you're bad.
You go on social media and people attack and harass you.
And people like being angry online and some people can't handle it.
Now imagine this.
I think about the mathematical equation here.
If the people who don't want to engage in this behavior, you know, and don't like the anxiety online and social media and in our culture, are ending their lives, all that's left are either people who engage in a corrosive, toxic, you know, behavior online, and those who are resilient to it.
I don't like the prospect of that, that we're moving into a place where we're gonna have a ton of just really vocal, angry, nasty people, and the other half just kind of just shrugging it off and ignoring it while the toxicity increases.
I don't know.
Yeah, I don't know.
I thought it was an interesting thing that should be talked about.
I can't tell you necessarily why.
Maybe in the end, all that really matters is that humans as a whole have no more purpose because we're living in luxury.
Luxury compared to where we used to be.
A hundred years ago, everybody had to be working.
You know, the kids were working in factories or something.
200 years ago everybody was working on a farm and you had to work non-stop otherwise you'd literally die because there was no technology and lack of food and fossil fuels contributed to a great rise in technology and exponentially increased the amount of food we could produce, reducing the workload of the average person.
So back then, everybody was working all the time.
So they had a purpose.
Today, I got air conditioning, I got cameras, I got a computer, I got video games, What do you really have to do?
You have food.
You have everything.
So I think, you know, let me say this.
I know this dude and a couple people who are extremely wealthy and they told me this, it was like 10 years ago.
I was told by this guy that the moment he became truly wealthy, he had an existential crisis.
It was a relatively quick rise to wealth.
He started a company, then he sold some digital products that went viral, and the net worth skyrocketed, and all of a sudden he had all this money, and then he didn't have to do anything anymore.
He had no more purpose.
He did the work, he had the money, he was done.
Millions and millions upon millions of dollars, like tens of millions of dollars.
And so he said he and his friends, they've talked about how they've had an existential crisis because they don't got to work.
So what do you do with your life?
Some became depressed, sitting around, bored.
While all their friends were at jobs and working all day, they had nothing to do.
I heard another story about a famous musician who sold a song for millions of dollars, and then he would just lay around his house all day, bored.
He was going crazy.
And he would call his old friends and they'd be like, I'm working, man, I can't hang out.
But now that he did it, he made it, and he just had so little to do, he just sat around.
Bored.
Existential crisis.
I think we might be seeing that on a larger scale.
We as a civilization in the UK and the US are extremely wealthy.
Everyone's got a refrigerator, air conditioning.
Everyone's got a comfortable life.
We have cell phones.
We can talk to each other like that.
We can play video games all day.
So what do you have to do?
I think people need to discover their passion.
I think that's gonna be their saving grace.
Like Jordan Peterson said, find the heaviest thing you can carry and carry it.
Even literally.
No, seriously, even literally.
Like, if you can't figure out what to do, just go outside and find the heaviest thing you can carry and literally pick it up and carry it.
Just exercise.
You know, getting out and getting sweaty and getting exercise actually, you know, would help.
Although I understand what Jordan Peterson's trying to say.
He's, you know, he's saying take some responsibility.
Do something.
And I think that may be a contributing factor to the culture war in the end.
So we're going through like a civilization existential crisis where perhaps this is it.
Perhaps we're all so wealthy now we've lost purpose because we don't need one.
We don't need to farm.
We don't need to milk the cows.
It's all done for us.
And Americans are getting fat.
So are people in the UK because there's just too much abundance.
And maybe now purpose is becoming ideological.
And that's why we see the rise of, you know, the ideological left.
Because they have no purpose, so they've made one.
That's why they say everyone's a fascist, because otherwise they have no purpose!
And otherwise they'd be suicidal.
And some people who can see that not everyone's a fascist might just be.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Seriously, if you guys are feeling down, if you're depressed, Everything, I, I, you know, I, I, words probably don't matter.
I'll, I'll be honest.
I, you know, I feel like everyone always tries to tell you something like, hey, don't worry.
But in the end, it's internal.
The only thing I can really say is, you'll probably feel bad, but toughen up bucko, clean up your room, find the heaviest thing you can carry and carry it.
I got, I got a lot of respect for Jordan Peterson.
I think he's worthy of criticism for a lot of, you know, silly things he's said and done.
But he's right.
If you're feeling depressed, I'm not gonna tell you, you know, everything will be okay.
I have no idea.
All I can tell you this is, find the heaviest thing you can carry and carry it. I think
that's pretty sound advice from Dr. Peterson.
And I think, you know, in the end, you know,
I don't know.
Be strong.
Be stronger.
Overcome.
I grew up watching anime, right?
And I know a lot of people think it's like, you know, they make fun of anime characters.
But one thing that all of these characters had that I always was really inspired by is a refusal to give up.
And the harder things became, they would respond by becoming stronger.
And that's, you know, you name an anime character.
You may not be a fan of these anime shows, but there are several characters throughout some of the biggest, you know, shows that come out of Japan.
And that's always how I've viewed every problem I've faced.
When I've been feeling down and depressed, I get angry, but not at anybody else.
to give up and they respond to desperation by growing stronger.
And that's always how I've viewed every problem I've faced.
When I've been feeling down and depressed, I get angry, but not at anybody else.
I get angry in general, kind of at myself, that I have to use that and overcome and take
control.
I don't know that everybody can, but that's what inspired me growing up.
Those are the superheroes I looked up to, the people who would never give up no matter
what.
I hope that helps, I don't know.
Stick around, I'll see you in the next segment.
I wonder why it is that so many people on the left don't know anything about guns, don't
do research on guns, don't bother to look up what the laws being proposed are, and then
sound silly.
Joe Biden, he wants to ban basically every single gun.
Beto O'Rourke also wants to ban basically every single gun.
Now, they'll tell you that's not true, but let me clarify.
The assault weapons bill, as proposed, would ban almost every single gun.
I am not being hyperbolic.
I am being... Actually, if anything, I'm kind of toning it down because some would say that it's a complete confiscation of all guns.
Joe Biden, he called for a ban on all magazines.
Now, maybe you could say it's a gaffe.
What'd he say?
Any magazine that can hold more than... There we go.
Multiple bullets, he said.
Magazines that would hold multiple bullets.
Literally a magazine.
So what would end up happening is semi-automatic.
I'm gonna pretend like it's a bunch of liberals who don't know anything about guns.
Semi-automatic means you load the gun, you pull the trigger, and it puts another bolt in the chamber.
It doesn't mean you pull the trigger and it keeps firing and spraying.
It means one trigger pull, one bullet.
That's the overwhelming majority of guns.
Effectively, like, a revolver is semi-auto because it, you know, rotates, but it's not necessarily.
So the assault weapons ban would basically ban everything other than, like, revolvers.
You could also have lever-action and bolt-action rifles, and it has been proposed that you can still own a gun if it can fire one bullet at a time every time you load, but that's... that's basically banning all guns.
Here's the thing, okay?
I'm not a gun person.
I'm not a gun nut.
I don't own one.
I may in the future.
But most Americans, most Americans oppose ban on assault rifles.
Now hold on.
Here's another big problem, Gallop, and I'm actually quite offended that Gallop did this.
Assault rifles have always been illegal.
An assault rifle is defined as a selective fire rifle.
Now again, I'm probably preaching to people who know way more about this than I do.
But that selective fire means you can do burst shot, full auto, or semi-auto.
So you can switch between.
Militaries use assault rifles.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
It is just a standard semi-automatic rifle.
In fact, when they talk about wanting to get a hunting rifle, they're basically the same thing.
Well, they're expanding what they're calling for, and here's the reason why I'm doing this video.
Because, again, I'm not a big gun nut.
I probably fall with most Americans saying stricter gun laws make sense.
But hear me out.
Stricter gun laws doesn't mean not allowing people to own guns.
It just means, like, Can we do a mental health check, a background check, for which pretty much exists as it is.
So I want to be careful on the stricter gun laws thing because maybe stricter isn't the right word.
Maybe more effective.
effective to ensure that people have the right to bear arms under the Constitution, but also
that we're thinking smart about what's going on with these mass shooting events and how we can
effectively embrace some kind of policy or law to protect the rights of the innocent and safeguard
us against those that are nuts. I'm not saying I have an answer. I don't. So maybe stricter isn't
the right response, but I would imagine there are a lot of people that view it similarly to I do as
a moderate. I don't want any of these things banned because I've done the base level research.
I've looked up and seen that, you know, most people who own guns legally don't even commit any crimes and barely ever use them.
Some people do it for sport.
You're allowed to do it.
But now we have both Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke calling for essentially a complete confiscation.
And I really do mean this.
I'm not being hyperbolic.
That's the important point.
Not a gun person, don't own a gun, not being hyperbolic.
You need to read the assault weapons ban.
It specifically says semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine.
Let's click this and you can see it's basically every single handgun.
That's how they operate.
Sure, you know, there's revolvers or whatever.
Let me make sure I show this again, just to make sure you guys understand.
Assault weapon, as defined in the United States, says semi-automatic firearm, detachable magazine.
Okay.
Joe Biden said, ban magazines that hold multiple bullets.
Multiple.
More than one.
So what is he suggesting?
That you can buy a handgun that can single load a bullet and fire and then single load it?
That makes no sense.
I'm not even sure those things exist.
I guess the 3D printed ones do.
But again, they say common attributes used in the legislative definitions of assault weapons include semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine, which includes the standard handgun.
Like, I say standard because that's like Look, when Joe Biden said this, my immediate reaction was, is he gaffing?
You know, assault-type weapons.
Magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.
It's absolutely mindless.
defend themselves.
Look, when Joe Biden said this, my immediate reaction was, is he gaffing?
You know, assault type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.
He just said, like, here's the reason I think it's a gaffe.
For one, he's a gaffe king.
Magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them is literally all magazines.
And if he meant that, he probably would have said all magazines.
He probably said ban magazines in general.
Ban the ability of any gun to fire more than one bullet without being reloaded.
But Beto O'Rourke has gone one step further.
Beto O'Rourke has literally called for the confiscation of all 90-something percent guns.
I'm trying to avoid being hyperbolic, but as I've shown you already, he's talking about handguns.
So, let's read a little bit of this and I'll tell you a story.
Politico reports, and this is a couple weeks ago, Beto O'Rourke called Friday for gun licensing and a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons.
Expanding on a controversial gun control platform, He advanced in his return to the presidential campaign the previous day.
Part of a proposal to address gun violence and white nationalism?
What?
Pretty sure the dude who was in Ohio wasn't a white nationalist.
O'Rourke said that if enacted, anyone who failed to forfeit a banned assault weapon would be fined.
The mandatory buyback proposal goes further than most Democrats in the 2020 presidential field, though Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has suggested she support such a program.
So let me stress, This is the most important thing.
He's talking about handguns.
Okay?
I went to the March for Our Life thing, where you had all these people marching against weapons, and I asked several- I basically asked every group, do you think that, like, a Glock should be banned under the Assault Weapons Ban?
And they say, no, of course not.
And I say, well then why are you supporting a law that would ban them?
Because they didn't read the law.
It's all- you know what, man?
You know, I'm just- The Democrats are nuts.
They're absolutely nuts.
I believe in fixing the environment.
I believe there can be sound gun policy.
I don't want to call it common sense, because that's a stupid buzzword.
No, but I think if we actually sat down and talked with the firearms community, there would be a way to, for one, we'd probably have to remove some laws in some places and then create, like, national laws.
It's hard to explain, I guess.
For one, I don't want to pretend like I know more than the average person.
So, I guarantee there's already going to be a ton of people commenting saying, here's what you got wrong.
I get it.
And that's why I think we need to actually sit down and talk about the current laws, the current capacity of the weapons, how people on average get them, and why we're talking about it in the first place.
I would stress, there's been a meme going around talking about preventable deaths, of which rifles account for, like, very little.
In which case, I don't believe it's a conspiracy to seize your guns.
I think it's a boogeyman.
You know, these AR-15s look scary.
And then we see these, you know, these tragedies, these tragic events, and so the Democrats are like, even though it's not a serious problem relative to, you know, like, I don't know, heart disease or something, or peanut allergies, like, which kill way more people, it's scarier.
It's also why he talks about white nationalism, and not the fact that there are far-left militias that are armed as well, because the media doesn't talk about them.
They crack the guy over the head and put him in the hospital.
I'm not talking about Andy.
No, I'm talking about the guy in Portland.
Oh, actually, Andy was in Portland, too.
Okay, two guys in Portland were cracked over the head with brain injuries because of Antifa.
They don't talk about it.
In fact, there was recently a mass shooting where the perpetrator killed ten people at a high school game, and they didn't talk about that either, and many people believe it was because it didn't fit the white nationalist, you know, racial narrative.
They found a boogeyman.
They want to use that boogeyman to gain Power, right?
To rally voters.
But most people disagree with this.
It makes me wonder.
You know, I think what you often see in the primaries, and of course many of us have talked about this before, they pander to the farthest of the left, the activist base, so they can win the primary and then bring it back to the center for the general, but they've gone too far.
Both Biden and O'Rourke calling for basically a ban on 95% of guns, when we can see, according to Gallup, Americans do support stricter gun laws, but not banning assault rifles.
The important thing is, assault rifle makes literally no sense because they're already illegal, but sure, what they mean is assault weapon, and they're confusing the issue.
They say there's a big support, you know, widespread support for background checks.
I'm pretty sure there already are federal background checks.
I'm not entirely sure, because I know it's been an issue in the mainstream, the conversation about them.
universal background checks. The importance of gun control as a voting issue has increased in
the past two decades. Americans supported six of seven ways to deter mass shootings
a month after Parkland. They say at the same time, Americans thought prevention efforts,
mental health screenings would be more effective than stricter gun laws. So it looks like,
you know, a man, Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden are pandering to no one because the average American
is actually embracing this from a kind of a kind of common sense point of view.
I also want to stress it's not a conservative issue, because states like New Hampshire and Vermont, for instance, they're blue states.
But people their own weapons.
Maine, for instance, I'm pretty sure Maine is blue, but the gun laws are ridiculously lax there.
Like, I'm pretty sure if you can live there, you can just go and just show up and buy a gun.
I'm pretty sure they do a background check, but it's pretty quick, and I think they have no permit concealed carry.
There are some states that are like that, that tend to be red, but this isn't a conservative versus liberal issue.
It's a woke, progressive, far-left issue of banning everyone's guns, and I gotta admit, nothing makes sense anymore.
Nothing makes sense for one reason.
They claim that Trump is a fascist.
They claim the white nationalists are taking over.
And then they beg the government, which they think is fascist, to take their guns.
So I don't know, man.
You know, I saw these two stories and the Joe Biden gaffe.
Or maybe it's not a gaffe.
Maybe he's serious.
He wants to ban all magazines.
I mean, theoretically, the assault weapons ban would do that.
But it seems like they're getting more and more extreme, and they're crazy.
All magazines hold multiple bullets, that's the point.
This call from Biden would ban most handguns, right, except for, like, revolvers.
Or, I guess, single-load guns?
Which probably exist, I don't know anything about it, though.
But anyway, Joe Biden ends by saying, I think this is no compromise.
This is one we have to just push and push and push and push and push, and you'll never win.
It will never happen.
If they banned all guns, that's the quickest way to see... I mean, first of all, I really doubt police departments would enforce that law.
I'd be shocked.
Maybe in big cities, but not in urban areas.
And we've already seen some police up in the Pacific Northwest refusing to enforce some of these bans, so... The Democrats have gone nuts, I'll put it that way.
If most Americans don't agree with you, why would you pander to a policy nobody wants?
I don't know, whatever.
Bit off the cuff, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
on the main channel.
YouTube.com slash TimCast is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
As an addendum to the main video I did, the video on my main channel, I want to talk about Trump allies raising money to target reporters.
See, the actual story is that there are some people who are conservative, and they had been digging up old embarrassing tweets.
The New York Times was shocked and outraged that anyone would dare try and expose them for their bad behavior, and then claimed it was a loose, knit group of Trump allies trying to discredit their reporters.
In response, it would seem that there's now going to be, I guess, an official fundraising effort using the press from the New York Times.
Congratulations, New York Times, you've played yourself.
So let's take a look at this story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share this video if you like it.
Sharing helps overcome the deranking that YouTube does to my channels and other independent political commentators.
Well, let's read this, because I want to talk about more than just what the Trump allies are doing.
I want to point out, first and foremost, the left has been doing this forever.
Media Matters, for instance, exists.
And there's also this study, which is actually a couple months old.
shows that the left absolutely holds a double standard in how they want to apply censorship,
which makes sense when you realize how they target these Trump supporters for doing
exactly what media matters does. Let's read. Axios, which I'm not a big fan of, reports,
President Trump's political allies are trying to raise at least $2 million to investigate reporters
and editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, according to a three-page
fundraising pitch reviewed by Axios.
Why it matters?
Trump's war on the media is expanding.
Oh, Trump's war.
This group will target reporters and editors, while other GOP 2020 entities go after the social media platforms alleging bias, officials tell us.
The group claims it will slip damaging information about reporters and editors to friendly media outlets such as Breitbart and traditional media, if possible.
People involved in raising the funds include GOP consultant Arthur Schwartz, and the quote, loose network The New York Times reported last week is targeting journalists.
The operations are to be run by undisclosed others.
They say their prospectus for the new project says it's targeting the people producing the news.
The irony, if it's actually really irony, the New York Times exposed an extremely improvisational effort that had outed a Times editor for past anti-Semitic tweets.
This new group is now using the exposure to try to formalize and fund the operation.
There you go, New York Times!
Your gun backfired and played yourself.
Organizers joke that their slogan should be brought to you by the New York Times.
Under quote primary targets, the pitch lists CNN, MSNBC, all broadcast networks, New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, and all others that routinely incorporate bias and misinformation into their coverage.
We will also track the reporters and editors of these organizations.
They're going to say this isn't an entirely new concept.
The liberal group Media Matters monitors journalists and publications and goes public with complaints of bias.
But being this blatant and specific about trying to discredit individual reporters is new.
I actually don't really think so.
I think this is what Media Matters overtly does.
I mean, do they really hide it?
I gotta say, I feel really sorry for people who read this website thinking it's real.
Seriously.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
They got a green checkmark?
Okay, no, they don't, they don't, okay.
So, Newsguard says Media Matters doesn't post fake news, but they don't correct errors.
I wonder if there's an About section we can dig into.
Probably not.
Oh, here we go.
Let's read the About section for Media Matters.
I say Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S.
media.
Is that a way of saying lie or mislead?
Because I can tell you right away, they've lied and misled people about me, so I can certainly assume they would do it about others.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, yada yada.
Look, we get the point.
Media Matters is literally what they're claiming the Trump supporters now want to do.
So maybe they should name it something similar.
But whenever we talk about the media and the bias, there are literally non-profits where they employ people to do nothing but watch conservative content and then smear them.
And then when Trump supporters say, hey, we'll do that, they go, oh!
Oh harumph I say, how dare conservatives call them out.
Look at the New York Times actually coming out with a story saying Trump supporters are trying to come after us because they don't like our reporting.
What have you guys been doing?
Welcome to the party you started.
Your lucky conservatives held back as long as they did.
Now here's the thing.
People on the left think they're the benevolent dictators.
They tend, as of today, it didn't used to be this way, they're not fact-checking.
They're just believing whatever it is they hear on the internet.
Now of course there are conservatives who fall into this trap too, but it's overwhelmingly the left.
And that's why moderates and conservatives tend to agree on a worldview and liberals don't.
But there's this study here called the ideology of censorship.
And they have the abstract essentially proving.
The left wants to censor ideas that they don't like, and they don't want to censor ideas they do like, because they don't have a consistent principle backing what they're actually doing.
They just say, rules for thee but not for me, I get power and you don't.
So why would we ever want to empower a group of people that want power for no reason other than to have it?
That's the last person who should be in charge, right?
The person who should be in charge is the person who doesn't want to be.
Which is one of the biggest problems we have is that, you know, everybody who wants to be a politician probably shouldn't be.
Let's read this.
So I'm not going to read the entire, you know, PDF publication, but this is from a few months ago.
This is from—it's the Ideology of Censorship Research Gate by Beau Weingart, Corey J. Clark, and Ethan Bunnell.
So let me say this.
Maybe I have been wrong in my assessment.
Let's read this so we can get their actual assessment of what's happening.
The study says, recent work has suggested that liberals have sacred values about protecting low status groups and thus are particularly prone to bias against any information that portrays those groups unfavorably.
In a pre-registered study, N equals 559, we tested whether liberals would support more censorship of information that portrays low status groups unfavorably.
So they say that men evolved to be better leaders than women, and they go on to talk about Islam and terror and white people, intelligence, etc.
Then similar information that portrays high status groups unfavorably.
So, you know, what do they say?
That women evolved to be better leaders than men, Christianity is violent, etc.
So you can see how they inverted it.
The results very clearly supported predictions.
Liberals consistently displayed double standards in their censorship preferences, such that they desired to censor information that portrays low-status groups unfavorably more than information that portrays high-status groups unfavorably.
Moderates and conservatives supported more similar levels of censorship regardless of whether the information was favorable toward relatively high or low-status groups.
But conservatives did display a small preference for censoring Christian violence over Islamic violence.
Exploratory analysis also revealed that Millennials might be slightly more in support of censorship than Generation X in general.
But Baby Boomers' censorship support generally fell between that of Generation X and Millennials.
Perhaps that has to do with Millennials being the children of Boomers for the most part.
But we can see something.
There's a couple things interesting here.
First, What are they using to determine what a low-status group is?
group is.
Now I'm sure it's probably in the research and I'm not going to pull up the full text
of the PDF.
You've got to sign up and do a bunch of stuff like that.
I'm not going to read through everything, but I guess it's all here, right?
Well anyway, here's what I want to point out.
What makes someone a low status group and why I find this study worrisome.
A low-status group, in the eyes of the left, isn't necessarily those without power.
They believe multi-millionaires are low-status people, who are, you know, you can't criticize, or you can't try and, you know, challenge their power.
They're individuals who are extremely powerful in politics.
Ocasio-Cortez is one of them.
Sure, maybe a year ago she was a nobody, but now she's a congresswoman.
And she has tremendous power.
When people criticize her, she says, oh, harumph, I say, how dare you challenge a woman of color?
This is the problem with, in my opinion, the liberal censorship.
Media Matters is trying to get people taken down using this bias.
And that's pretty worrisome, if you ask me, when you realize there's no principle behind what they're actually advocating.
And we can see that moderates and conservatives support similar levels of censorship regardless.
I think censorship is bad, but the fact that moderates and conservatives are acting on principle makes sense and the left isn't.
The left just wants power.
If you're someone like Dave Chappelle, A black man.
And you challenge them?
They will slam you.
If you're Serena Williams, they will claim you're a poor, innocent victim.
In the end, what they end up doing is propping up the oligopoly, the wealthy.
Look, right now the military-industrial complex, the big weapons manufacturers in the U.S.
are all headed by women.
Congratulations, feminism, you've won!
And now you can't challenge them because, well, that would be biased against a low-status group.
You see the problem?
We need to challenge people based on the content of their character.
Not the color of their skin.
Not their religion.
And let's make this point.
Is Islam, you know, they mention in the study it's a low status group.
In the US, maybe.
But in the world, not really.
And that's another issue.
By all means, let's call out the bigotry against religious groups.
But are you going to empower a global power, you know, and allow these people to gain a foothold in countries where they don't have a large enough majority up until they get a majority?
It doesn't make sense.
If you've got a bad idea, we'll call it out, regardless of who you are, regardless of the color of your skin, your gender, or where you've come from, or what god you believe in.
Bad ideas are bad ideas, period.
So here's the big point, and I'll wrap this up.
They're shocked now that Trump supporters are playing the same game as Media Matters, right?
It's not just Media Matters.
Tons of left-wing media companies do the same thing.
They act like the moral arbiters in the police.
And we can see, based on this study, that when it comes to the intersectional ideology, there's no principles behind this.
These are people who want power for the sake of having power.
Those are the last people who should get it.
So, stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The cliffs are eroding.
The way I've described the censorship problem is that we're all standing on this big island that's, you know, a hundred feet up and there's water crashing at the shore.
But as that water crashes into the edges of this platform, it erodes.
People like me who might be in the center know that at a certain point, the cliff is eroding from one direction and I will eventually fall off of it.
So in the past, I have been very critical of the censorship of the far right and the alt-right and things like that.
Even, you know, so long as they're not breaking the rules to an extent, I know the rules are biased themselves, They should be okay.
But there have been many people who've broken no rules and have been banned.
Recently, there have been people like James Alsup, for instance.
I don't know what's going on with his channel, but I don't want to act like I know a lot about his particular, you know, political ideology, because I don't really know the guy.
But people have referred to him as alt-right or white nationalist or whatever.
I'm not going to make that accusation, but I will highlight others have done that, and I'm highlighting it to make one point.
Whether or not he actually holds those views, I'm pretty sure.
You know, I've talked to a lot of people who say he does.
I'm trying to be very careful.
But, his channel was deleted, and he broke no rules.
This is the problem, you see.
How do I know that I'll have a channel tomorrow?
I don't break any rules.
I don't even swear.
You know, I try to be advertiser-friendly.
They still demonetize my content, but then approve it for monetization later.
How about this?
Mumkey Jones.
You may remember this guy.
He had, what, 300-something thousand subs?
Deleted his channel, his second channel, any new channel.
He broke no rules.
His videos were even monetized.
Why not give people a warning?
Because the censorship is getting worse.
Check this out.
YouTube says it has removed more than 100,000 videos under new hate speech rules.
New rules!
Meaning these people didn't get a chance.
They had their videos purged.
Even though... You see how they're retroactively applying these rules and the danger?
I've been thinking about this and I feel like the only thing I can really do is delete every single video off both my channels because I never know at what point they might change the rule and say, hey Tim, you were critical of the Democrats.
We added a new rule that you can't criticize political parties because of the escalation of tensions and violence.
And then what?
My channel gets retroactively punished and deleted?
Yes.
It's happened before.
Let's read the story and see what's currently going on with the purging of YouTube videos.
Before we get started, head over to youtube.com slash TimCast.
I'm sorry.
Head over to timcast.com slash donate.
If you want to support my work.
The reason this is so important?
Because they're arbitrarily just deleting YouTube channels.
Now, while I do think I'm safe to an extent, things are ramping up for 2020.
And I'm having to censor more and more stuff.
It's getting really annoying.
We did, for Subverse, we had on-the-ground reporters at an event.
We couldn't actually show you the factual information because it could get us banned on YouTube.
We can't cover the news.
It's a fact.
So we have to say, like, the extended coverage and the things that would get us banned are here.
This is what TimCast.com exists for.
If in the event my channels are deleted, I'd like to still live.
You know what I mean?
I'd like to be able to buy food and pay my bills.
By supporting me on these platforms through crypto, through a physical address, or by PayPal, you ensure that in the event YouTube, you know, hacks my channels to bits, I will at least have a short amount of time to try and figure out how to keep producing content and survive in the event that I can no longer do this.
So there are alternatives, certainly.
There are people who want me to go work at companies, but let's keep it independent.
Let's read the story from the hill.
They report, YouTube said Tuesday that it has removed more than 100,000 videos marked as hate speech under the platform's new policy against bigoted and supremacist content.
The video-sharing giant said it removed more than 17,000 channels and 100,000 videos for violating its hate speech policy between April and June, the month in which the policy was instituted.
I'm pretty sure criticizing veterans is now called hate speech.
They say a five-time increase in the number of removals in the first three months of the year.
Google-owned YouTube also said it has removed more than 500 million comments for hate speech.
Double the amount of removals in the first quarter of the year.
I'm at the point where I'm thinking I should just disable comments outright.
Because they're now trying to use comments against the channel.
They've done it in the past.
You know, what are you supposed to do?
Just, hey, here's a TV channel, right?
Quote, the spikes in removal numbers are in part due to the removal of older comments, videos, and channels that were previously permitted.
They're literally saying they are retroactively applying rules.
To me, that's nuts.
Even Twitter didn't do that.
Overall, in the second quarter of this year, YouTube removed more than 4 million channels, mostly for violating its policies against scams and spam, and more than 9 million videos.
Well, you know, I can recognize the scams and spam thing.
That's really annoying.
YouTube emphasized that it is focused on removing harmful or offensive content before it is viewed by any users on the site.
According to the post, YouTube's efforts have resulted in an 80% reduction in views on content that is later removed for violating the platform's policies.
YouTube has come under increasing scrutiny from civil rights groups, lawmakers, and regulators over the past year for a range of issues including children's privacy and extremist content.
But I must stress, What civil rights group is going to oppose free speech?
It makes you wonder if they're actually for rights or against them.
Listen, you have no right not to be offended.
You have a right to speak your mind.
You have a right to exist equally under the law.
Civil rights groups, if they're coming to YouTube and demanding content be removed, they're anti-civil rights groups.
Or they're, like, what would you even call that?
They're not for civil rights.
I guess you could theoretically still say they are a civil rights group in that they're a negative civil rights group.
They want to say the spike comes after YouTube in June updated its hate speech policies to ban videos that promote extremist ideologies.
What, like Antifa?
Such as white supremacy or caste superiority.
Now that's kind of weird.
I don't know much about caste superiority, I guess.
But I have to wonder if India is going to take offense to that.
That's going after the whole culture.
A move that was applauded by critics who have been pushing the website to take more action against hateful content that has proliferated on its platform.
The policy change also banned content that promotes conspiracies, such as the false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting never happened, which is a weird thing to begin with.
But, you know, the challenge for me in this regard when it comes to fake news, and we're entering really murky, dangerous territory here, man.
If I publish a story that is factually true, but no one backs it up because it's original reporting, Can I be deleted?
What if the media all says one thing is true, and I report the contrary?
It's happened before.
Everybody was reporting on a story, the AP covered it, and I challenged it.
And I proved it wrong.
My video got taken down.
Not for being a conspiracy, but it got taken down for being, like, bullying or something.
And then a couple days later, when the AP retracted the story, oh, surprise, surprise, YouTube reinstates my video.
YouTube, by doing this, is straight up saying, we are going to make sure the only content that can exist on top will come from mainstream publications first, and then YouTube.
What constitutes something not being a conspiracy?
Seriously.
Is Russiagate a conspiracy?
Yes.
Was it wrong?
Yes.
Why does YouTube allow it?
Should YouTube go back now and delete every single report from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News about Russiagate?
Well, admittedly, Fox News was more on the right side of that one.
Okay, Rachel Maddow's show.
I think it's time to delete her channel retroactively because she's promoted conspiracies, right?
What do you mean?
What's that?
YouTube isn't actually going to take any action against major corporate channels who have pushed nonsense before?
Ah, okay.
What about the New York Times?
The New York Times hiring Sarah Jung?
Yeah, we get it.
YouTube is trying to make sure that independent channels cannot ever be mainstream.
They are bending the knee to the mainstream, and then look at Netflix.
The Dave Chappelle special.
You see what happens?
Dave Chappelle's special is hate speech.
It is, according to YouTube's rules.
And it's being, it's almost, well, I don't want to say universally acclaimed, but it is getting a lot of support.
You know, millions of views on the videos, well, over a million views on the videos I've made about it.
Tons of people are praising it.
Moderates and conservatives, at least.
But it's generating a ton of attention.
YouTube wants to make sure they never get that attention again.
Some people say this is how you can predict the end of YouTube.
Because when people don't know what they can or can't upload and their channels are deleted, they go somewhere else.
You know what's really interesting?
BitChute.
On BitChute, I've got something like 60,000 subs.
Not that many.
I don't actively engage with it.
It just automatically uploads my videos, but there are a lot of people who choose to go there instead.
And there are a lot of people who have been taken down from YouTube Who go there instead?
So here's the thing, YouTube.
If you won't support edgy content, if your rules are vague, if you claim conspiracies are bad and you'll ban people but then you don't ban MSNBC or Rachel Maddow specifically, then your rules mean literally nothing.
And in the end, people will lose confidence.
Like, going back to James Alsup, for instance, I know that he was very, very careful about not breaking any rules.
He has opinions.
I've honestly never watched any of his videos, so I can't tell you what those opinions are.
I do know that, having talked to a lot of people, they've expressed how he's always been extremely careful.
So, you know what?
I'll say this.
Maybe he wasn't, but that's my understanding.
You don't have to like the guy to point out that YouTube can tell you the rules, and you can say, you got it, I'll follow the rules, and they will delete you anyway.
A better example being Mumkey Jones.
They say, In the Tuesday blog post, YouTube referred to the hate speech policy update as a fundamental shift.
We spent months carefully developing the policy and working with our teams to create the necessary trainings and tools required to enforce it.
The policy was launched in early June, and as our teams review and remove more content in line with the new policy, our machine detection will improve in tandem.
Yep, that means.
It's only a matter of time before I get deleted.
Seriously.
The smear pieces keep coming, the hit pieces keep coming.
This is their end goal.
YouTube is going to delete everybody.
So I'll tell you this.
Before you sign off, go subscribe to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I am going to be producing travel vlogs and behind-the-scenes content, and admittedly, YouTube might delete this channel along with the rest of my content anyway, regardless of what I publish, because that's what they do.
But look at this!
There are now three TimCast channels.
What a weird thing.
TimCastIRL, TimCast, and TimPool.
This is the TimCast channel.
And there's also Subverse.
Hopefully, YouTube lets the Milk Toast Fence Sitter continue making content, but I'm going to have to say it's probably not going to happen.
It's probably not going to be likely they leave me alone.
I think they'll come for everybody.
They will.
Unless you're Jimmy Kimmel or whatever.
They're going to purge anybody who's not perfectly in line with the mainstream.
What are you going to do about it?
I don't know.
Stick around.
I've got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Isn't Chick-fil-A, like, America's favorite fast food restaurant right now?
Can I just stress, I absolutely love Chick-fil-A.
It's really, really good, right?
I like Wendy's, too.
I'm not a big fast food eater, okay?
So you're not gonna see me going to these places very often.
But I gotta admit, that Chick-fil-A sauce, that is some good stuff.
The other day, I was making a bagel, and we had some leftover Chick-fil-A sauce, and I used it on a bagel, an everything bagel sandwich.
It was amazing.
A little sugary, though.
There's a reason why I'm praising Chick-fil-A's delicious, delicious food.
And it's not because I want you to go spend money there.
Let's make a point.
Chick-fil-A is a fast food restaurant.
Is it the healthiest place in the world?
No.
But the food is really good and most people really like it.
But the left is trying to take away... The left is trying to take away our chicken sandwiches!
Why?
This is the weirdest fight to engage in.
Faculty at Kansas University want Chick-fil-A thrown off campus.
It's a, quote, bastion of bigotry.
No, it isn't!
It was a couple guys several years ago who made a low five-figure donation to a group that campaigned for traditional marriage.
I don't care.
How big is the company?
It's huge.
There's a ton of people.
They probably make way more money.
And no, barely any of it goes to any political groups.
In the end, it's just a chicken sandwich.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
You see what they do?
Instead of saying, I won't support this, they should say, we must destroy it.
Look, does Kansas University have a right to get rid of a fast food restaurant for the political beliefs of two people at the company?
To me, that sounds insane.
But we are seeing this ever-increasing tactic from the left to destroy everything that runs afoul of their groupthink.
Sorry, dude, this is the weirdest fight you've been engaging in, because guess what?
America really likes Chick-fil-A.
Those chicken sandwiches, man.
I like that grilled chicken with Chick-fil-A sauce, and then I get the little chicken nuggets, and you get the waffle fries, and I just load up on the Chick-fil-A sauce.
Okay, I don't really eat Chick-fil-A that often.
There's one nearby.
But I'm just sort of pointing this out.
Can I say this?
People in this country are not going to get behind your political protest over their delicious chicken sandwiches.
In fact, just recently, a dude pulled a gun at a Popeyes because they ran out of chicken sandwiches.
You think you're gonna win this political fight?
You're nuts.
I'll tell you this, man.
Look.
I've talked about the Civil War and the left versus the right and the Democrats.
You want to know what's really going to get support for Donald Trump?
Chick-fil-A getting banned.
Hold on, I know it sounds silly, but I'll make this the thesis of this video.
Think about this.
Donald Trump comes out and says the left is going crazy, they want to ban everything, they're censoring everything, and then you go one day.
Imagine this.
You know, hopey-dopey, you know, just regular old middle America, you know, family.
Our, you know, guy gets off work, has his kids, he doesn't know anything about politics.
He pulls up Chick-fil-A, and he goes, man, I worked all day, and I got the kids screaming in my ear, and I just want that delicious chicken sandwich, because Americans really do like it.
And everybody orders, and he's got a smile on his face, and he's thinking, like, man, this is gonna be great.
We're gonna get home, we're gonna have nice chicken sandwiches.
Awesome.
He comes home one day, you know, expecting to have the sweet, delicious Chick-fil-A, and unfortunately, the store's gone.
Protesters shut it down.
They couldn't open.
And now this regular middle American man is saying, what is happening?
Why can't I have a normal chicken sandwich?
And then here comes Trump bullhorning on Twitter or in front of the White House, you know, with all the reporters around.
He goes, you got these people trying to shut down chicken sandwich shops.
It's ridiculous.
The Democrats are supporting these crazy leftists.
And I'll tell you what, man, You can go after every mainstream issue.
For me, I think war is a big problem.
I really, really do.
I think we need diplomacy, and I think we've got issues of, you know, the way I explained it on Crowder, I don't know if this made it to the show, but it's that when people get into the office of the presidency, they see all this power they have, and they say, well, it's just easier for me to use it, right?
I'm in charge.
I control it.
It's better that I do this, and then they drone strike and they do these things.
I don't like it.
But I'll tell you one thing.
If I go to some, you know, 40-year-old dude, and I say, I really want you to support Tulsi Gabbard because she's opposing war, he's gonna be like, look man, I don't know anything about this.
I'm sure it's a complicated issue.
I'm gonna have to just think about it.
It's gonna be really, really difficult.
Take my word for it.
I've done canvassing, campaigning, and fundraising before for non-profits, where I'm trying to convince someone, like, listen man, deforestation is really bad, trust me, and some people say, I just don't know enough about it to commit.
I understand.
How about this?
How about Chick-fil-A gets shut down at the university and I'm standing out in front with a clipboard saying, bring back Chick-fil-A.
Somebody walks up and they're like, or no, no, no, no, not bring back Chick-fil-A, but you know, stop the censorship, something like that.
And I say, and they walk up and they're staring at the closed chicken restaurant and they can't get that sandwich.
And I say, It's a shame you can't have that sandwich, right?
And now they're angry.
I say, well, it's because of cancel culture.
It's because of these outraged leftists.
And now all of a sudden their ears perk up and they say, tell me who to vote for to get me my chicken sandwich.
I know it sounds silly, but this kind of stuff hits close to home.
Okay, but we should probably read a little bit about this, but I think that really is the more important takeaway.
When you go after people's comedy, don't be surprised if they vote for the guy in favor of comedy.
You go after Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, and Ricky Gervais, don't be surprised when they side against you saying, I don't like that you're taking away the things that make me feel good.
I'll admit, man, fast food, too much of it, it's a bad thing.
But if you're just going for, you know, you have a bad day at work, and all you really wanted were those crispy waffle fries dipped in that sweet, tangy orange sauce, and the protesters are taking it away from you, these people are going to vote Trump in two seconds if they can't get their waffle fries.
Trust me, I know.
You know, when I was younger, I was always complaining about how people weren't active in politics.
About how when I tried to say, listen man, the stuff the U.S.
is doing overseas, you know, the drone strikes, and they'd be like, I don't care, dude.
It has no effect on me.
I don't care.
And they go and vote for the guy who promises them, you know, whatever they can get.
You know, like Obama says, we're gonna get you healthcare, they vote for it.
And that's fine, I understand that, right?
But they're voting for their selfish interests.
And it's frustrating.
So now I can just say this, man.
You want to take away something that people really like, they will side against you.
It's not just chicken sandwiches.
I'm just using this as a stand-in for this general idea.
Like, imagine if you tried banning booze.
You're gonna lose that one.
America did.
People are immediately gonna flock to the people who are gonna give them their vices back.
Be it fast food, alcohol, or even marijuana.
That's right.
Democrats are going to get a ton of support by saying legalize marijuana.
Dan Crenshaw said he disagreed.
He's not so sure.
That's a bad play, man.
People like freedom, okay?
Don't hurt others.
But if you want to eat a chicken sandwich with a beer... You want to have a beer with a chicken sandwich while smoking a doobie?
More power to you, man.
Do whatever... Like, you know, we got some rules here.
You can't drink or smoke under the age of 21.
Totally get it.
We got to have some reason in moderation.
But I'll tell you what.
If you're sitting on your crappy old 1980s couch that you got from a thrift store, and you're watching, you know, an episode of Family Guy, and you want to enjoy a chicken sandwich, you know, a Miller Lite, and then smoke a joint...
Dude, I literally don't care.
What you want to do that makes you happy, in the privacy of your own home, just be safe.
Don't hurt kids.
Enjoy your fast food.
That's why the weed thing is a really big issue.
It's a big bonus for the left.
Republicans, you gotta get on this.
You gotta get on the freedom train.
This is what's insane.
Censoring people, shutting things down.
I can't believe I've ranted this much on Chick-fil-A.
Let's read a little bit.
They say, I'm going to Chick-fil-A after this, I swear to God.
No, okay, I'm not gonna.
I'm gonna get some healthy food.
of bigotry are fighting against allowing America's most popular fast food chain to move from
a campus basement to the school's main student center, as well as sponsor the Chick-fil-A
coin toss for every home football game.
The fast food chain has operated for 15 years in the basement of KU's Wesco Hall, as KansasCity.com reported.
Of course, it's the gender diversity people.
Wrote a letter to the university saying, in the spring, we spoke out to denounce the decision to relocate the business, which has a history of supporting organizations that, okay, okay, I'm not gonna read this.
You know why I'm not gonna read their stupid letter?
It was two guys, and it was like 25K, one time.
Now, yes, there have been some stories saying they have, other employees and other high-ranking people at the company may have made donations as well, but the company itself didn't do it.
The left wants to argue.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but these people make their money through Chick-fil-A.
Dude, it's not Chick-fil-A.
It was the individuals who had the jobs.
Are you gonna boycott Wendy's because the woman working the register happens to be a Christian?
That makes literally no sense.
They've lost it, okay?
And now they're going after chicken restaurants.
Is this the most important thing that we can be fighting over?
Well apparently so.
years from now they'll say the great battle in the culture, one great battle
in the culture war in 2019 was left-wing groups fighting against a chicken
restaurant. Is this the most important thing that we can be fighting over? Well
apparently so. I gotta say man, I think this is the perfect example of how
insane the left has gone. College Republicans are fighting back!
Garrett Miller, a spokesman for the College Republicans group at the university, noted of the fast food chain's university outlet, usually any time of the day it's just packed.
Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate, yadda yadda yadda.
That's, that's, that's, okay, I'm done.
Chick-fil-A has always got lines out the door.
Why are, what is wrong with these people, dude?
I do try to keep these short, so I'm not going to read too much of it, but I'm just going to stress the final point.
I wonder what's gonna happen.
Actually, you know what?
Hold on.
Hold on.
This is a good thing.
You know why?
These college students who are being inundated with this propaganda and other nonsense, not all college students, but a lot of them, they packed the lines at Chick-fil-A, and now their own allies are trying to shut it down?
What better way to lose support and get Donald Trump elected than to take away someone's fried chicken?
