NYT REMOVED Details About Kavanaugh Allegation On Purpose, Journalist Was CLASSMATES With Him
NYT REMOVED Details About Kavanaugh Allegation On Purpose, Journalist Was CLASSMATES With Him. We are now learning about glaring omissions and conflicts of interest in the Brett Kavanaugh story from the New York Times.Democrats are still rallying for impeachment and Vox and CNN have both run stories about how to remove Brett Kavanaugh from the supreme court over what is now obviously old, uncorroborated, and in all likelihood fake news.The reported on the story at one point said she was classmates with Kavanaugh. An insane oversight and glaring conflict of interest that puts the reported in the story. This wasn't a piece of objective reporting on Kavanaugh, this was someone privy to parties and events not disclosing personal connections to the subject.The far left and Democrats are now using the smear to further harm the Supreme Court Justice even after the story is debunked.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The controversy surrounding the New York Times and Brett Kavanaugh has continued to escalate, with new information emerging that the New York Times actually had evidence in their story which casts doubt on this new allegation, and removed it.
They removed it intentionally.
It was the editors.
Now, this is a complicated circumstance.
And I don't want to imply, I want to be very careful, the authors weren't necessarily trying to mislead, but the information was omitted.
Combining this with other bits of information that were omitted, and I personally feel it was intentional.
Now, I lean only slightly towards it being intentional, because I always say, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
It's Hanlon's razor.
But in this circumstance, a lot of information was omitted.
Now look, This is the third video I'm doing on Kavanaugh, and it's kind of frustrating.
But there's an important reason outside of the fake news why I highlight this.
The Kavanaugh effect is widely believed to have helped Republicans in the Senate in 2018.
That by coming out with these outrageous stories about Brett Kavanaugh and smearing him, Republicans were riled up, and it strengthened Trump's base.
Though we do have a lot of interesting tidbits here having to do with fake news and media malfeasance, we also have the very real impact this might have in bolstering Republicans and the right.
You know what, man?
Look, I feel like I've shown the data over and over again that people feel the left is going too far left.
The New York Times has said the left has veered very far to the left, and the data shows it.
I've shown all of the charts.
I'm not going to get into it.
For those that aren't familiar, for whatever reason, a new book is coming out.
It came out, I believe, yesterday or today.
And the New York Times published a story, for some reason, not in the news section, but the opinion section, which claims there's a new allegation, not actually made by the victim, but by a third party who may have witnessed a story and then conveyed that story to these journalists.
And now, all of a sudden, there are calls for Brett Kavanaugh's impeachment.
The reason why this is so alarming is that the New York Times knew there was no victim, and the accusations are essentially being denied because the woman apparently has no recollection of any of these incidents.
That was removed from the story, as you can see here from the Hill.
So let's just jump right in, and I want to go through the Kavanaugh effect, how this is going to help Trump, and even The View on ABC is saying so.
I know they're going to say, Tim, why are you acting like it's always helping the Republicans?
It's The View, dude.
It's Whoopi Goldberg and other View hosts who are saying this.
It's not just my personal opinion.
Sane, rational people are watching the fake news play right into Trump's hands, but more importantly, Prove Trump right!
When Trump says there's no fact-checking, it's fake news.
Well, what do you want people to believe when this keeps happening and they did it on purpose?
Let's start with the hill.
Before we get started, though, head over to TimCast.com slash donate.
If you would 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.
I am directly competing with these powerful mainstream media organizations, and YouTube props them up.
Not an exaggeration.
We've seen it in the data.
They give a boost to CNN and MSNBC and Fox News.
If you think I do a good job, well, YouTube deranks my channel.
There's one thing they can't derank, though.
Your willingness to share this content if you think it's good.
If you think I do a good job, and you think more people should hear what I have to say, then please consider sharing this video, but by no means should you feel obligated.
I would just greatly appreciate it, and it would help me continue doing my work.
Let's read the first story from The Hill, and then I've got, I think, four more instances of omitted information.
It's very interesting.
The Hill reports, The two New York Times reporters who co-authored a controversial essay about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Tuesday that there was zero intent to mislead anyone on the new incident of misconduct detailed in the story.
We really tried to look at things from a 360-degree perspective.
That's from Kate Kelly, one of the co-authors, who told Lawrence O'Donnell Monday night, The essay was adapted from a forthcoming book by Kelly and Robin Pogrebin titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh and Investigation.
However, what they say essentially is that they had the woman's name in it.
She's the alleged victim who doesn't remember any of this.
And an editor took out the full sentence, which included a clarification that she did not want to be interviewed and didn't remember any of this happening.
They also apparently took out information where her friend said the same thing.
They say the correction triggered widespread outrage from conservatives, with President Trump seizing at it several times.
No, no, I'm sorry.
Even the left is criticizing them over this.
The View, for instance.
But for some reason, the narrative is always that conservatives are the only ones outraged by this.
Listen, there is a sane, rational, left-wing, you know, group of people.
They exist.
And they have principled opposition to this.
The New York Times failed on a standard journalistic level.
In fact, some more important information is that the story was passed up by the news section of the Times and then pushed to the opinion section.
But let's read.
They say, Pogrebin told O'Donnell the woman's name and the reference to her not remembering the incident were initially included in the article, but were taken out during the editing process.
I gotta call BS on this.
Hold on.
I think it was just done in haste of the editing process, she said.
Kelly added that their hope was that people will look at the book, which has a much fuller context, about the incident and the allegations.
Okay.
You're saying that you wrote an op-ed which had an important clarification, the alleged victim doesn't recall and doesn't want to be interviewed, and it was taken out by the editor, and you didn't notice.
I believe, personally, all of these omissions, and there are more, are intentional.
I kid you not, there's another instance where they did the same thing.
I believe, personally, they knew it would sell books, it would generate buzz, and it would bring us exactly where we are today.
With outraged commentary, with television interviews, with a presidential response, and with people like me on YouTube ranting and raving about it.
That's my personal opinion.
If the editor took out that sentence, either they're grossly incompetent, which, you know, is entirely possible, or it was on purpose.
Because if the editor made changes, he'd send it back, presumably this is how it operates in most newsrooms, at least my understanding, and they would look at the edits and say, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you took out very important context here.
They said nothing.
So it's entirely possible the New York Times is just really, really bad at what they do.
But I've got to say this.
Based on who they've been hiring, you know, people, I'm not going to drop names in this
particular instance.
I'm going to avoid getting into all the details.
But the New York Times has hired very offensive individuals.
We've seen leaked conversations about critical race theory.
And they're the paper of record.
What does that mean?
I doubt of all of the newsrooms the New York Times would make a glaring mistake in not recognizing an edit to a piece which changed the context.
But I would believe, based on who they've hired and the statements they've made, they have a political motivation.
That's just my opinion, okay?
But let me move forward and show you things that back this up.
Next story we have comes from the Federalist that notes This information about the woman not remembering was omitted from an NPR interview as well.
If they were going to do an interview about this and talk about this story but omit this key detail, I have to wonder why.
Check this out.
It's not that they mentioned the most important fact and it was edited out of NPR.
In fact, the omission was so significant that Gross recorded an update and inserted it into the show immediately thereafter, noting the omission and how it has also had to be corrected at the New York Times.
Pogerman and Callie have a pattern of omitting this detail and other key details.
Now, let's talk about possibly the most glaring omission of all.
I didn't believe this next bit was real.
I kid you not.
When I saw the initial tweet making this next claim, I said, that's fake news.
There's no way that's real.
But here it is.
From the Washington Examiner, certified by NewsGuard, green checkmarks across the board, except for disclosing financing.
The New York Times reporter behind Kavanaugh article knew him in college and was in his freshman year dorm.
I kid you not.
How was this not in the story?
I was in Brett's class at Yale, she admitted.
They were classmates!
It didn't influence it.
We weren't friends.
I knew him to kind of say hello.
It doesn't matter.
That is a glaring conflict of interest.
I can't believe that.
Pogrebin went on to say, I had varsity athletes as roommates and he hung with a kind
of athletic crowd, and so we overlapped to that extent. But she said it helped
her reach out to people.
In the episode, which aired on October 2, 2018, Pogrebin acknowledged they were classmates,
said she was in his freshman year dorm, and that she had a vague memory of him.
Kelly also revealed she grew up in the Washington, D.C.
area and went to a private all-girls school, which was similar to Kavanaugh's schooling.
However, she did acknowledge that her school has not been linked to Kavanaugh's school.
Point being, You would think I was in Brett's class at Yale would be a very, very, very significant bit of information that needs to be placed in the story.
Now, she can come out and say, I don't remember him.
We weren't friends.
That doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because I can't make that assumption.
If we look back at yearbooks and we look back at the class history and see that they were classmates, That is a glaring omission, that is a significant omission, and a major, major conflict of interest.
And I'll tell you why.
Outside of the fact there's a potential personal relationship here, potentially a personal
vendetta, she might actually know people who know Kavanaugh and have shared information.
They are potentially in conflicting social circles.
There may be someone she knows who knows Kavanaugh who doesn't like Kavanaugh.
That is, I can't believe they omitted this.
It's amazing.
But then it gets even more interesting.
I gotta admit, this is ridiculous.
Amanda Prestigiacomo, I hope I'm pronouncing your name right, I'm really bad at pronouncing names apparently, she said, the New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin admitted, on The View, that she wrote the initial tweet.
Now, you can't really see it, but the initial tweet said, having privates thrust in your face may seem like harmless fun, but Deborah Ramirez yada yada.
The reason that's significant Is because the initial tweet framed it as though it was a fact.
They presented information to assume it was true, without saying it was disputed.
Now the tweet had to be deleted, but then Amanda goes on to say...
Pogrebin wrote the Kavanaugh smear article in the Times Opinion section, apparently after the news board passed, and omitted the fact that the accuser couldn't recall the incident.
Accuser did not want her name revealed.
Pogrebin used her name in the book anyway.
Now, Amanda did go on to add that there is no real accuser, because she didn't go on the record.
But we do have a bit more information here.
Actually, I think this is the wrong one.
What I wanted to highlight here is this section from the Daily Wire.
We'll go back to the other one in a second.
Asked why the bombshell claim was published in the Review section, which is part of the Opinion Desk, rather than the News section, Dow, who is the editor who removed the important information, said, It's not unusual for essays in the Review to break news, but according to Vanity Fair, that's not the full story.
Kelly and Pogrebin's sources told the outlet initially pitched their scoop to the news
side, but the editors felt, quote, there wasn't enough juice to warrant a story.
So what do we have here?
There was no story.
In fact, I covered yesterday, the Washington Post passed on this.
We now know, this I can't believe.
This is amazing.
That apparently, this is Pogrebin, who was a classmate of Kavanaugh's.
How does this not, I'm just, it's mind-blowing.
And apparently Max Steer, the guy making the claim, worked with the Clintons in some capacity.
I don't have that pulled up, and I didn't pull it up on purpose because I don't want to get into the Clinton stuff.
I really, really don't.
But I do think these weird conflicts of interest that keep coming up, I have to wonder why it keeps getting omitted.
Now I want to highlight this here just to show you that it really, it did fall into news analysis like they claim.
Now what I was going to highlight here before is just to reiterate that a very important point in the story that was omitted initially back in the initial reporting.
I did mention this yesterday but I want to stress this moving forward because we're going to get into the Kavanaugh effect now.
So Leland Kaiser was apparently the friend of Christine Blasey Ford who was at the party with Kavanaugh where all this went down.
Said.
Suggested.
There was pressure on her to toe the line.
In other stories, it essentially sounds like friends of Ford were essentially threatening this woman, saying, if you don't say it happened, then bad things will happen.
I stress this because now I want to start getting into the Kavanaugh effect.
What this means is, back in 20, uh, last year, when all this went down, it is believed, and I've got the sources, I'll show you, The Republicans were helped in the Senate, not the House.
And that, even Vox.com, V-O-X, predicted would be the case.
I believe.
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
But first, let's do this.
The Daily Caller, highlighting this segment from The View.
View co-hosts call out New York Times over edited Kavanaugh story.
You're helping Trump get re-elected.
Even Whoopi Goldberg is saying, how is this happening?
Check this out.
The comments came during a panel discussion on the ABC talk show Monday about a new allegation by a former classmate, Max Deer, who says he saw classmates push Kavanaugh while he was exposed into a female classmate at a party, Whoopi Goldberg explained, while noting how after the article came out, Democratic presidential hopefuls called for his impeachment.
However, the article didn't mention the female student declined to be interviewed and that her friends say she doesn't recall the incident.
This is Whoopi Goldberg!
Now the incident apparently is in the book, and the authors of the book will be here tomorrow, but I guess the question is, who edited the article to go into the Times?
You know what I mean.
And then we see, you know, Meghan McCain brings it up, and Abby Huntsman then basically comes out and says, you're playing right into the President's hands.
You are helping him get re-elected.
But I gotta stress this point.
Yes, it's fair to say you're playing into his hands, but can I just be, can we be real for a second?
That sort of insinuates the president was lying about what the media does.
No.
You're adding circumstantial evidence to the court of public opinion that when the president calls out the press for lying, that he was right the whole time.
I can't believe this is where we're at so far.
So we then can see even Morning Joe on MSNBC slamming the New York Times.
This is not a left and right thing.
Everyone is now seeing this.
When you get Joe Scarborough on talking about this, saying, how did this happen?
The View, Whoopi Goldberg, they say in the Hill piece the conservatives are angry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
But we got to move on.
I want to lightly mention this as we pass through.
Judge Napolitano says Brett Kavanaugh may actually have a case for suing the New York Times.
Now, I don't want to get into the full details, but I just want to highlight, if an editor at the Times removed that segment, which we know to be true now, yeah, that might be actual malice, meaning that reckless disregard for the truth, that they knew there was doubt on the story, and they omitted a key fact that made Brett Kavanaugh look worse.
But we must, we must carry on.
How to remove Brett Kavanaugh without impeaching him, Vox says.
Yes.
Because the left is now saying, based on this, it's time to move forward.
I kid you not.
CNN.
How to impeach a Supreme Court justice.
This is where we are now.
Even though the story's been debunked, even though we know there's been a ton of conflicts of interest and omitted information, we're still seeing this.
And I have to wonder why.
Well, I believe it all comes down to, for one, political expedience.
They know that they can gain from this regardless because the truth is irrelevant.
All that matters is they have the narrative and people will believe it.
So they're going to move forward.
When the New York Times story came out, like I showed you, That tweet that talked about, you know, it was all harmless fun.
That's a framing device.
It presents disputed facts with no corroboration as if it was true.
It assumes it was true so the average person sees that.
And the outrage was about downplaying the misconduct instead of whether or not it was even true.
You see how they jumped the gun?
They've now created a circumstance where because they downplayed the misconduct, everyone assumes the misconduct actually happened.
But let's check out now.
Back in 2018, we saw Vox asking the question, will the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings help Republicans?
In one section, they say this.
They dispute it.
They don't know for sure, because this is an old story.
What the Kavanaugh fight means for voter enthusiasm.
So that looks like the story of the horse race.
The Kavanaugh fight might be helping Republicans in the Senate, while making little difference in the House, where Democrats remain cautious favorites.
But the other outstanding question is about voter enthusiasm.
Is the contentious confirmation process going to motivate Republicans and erase what until now seemed to be a Democratic energy advantage?
Once again, the evidence is mixed.
It doesn't lend itself to an easy narrative.
But I will stress, this is an old story.
We now have the gift of hindsight.
They say it looks like it was helping Republicans in the Senate and making little difference in the House.
And what happened?
Democrats took the House.
Republicans gained in the Senate.
Exactly what we expected to see.
Isn't that crazy?
It may be true.
The Kavanaugh effect has done this.
And so what do you think happens next?
Republicans credit the Kavanaugh effect for Senate wins against red state Democrats, November 7th, 2018.
The predictions were coming from the left, even Vox.com, saying that the allegations against Kavanaugh are going to help Republicans in the Senate, not the House.
And that's exactly the result we got.
So when Republicans credit the Kavanaugh effect for Senate wins, I don't disagree.
Now when we see all of this fake news, the omissions, the smears, the lies, They're helping Trump.
And that's not my opinion.
It's the view.
The view with Whoopi Goldberg, Abby Huntsman, Meghan McCain.
They're the ones going out.
I know McCain's conservative.
But Whoopi Goldberg saying, how does this happen?
Abby Huntsman saying, you are playing into Trump's hands.
Yep.
Yep, that's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
So in the end, I guess the important points to take away.
As time goes on, the controversy just gets worse.
Not only did they omit the information from the initial story, they omitted the information in interviews with NPR that was so glaring that the host had to add it in after the fact.
They didn't say it.
We learned that one of the reporters was a classmate of Kavanaugh.
I kid you not.
The corruption in media, the malfeasance, it's palpable.
The news section passed on this story.
Okay, I can respect that.
But why the opinion section would pick this up and run with it?
Why didn't they say they were classmates?
It's really crazy, isn't it?
It's just mind-blowing.
And now we know that there was pressure on this woman.
It's just so, so absurd.
I don't really know what to say.
But I'm glad to see we've got MSNBC and The View popping up and saying this is insane.
Because here's the important thing.
One of the greatest concerns I have is when the lie travels around the world before the truth can strap on its boots.
At least, at least this time, at least this time, The View, MSNBC, are highlighting this.
I hope the truth can make the rounds.
In the end, You ask me.
You ask Tim.
Why don't you talk about Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans and holding up legislation?
Do you seriously think I care about the Senate Majority Leader holding up legislation?
They do that all the time.
The Democrats do it.
The Republicans do it.
It's business as usual.
It's status quo.
Whatever.
I'd love to talk about it.
I would love to absolutely criticize Mitch McConnell for holding up legislation and for holding up the Supreme Court hearings when Obama presented a moderate.
I get it.
I get it.
What are we doing today?
We're dealing with fake news smears and media malfeasance, okay?
They wonder why all of these videos I do are so critical of the fringe far left and the corruption and the absurdity.
It's dominating the media.
The lies are so absurd.
It's mind-blowing to me.
The conflict of interest, the grasping at straws, the insane policy.
It never ends.
Okay, it's just getting worse.
I can criticize Trump all day for policy and for being boorish, but it's just the same old same old.
I said the same things about Obama, and now here we are.
I can't believe the New York Times, no longer the paper of record.
This, this is egregious.
They were classmates, okay?
Can I stress that to you?
They were classmates.
She should not be writing the book or the story.
She is not an objective journalist.
She's an active participant in the history of the school and these parties and what happened.
And she might try to say, it didn't influence the book, trust me, we weren't friends.
It doesn't matter.
Were you going to the same parties?
Yes.
I believe that is extremely likely.
And it was omitted.
It's all just fake news.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
It is a different channel.
I don't know what's going to happen next, but I can't believe it's day three now with more and more details coming out and it's this bad.
Stick around.
I'll see you shortly.
Saturday Night Live was poised to hire a new cast member, Shane Gillis.
And then, uncovered from his past, offensive slurs, offensive jokes, very derogatory statements, homophobic slurs, he used a slur for Chinese people, and I can understand now, we see the news, Saturday Night Live fires new cast member after slurs surface online.
Now, there is a lot to talk about here.
The first thing I will say, we'll read this and see what he said, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the dude being fired.
Why?
Saturday Night Live is a private entity that hosts around a dozen or so comedians.
It is not open to the public.
It is not a public forum.
The president has been on the show a couple times, but he doesn't use it regularly for communication.
And you don't need to personally go on Saturday Night Live to engage in politics.
You see the big difference between tech platform censoring people and Saturday Night Live saying, we don't like your comedy?
I don't care who Saturday Night Live hires or fires.
That's their business as a private company.
The left then says, but Twitter is a private company.
Twitter is a monopoly on the political discourse in this country.
People don't use Facebook for the same thing.
And they barely use YouTube.
Well, they don't use YouTube for the same thing, necessarily.
Twitter is direct conversation and engagement that often cycles up into a greater news cycle.
YouTube is where people make video, and there is political commentary, but it's very different.
If you want to interact with the President of the United States, he's on Twitter.
Not YouTube.
Somewhat Facebook.
But the President tweets.
You see the difference?
Everybody uses Twitter.
Twitter has become too big.
They've gotten to the point now where we need to protect speech.
Saturday Night Live has only ever had a small cast.
You get it?
Now, there are some things I want to point out here, right?
Dave Chappelle used homophobic slurs in a Netflix special, shouting it with the intent of being edgy.
He didn't need to scream it into the microphone like he did, but he did because he was trying to be edgy.
And it worked.
And people like it.
Now, a lot of people don't like it.
The critics absolutely detested it.
But Netflix gave him a special.
You see, it's really weird that we can have Netflix being like, Dave Chappelle, come on and say it.
Bill Burr, come on and say it.
Joe Rogan, come on and say it.
Bill Maher on HBO, come out and say it!
But this guy can't, a year or two ago, say offensive things.
It makes me wonder.
There are podcasts that are left-leaning, and I don't want them to get banned, so I'm not gonna name them, but they do the exact same thing this guy does.
They are anti-Trump, socialist, left-wing, and they mock Asian people.
It's funny, because, you know, Harvard has this whole, you know, lawsuit thing going on where they discriminate against Asian people, and the left is okay with it.
That's really funny.
Now all of a sudden they're mad?
I just don't buy it.
Dave Chappelle did a very offensive stereotype of an Asian person, and they got angry, but guess what?
You can't do nothing about it.
And it brings me to why.
Now I'm gonna highlight this, but I know we should go through the story and see what he said, because what this guy said is different from what Dave Chappelle said.
I get it.
But...
I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted, I tweeted With the expressed intent of discussing why the jokes are racist and whether or not this would, you know, function.
Not to critique or celebrate.
To analyze.
Academically.
Let's see if they come to shut down a ton of people coming down to watch episodes of Family Guy.
I'd like to see that.
Well, here's what happened.
Random Thoughts said, Eddie Murphy did very homophobic jokes in his stand-up specials, but he's still slated to host SNL.
Why is it okay for one but not the other?
I don't even dislike Eddie.
And Justin Long Twitter said, ultimately it's cause Eddie is already famous, was a former SNL cast member, and probably most important knows all their dirty secrets.
Regardless of the dirty secrets thing.
Point is, I think it was the South Park guys who said, we're grandfathered in.
So let me wrap this up.
Why is Dave Chappelle allowed to scream the F word into the microphone twice?
And he screamed it!
Instead of just saying it to make a point, he yelled it as loud as he could.
OK?
You want to talk about being edgy?
It's one thing to tell a joke and say the word.
It's another thing for him to look at the audience like he knows what he's going to do and then yells it.
And that's what he did.
And then he paused and everyone laughs and everything.
Now listen, what this guy Shane Gillis said was intentionally edgy, provocative, and used slurs.
I get it.
But there's a very important point.
The first point I want to make.
Why is it that people who are already famous are allowed to be offensive?
Well, granted, I get, you know, Kevin Hart.
It's not everybody.
And you had, um... I forgot the other guy's name.
The guy who did Guardians of the Galaxy, whatever his name is.
I can picture his face, but I can't remember his name.
Whatever, I don't care anyway.
Sometimes, famous people get called out for past bad behavior.
You know, and then it becomes a big issue.
But Family Guy and South Park are still on the air.
And they have a history of overt...
Offensive behavior.
Swearing, cussing, racial slurs.
I mean, look.
Come on, man.
There's a character on South Park who has a restaurant called City Walk.
And he pronounces it with an S-H instead of the S sound.
And it turns out it's actually a white guy who has a mental illness.
Like, that's South Park.
They've combined as many offensive things as they can together.
The show's still on the air!
Yeah, their grandfather's in.
Why?
I just watched Family Guy last night, and Peter went to Israel, and everyone in Israel was Mort Goldman, the offensive stereotype, and they were like, oh look, he's feeding them.
And it was Joe, the handful of pennies, as all the morts walked up and started plucking pennies from his hand.
How is that still allowed on the air last night?
You see, They're going after low-hanging fruit.
The woke outrage culture targets those they know can't fight back.
That's the first and most important point.
But let me make the second, and, well, maybe the second point is more important.
That's an important point.
I think this is more important.
Did you know that I am, in fact, I'm gonna say it, part Asian?
Guess what?
There's a reason I say this, and there's a reason I highlight it, especially in stories like this.
I am not allowed to have a political position on this.
Period.
You know why?
If I came out... So look, he said... Let me pull up what he said.
He said, let the effing... I can't believe I didn't even censor that word.
Let the effing slur for Chinese people live there.
Okay.
If I say, I am offended by that, how dare he use that word?
I know I'm not Chinese, right?
But I am of East Asian descent, to an extent.
They will say, I'm here for you, Tim.
These people should learn their lessons.
They will support me.
I use support in air quotes because they're actually supporting themselves, but trying to use me.
If I was actually offended.
But then something magical happens.
The great white savior, that is the dude, what's his name, Seth Simons or whatever, the great white man who tells me what I should or shouldn't be offended by, comes out and says they shouldn't be allowed to say this.
Now what do you think happens if I say, dude, I don't care.
You can call me a slur for Korean people.
I can't say it, this is YouTube.
But, my friends used to... They used to call each other... Well, there was one guy who would call everybody by a racial slur, and no one cared.
Because we knew it was meant to be more endearing and funny, and it actually took the power away.
We knew our friend wasn't trying to be mean.
He was trying to, like... I don't know.
It was like when somebody in Australia uses the C word, right?
It was more of a term of endearment that was meant to de... It's hard to explain.
But when your good friend is joking and laughing and he calls you that, but he calls himself a slur and he calls other people, you know he's stripping that of the power needed to actually hurt us.
It was intended to be like, we're all in this together, sort of.
It was like, I'm shockingly offensive, but in such a way that it's offensive to me and everybody else.
I don't care!
I don't care if this guy comes out and says that word and talks about these people.
But here's the thing.
I get it.
I'm not Chinese.
That is a fair point.
Because there is a big difference.
Okay, but the point is, as somebody who is part Asian, I encounter two things.
If I agree with them, they pat me on the back and will use me to no end.
And if I disagree with them, they say, Well, Tim, I mean, you're passing.
You're not.
And you see why I bring this up?
I don't bring it up as often as people claim I do, but it is a meme.
I think the bigger meme is, you need a copy editor, because I read articles so often that are poorly written.
That's a different thing.
The point is...
I exist in a nebulous state where I'm not allowed to be offended or I'm not allowed to not be offended.
I am not allowed to tell this white dude who got all angry at Shane Gillis to shut up.
Not allowed.
Now, it is a fair point.
Again, I'm not Chinese.
I get it.
But he did an offensive impersonation of Asian people in general.
Nope!
Not allowed to be offended.
Because 10 years don't understand, they say.
I was doing an interview with a group of activists, one of which was Korean, and I was explaining my experiences with racism, and she immediately told me I wasn't Asian enough to understand, and that I should stop talking, and all this other offensive stuff.
It's like, dude, what do you want from me?
That's the thing.
I said before that, I said Asians are Schrodinger's people of color because they both simultaneously, they exist in a superposition of both, you know, discriminated people of color, but actually people of privilege based on stats and how people respond.
And then someone said, no, it's more like Heisenberg's uncertainty people of color.
If you're not familiar with these terms, basically, Schrodinger's cat, I'm probably pronouncing the name wrong, is a thought experiment that, based on quantum states, either as a waveform or a particle, essentially, I don't want to get into the whole thing, but the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until you observe the reaction.
It's complicated, I guess.
Anyway, the point is, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is essentially that we can't determine the point at which a wave function collapses.
I'm not a quantum physicist, I'm just giving you the layman's internet response.
So the point is, When you're talking about someone who's Asian, and you mention that they get into Harvard more often, that they make more money, all of a sudden now they're privileged.
So at whatever political position you take, they are either privileged or oppressed.
They are Heisenberg's uncertainty people of color.
But I would say, I don't think that's true.
I understand the point.
I actually think mixed-race people are more so Heisenberg's uncertainty people of color, in that It is more like, you can be Asian, and people can still recognize that Asians do well.
They make more money, they go to college, but they are still a minority.
But when you're mixed, you are either white or not white, depending on the circumstance.
So if I come out and say, I don't care this guy said these things, they go, here's the white man not caring about racism.
And then if I come out and say, I'm offended, they'll say, oh, you poor Asian man.
You see how they play the game?
That's the problem with being the global citizen, as it were.
So look, the guy said a bunch of offensive things.
I think the censoring you see is actually an extension I used because of YouTube, right?
YouTube will derank my content for showing certain words, swears, and other things.
So I'm probably going to get in trouble for that word popping up.
So I don't think I'm having to post it.
But they say the video has been deleted.
The dude, Shane Gillis, offered like a non-apology saying, yeah, you know what?
I'm offensive.
If anyone's actually offended, I have no problem apologizing, all that stuff.
But he did say this.
He used the F-word.
This is the F-word, the homophobic slur.
And this is the F-word, you can see the ING.
You know what these words are.
I can't say them on YouTube.
You know, you get it.
He says, I don't like female genital white comedians.
You know what?
I get it.
This is a dude who pushed back really, really, really hard.
I get it.
It's very different from what Dave Chappelle did.
It's very different.
But here's the point.
Why is it that you, like, when it comes to Dave Chappelle, they are offended at Dave Chappelle, and they are offended at Shane Gillis.
However, they can't do anything to Dave Chappelle.
For one, he doesn't care.
The demand is too high.
He's famous.
So they eventually walk away and stop talking about it.
But this!
In the end, the point I want to make about all of this is, you can't tell me which one is or isn't offensive.
You're not allowed to do that, okay?
We live in this world.
Where progressive white people are telling non-white people what they should be offended by.
And that is offensive, and it's racist.
But it doesn't matter.
It's politically expedient, and these people don't actually care about being racist.
I've watched Antifa yell racial slurs at cops.
You can Google the videos and watch it.
They do it all the time.
There's a video of, like, an 18-year-old white girl telling a black cop that he's racist.
And he's like, what?
The cop actually says to her, he's like, I grew up during, you know, segregation.
What are you talking about?
And this young white woman is like, no, you don't understand.
I know better than you.
It's like, oh, please, dude.
It's so fascinating to me that we live in a world of woke white people who will literally look into the face of a minority and say, I demand you be offended by this.
I'm going to get it banned on your behalf.
Okay.
I don't want to hear it.
The only thing I can say is, as I tweeted earlier, because of this, like, you know, uncertainty circumstance, if I agree with them, they support me.
If I disagree, I'm not actually Asian enough.
I just say, I don't care about this guy and his comedy.
And also, go F yourself.
I can't swear on YouTube.
I can swear on Twitter.
I can't swear here.
So anyway, look, dude got fired, and I'll end by saying this.
Yeah, well, too bad.
SNL didn't have to hire him in the first place.
SNL wants family-friendly brand of comedy, and I can respect and understand that.
Fine.
SNL is not Twitter.
The president doesn't regularly go on Saturday Night Live to express his political opinions, and if you want to engage with him, you do it on Twitter.
That's the big difference.
A monopolistic power structure taking over the commons versus a private comedy show.
So by all means, fire the guy.
I get it.
I think he should be allowed to do his comedy, and I don't care.
I don't care.
I don't care.
If you want to do a podcast and say stupid things, I don't care.
I just won't listen to it.
I won't.
I like Dave Chappelle, though.
I actually, I'll say this, I'm gonna go listen to what the guy, well, the video was deleted, but I'd listen to it now to see what the context was.
I don't know what the context was, because for all I know, He's quoting somebody.
That's the game they play.
And that's why I hate it.
I hate it, and that's why I just don't care anymore.
You've cried wolf too many times.
They've done it to me.
They've done it to Jordan Peterson.
They do it to everybody.
For all we know, he said... Let's pretend there's a bigger quote where he goes, Can you believe what that guy just said?
What did he say?
He said, Let the effing, you know, slur live here.
So we don't know what the context is.
You see how the game is played?
They can take a quote and say, oh, but he said it.
So I just don't care.
I don't want to hear it.
Don't care.
I'm done.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
Christian artists have just won an appeal and will not have to make invitations for a gay wedding.
It's a really interesting case because it kind of follows the story of the baker in Colorado.
The general ruling that these individuals can't be forced to speak.
And it's very similar, once again, to the cake.
We gotta talk about the nuance and the complexity of these stories.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that in Colorado, the case of the baker, when he didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, wasn't that he was refusing service to the gay couple, but that he was refusing a specific message that essentially said, I'll make you any cake you want, you can have whatever, but I won't write that message.
And that's what we're seeing now.
This is in Phoenix.
And this is really interesting.
This is why we have courts.
Phoenix has a law in the city, not the state, and there's not one federally, that says you can't discriminate against someone based on their sexuality or identity.
However, the court has ruled, and we'll read the story to get the finer details, that you can't force someone to speak.
And that is the crux of the argument.
Not that they're telling people they're turning them away for their, you know, for being gay or anything like that, but they're saying, I will not write this message.
It's an interesting conundrum.
I believe that if you are using public services paid for by the public, you should participate in public.
But I also recognize this is very specific.
Making someone write something.
I had an interesting conversation with Glenn Beck about this, where I said, maybe just don't consider this message yours.
It's their message.
You're simply writing something.
And Glenn Beck's response was, you can't force someone to do something that is outside of their being.
And it's really interesting, too, because I certainly do respect the religious argument, and I think a lot of people on the left don't seem to understand this.
You're talking about telling someone to engage in what may result in eternal damnation, and that is something they can't, within their being, do.
So it's not an issue of saying, you can't have our invitations, you can't have a cake, but that I will not write this.
And I gotta admit, It butts heads with the First Amendment, freedom of religion, and oppressed, which is why the courts are saying you win to the artists.
Let's read the story from Newsweek.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would 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.
I'm willing to bet.
This video will be deranked for a lot of reasons.
The story is quite controversial.
But hey, if you think I do a good job, then share this video because it's the only way I'll get past, you know, YouTube's deranking and algorithmic challenges.
They can't stop you from sharing if you like it.
Let's read.
Outrage after court says wedding invitation makers can refuse gay couples.
A court ruled Monday that a 2013 anti-discrimination ordinance in Phoenix, Arizona violated the First Amendment rights of the owners of a calligraphy invitation business who refused to create invitations for same-sex weddings.
In a 4-3 ruling, The Arizona Supreme Court deemed that graphic designers Joanna Duca and Brianna Kosky, who both identify as Christian, were within their rights to insist on only creating invitations for heterosexual weddings.
In the decision, the court dictated that the city cannot apply its 2013 Human Relations Ordinance to force women to, quote, create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Dukka and Koski's beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some, the decision read, in part.
But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive.
They are for everyone.
The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person's home or church or private conversations with like-minded friends and family, wrote Justice Andrew Gold in the majority opinion.
These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public.
This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person's sincere religious beliefs.
While Phoenix's Human Relations Ordinance includes orientation and gender identity, as protected classes, neither state law nor federal law do.
I actually think this is what, well, first, this is what judges are for, okay?
They interpret the law.
Try to be fair.
And you may not always agree with their decisions.
It's difficult.
But I think there's a really interesting point that needs to be brought up.
Things don't exist in a vacuum.
This is not an instance of the only wedding invitation business in existence denying service.
If we were talking about, you know, the entirety of wedding invitations were dominated by one major corporation, And they were discriminating against people, I believe that would be a violation.
However, when we're talking about small businesses and single individuals, things are much more complicated.
This is what courts do.
If you're looking at the story, the judge can simply say, in the interest of public fairness, there are other services for wedding invitations.
You could order them online from anywhere in the country.
You don't need to tell this, you know, these two people to do this.
In which case, there is an abundance of market competition you are not being discriminated against.
It is complicated, however, because what if, well, actually, actually, no, I mean, it is complicated because you're asking someone to write something.
You know, it's different from if someone, if they walked into the business and they said, get out right now, we won't talk to you.
Or more importantly, if it was a restaurant where the public accommodation was seating and arranging and providing food and sustenance and just like a general product that goes to everybody.
As long as the artists are willing to provide blank invitations, then they're providing the base level of service.
It is complicated, though.
And I think we need to understand when we're talking about issues like this, businesses are different.
Not everything is the same thing.
You could get a wedding cake that was made like any other wedding cake.
Or you can get a cake with nothing on top and do the light decoration yourself.
Or you could go to a different bakery.
Now, I tend to lean more on the progressive side of things that I wouldn't personally ascribe, I wouldn't personally say that Duca and Casca's, you know, the invitations they create are their speech.
It's the speech of the couple, and they're just simply drawing lines.
But I do understand the argument at having a good conversation with Glenn Beck.
I couldn't imagine someone forcing me to make a video where I espouse the views of someone I find attestable.
Could you imagine if you had a video production service and someone said, I want you to espouse this scripture?
Or actually, there's a really good example in which I think it was Steven Crowder, went to Muslim bakeries and wanted gay wedding cakes and they denied him.
And this doesn't make it to the mainstream.
This is why I think a lot of this is overtly political.
Since that lawsuit in Colorado, they've continually gone to this guy, you know, other people, and tried to get him to, you know, make a transgender coming out cake and things like that, to which he's refused.
It seems more like they're targeting someone for their religious beliefs.
The conversation's interesting and complicated.
You can tell right now I'm not having a very strong opinion on the matter because I recognize the nuance and the complication.
They can go to a different wedding invitation maker.
If it was something like Twitter, where there's literally only one thing that's different.
The point is, We have to consider scale and market competition when we're talking about a lot of these issues.
If it was the case that every single wedding invitation business refused service, we'd have a serious problem.
I don't know what the solution is because wedding invitation services aren't a singular organization.
But looking back to the civil rights era, we can see the problem if this gets out of control.
You ended up with people who, you know, minorities, people of color, or black people.
Being told they couldn't go to certain restaurants or they couldn't use certain water fountains is overt segregation.
So we passed a law saying, no, you have to do this now.
That's the challenge.
If we do nothing in these circumstances, do we end up with one business for one group of people?
I don't like that idea.
It's one of the reasons I probably side more on the progressive side of things.
I don't, uh, well, actually, no, take that back.
In terms of this argument, it is confusing and complicated.
I don't want to see a society that is fractured where you have left-wing businesses and right-wing businesses.
And this could contribute to that.
So could moralistic outrage.
But I think about this in almost the same terms as I think about the social justice crowd.
What would happen if you went to a very like you know LGBTQ friendly or like literally a bakery that was hosted and supported by the LGBTQ people and you asked them to put a message on a cake or an invitation that was a passage from the Bible that it was overtly anti-LGBTQ?
What if they denied that?
They would probably win on the same grounds.
So I guess instead of just ranting over and over again and trying to suss out the situation, I think ultimately we have to consider a few things.
Courts exist to interpret the law and figure out what is fair and what isn't.
In this instance, the court has sided with the couple, much like the Colorado bakery.
We're going to see a clash.
We're going to see a clash with religion and speech and ideology.
The social justice ideology does not support religion.
In fact, when I was talking to David Pakman, he said he doesn't think religion should be a protected class.
That's an interesting argument.
I disagree with him because religion exists.
It is part of, you know, a person's being.
Let's read a little bit.
The HRC responded, so I'll just read this.
They say, HRC, a leading LGBT lobbying group, insisted the ruling gave Arizona businesses a license to discriminate, only in the capacity that you're asking for a customization.
When it comes to these invitations, they're all custom.
Today's decision could also open the door for discrimination against other communities protected by the ordinance, including religious minorities and women.
That's absolutely right.
It could.
And I wouldn't expect, you know, a gay bakery, a LGBT bakery, to make a cake writing on top, you know, some Leviticus passage that condemns their... it condemns the bakers, you know what I mean?
In which case, all I can really say is, there is a simple solution to non-monopoly enterprise.
When someone tells you they won't do something, just go somewhere else.
The only reason I can see, though, for a lawsuit is for an ideological win.
If I went to a bakery and I said, we're not going to serve you for this, that, or this reason, I wouldn't file a lawsuit.
I would just go to a different bakery.
I'd go to a different, you know, invitation maker.
So I think what we're seeing is it was an intentional attack on the individuals and challenging the court system.
Well, the courts initially sided against them, the appeals sided for them.
There was actually, I did cover this story before, because they were saying they were threatened with jail time.
Which is interesting.
So look, far be it from me to be anything but a milquetoast fence-sitter.
I can't tell you how we should or shouldn't function in this capacity, but I can say scale.
Consider scale.
If it's a small business, you're probably going to lose.
If it's a monopoly, you're probably going to win.
I think that makes sense.
But I'll leave it there because I'm, you know, it's a delicate situation.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Stick around and I will see you there.
It is a different channel.
Wow this story really surprised me from Newsweek.
Young Trump voters like these are key to a 2020 victory.
I noticed this story because I saw a tweet with this image and I was really surprised to see a Newsweek cover, although I'm not sure if Newsweek exists, does it?
I guess it does, with Isabel Brown putting on a MAGA hat.
It says, do young voters hold the key to a Trump victory in 2020?
And there's a quote, he's patriotic, he's pro-America, he wants to bring back the American spirit, and he's not afraid to say it, and I'm all for that.
So I saw this story, thought it was interesting, and then I started reading.
And sure enough, one of the things that drives young people to vote for Trump, particularly non-white people, is being called racial slurs, for instance.
One of the first anecdotes is a young woman who says she was never, you know, never heard a racial slur directed at her until she put on a MAGA hat.
And isn't that, you know, it's a story we hear all too often.
When I was in Portland, there was a Proud Boys rally, and I heard Antifa, white people, screaming racial slurs at the right.
There's video circulating of Antifa screaming racial slurs at police.
We see it over and over again.
If you want to convince people to vote for Donald Trump, this is how you do it.
You socially ostracize them.
You don't give them a choice, and you insult and berate them as soon as they ask you any questions.
Congratulations!
It's not doing what you think it's doing.
But Newsweek tends to be pretty left-wing, so I was surprised to see this.
Well, let's read the story and see what these young people have to say about why they would support Donald Trump.
And why this may be good news for the president.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical ad.
Just the best thing you can do is just share this video.
YouTube de-ranks independent political commentary, especially this channel.
But they can't de-rank your willingness to share this video if you like it.
So if you think I do a good job, please consider sharing it on social media.
But let's read the news.
They start with Stormy Rodriguez says she's never been called a racial epithet before.
Growing up in Mission, Texas, just 70 miles from the Mexican border, the 21-year-old daughter of a single Mexican-American mother had what she calls a normal, pretty uneventful life in a heavily Hispanic part of the country.
That changed one day in 2016 when she posted a picture of herself on Facebook wearing a red MAGA cap.
The student at Texas State University said she was promptly bombarded with abuse from the Donald Trump-hating left and called a variety of epithets, including, quote, a word I can't actually say on YouTube.
Yes, a racial slur.
At college, some of my classmates called me a race traitor, she says.
Publicly supporting Donald Trump isn't easy for young voters, especially in the wake of the events in El Paso and Dayton.
Well, the Dayton thing was a far leftist, so I don't know what they're trying to say with that.
Pop culture derides Trump daily.
So too does much of the mass media.
Pro-Trump college students like Rodriguez say their teachers are almost uniformly hostile to Trump.
And so are the majority of their fellow students.
It takes a fair amount of backbone to be young and a Trump supporter even in a GOP stronghold like Texas.
But I will tell you what.
And I hope you all remember this.
When pop culture, when celebrities, when music, when it all smears the president and insults Trump supporters and conservatives, you're not stopping people from being conservative.
You're putting a blanket over society so no one can see what's actually happening.
It is a sea of Trump hats being covered by a bit of canvas so when people look at the crowd, they don't see the supporters.
You may convince people like this to hide their views, but I tell you what.
When they go in the voting booth, nobody can see them, and they will press that button for the president, for re-election.
They say.
But the more than a dozen young Trump supporters who spoke to Newsweek were firm in their commitment to the president and clear about their reasons.
They don't consider Trump racist and reject the label themselves as well.
Well, you know, when you've got a young Hispanic woman with a Mexican-American mother being smeared and insulted with racial slurs, yeah, I think we know who the racists really are.
They say, they're sick of cancel culture, when critics on social media call for a boycott of someone who has said or done something deemed offensive and political correctness.
We've had it shoved in our faces all day every day in school, and then from the pop culture.
Isabel Brown, a graduate of Colorado State University, told Newsweek in July, they don't share the attraction to socialism that seems to be felt by many in their cohort, and Trump's unfiltered personality delights them.
In 2015 and 2016, I traveled to a ton of Trump rallies.
I think I was at like 32 or something like that.
When I talked to older people, they all said basically the same thing.
Trump and Bernie were talking about bringing back factories and shutting down free trade agreements.
Most people later on went for Trump because Bernie lost the nomination, but that was a big issue.
Older guys, middle American, hey we need our jobs back.
But younger people, they said political correctness.
They were sick and tired of the PC outrage culture, which has only gotten worse in the past few years.
Whether or not they care about policy, it's irrelevant.
They don't like cancel culture and political correctness.
Bill Maher is right when he calls this stuff out, but look, man, young people like to laugh.
They want to be free.
They don't want to be constrained and beaten down.
Let's read on.
They say they see themselves in the role traditionally played politically by the young.
They are the rebels, the nonconformists, willing to stand up for what they believe in, opposition to the establishment.
What they believe in opposition to the establishment.
Only this time.
The establishment on campus and in the broader society is a culture that demands lockstep obedience to what Brown calls far-left ideas.
I gotta say, it's amazing Newsweek ran this story.
For whatever reason, she says, most people her age aren't rebellious and aren't even particularly thoughtful.
They feel the need to adhere to a politically correct progressive agenda.
In this environment, She argues, true rebellion is simply to say I disagree.
I think conservatives were expected to be quietly polite, and we expected people would be quietly polite.
In return, now we've learned that unless you boldly fight for what you believe in, the culture and the country will look very different.
And I completely agree.
Young Trumpers are not a mere political curiosity.
Voters age 18 to 29 are one of two demographics nationwide that may hold the key to Trump's re-election, according to Brad Parscale, Trump's 2020 campaign manager, who I might add has done a great job with selling Sharpies in plastic straws.
They say that moderate, independent, and Republican women are the other group.
The goal is not to win the young voter demographic outright.
The campaign knows that won't happen.
But rather to limit the margin with a Democratic nominee in key states, and in so doing, perhaps tip the election to Trump.
I think it's really funny how many celebrities have become overly woke.
I was just listening to this Taylor Swift song, which it's got like a caricature of the right.
I feel like a lot of these views are based in the 90s, and they're trying to still make it seem like Trump's base are the moralistic Christians of the late 90s and 2000s, when in fact they're very, very different.
I recently made a tweet about Occupy Wall Street.
And how I got my start there and, you know, it was eight years to this day that it started.
And a lot of people commented were critical of the left but supportive of Occupy's initial ideals and talked about how the wokeness corrupted Occupy Wall Street.
It's true.
During Occupy, there were conservatives and libertarians very early on.
They quickly were pushed out.
So the reason I bring this up is that For whatever reason, we're seeing the new generation refuse to push back, refuse to rebel, and join in whatever the celebrities say.
It's weird, isn't it?
I guess whatever is cool is considered what you have to do.
And if Taylor Swift says so, you must do it.
But again, I bring up, you know, the past stuff like, you know, the old caricatures on Occupy because, you know, when I watch this Taylor Swift video, it's the one that's called, like, You Gotta Calm Down.
It's got depictions of the right that are like caricatures of people from the late 90s.
And it's actually really offensive.
I'm surprised.
I mean, not like the video should be taken down or anything, but it shows Trump supporters, or I shouldn't say Trump supporters, it shows the right, the anti-LGBT people as like rednecks and stuff like that, which again, it's a caricature.
But anyway, I digress.
Let's read on.
They say.
That's close to what happened in 2016, which is holding back young people from going Democrat, though not because of any sophisticated effort by the Trump campaign.
Hillary Clinton got only 55% of the youth vote, down from the 60% Barack Obama won in 2012.
Yep, she had more young people, she would have won.
Many young people did not, to put it mildly, view Clinton as an inspiring candidate.
Nope, they viewed Bernie Sanders as the rebel, the outsider.
And I can attest to that.
And when he had it taken from him, the establishment won.
Bernie today is the establishment.
I'm not interested.
He's flipped on his positions.
So anyway, I digress.
The point is, we're talking about Trump youth.
They say.
In what is likely to be another close election, if Trump can do better with young people than he did last time, this could be critical, says Mary Snow, a polling analyst at the Quinnipiac University Presidential Polling Organization.
There are plausible scenarios in which it could be decisive.
The Trump campaign won 37% of the youth vote in 2016, in a campaign that was shambolic and underfunded.
It will not be this time.
Trump 2020 has already raised more than $125 million.
And the campaign is making a concerted effort to target young voters in battleground states.
Parscale, who headed Trump's digital media effort in 2016, says this will happen via social media, his forte, but also with traditional boots-on-the-ground type organizing.
You know what?
I'm gonna stop here.
They show a bunch of people.
I guess Isabel Brown I think is relatively prominent.
I'm not super sure.
I think she's done videos for like Daily Caller or whatever.
But you get the point.
They've focused on a dozen or so young people.
But I want to make one final point on this.
Trump might win young people.
And I don't think, in the end, the bulk of those young people will be swayed, necessarily, by ad campaigns or boots on the ground.
In fact, Trump doesn't have to do anything.
There was an article from Vice I read the other day that claimed kids putting PewDiePie on their desktop backgrounds was an indication they had been brainwashed by white nationalists in the far right.
Trump doesn't have to do anything.
The left has done it to themselves.
So why do you see all these young people?
They just want to laugh at jokes.
They want to watch, you know, cartoons and laugh at them and not be told they're bad people for, you know, not... You don't have to criticize a person.
You could make an off-color joke and just watch a video of it and all of a sudden you're the bad guy.
Nobody wants to live under a boot.
So when the left comes with their cultural homogenization, don't be surprised when young people say, I'm going to rebel.
So young people do.
All right, I'm gonna leave it there.
For the most part, I just wanted to read a little bit of this because I find it really fascinating that Newsweek ran the story of all outlets.
It does seem like a lot of left-wing outlets are trying to flirt around with Trump supporter rhetoric.
We know CNN's doing it.
It's an old story I covered before.
They're putting Fox emojis next to stories they think Fox would cover.
They get it.
They're the outliers.
They're the dorks.
Wrong word.
I don't know.
Someone's gonna get mad at me for that.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
For some reason, Jordan Peterson is still controversial and I don't really know why.
He's now appeared on many mainstream shows in a context that's kind of outside of the culture war.
He's been giving expert interviews.
And I've seen him do interviews lately that haven't been so contentious.
Yet for some reason...
They still don't like the guy?
There's an interesting phenomenon happening within the culture war having to do with fame, right?
So one of the stories I covered this morning is that guy Shane Gillis from Saturday Night Live, who got fired for making offensive jokes in the past, but tons of comedians who are famous and make offensive jokes can carry on with no problem.
Fame is an important factor.
However, it's also kind of like a grandfathering in, that's what the South Park creator said, because Jordan Peterson's extremely famous.
He's becoming more mainstream famous with a best-selling book and mainstream appearances outside of the culture war context, yet we see this now.
From the post-millennial.
Jordan Peterson film cancelled in Canadian movie theatre.
Because one person objected, apparently.
Or maybe one or more.
So let's read about the story and go into a little bit about why Jordan Peterson had the movie cancelled.
And I also want to talk about the grandfathering in of protections in the culture.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, just share this video.
Let's break some echo chambers, man.
There are some people who will never see this video because the algorithm won't recommend it.
By you sharing it, you will then expose many more people who might not see it, even though shares are still dependent upon the algorithm.
I get it.
But hey, maybe someone will be like, oh, I didn't know about that.
So you'll be helping out.
Let's read.
They write, Nobody becomes a prophet in his own country.
Although he is probably one of the most famous living Canadians, Jordan Peterson is still being protested and cancelled on his home turf, proving not only the relevance of this biblical reference, but that cancel culture is showing no signs of abating.
The latest victim in this sad saga of censorship is The Rise of Jordan Peterson, the feature-length film by Patricia Markocha.
Markocha?
Sorry, I'm terrible at pronouncing names.
The film has been removed from its scheduled week-long run at the Carleton Cinema in Toronto after one or more staff complained.
The Postmillennial reached out to the Carleton Cinema, and the manager on duty confirmed that there was a disagreement among staff over the film.
Marko... Markocha...
Who directed the movie, said in an email that her company, Holding Space Films, has also experienced reluctance and rejections from independent film houses and cinemas across the country.
Quote, Over the last few months, we have been reaching out to mainstream and art house cinemas across North America.
In many cases, we encountered challenges simply because of a subject matter being Jordan Peterson.
Some cinemas got stuck in internal debates.
Others told us outright that they thought the film was well done and fair, but that they couldn't in good conscience contribute to the cult of personality around Peterson in any way.
Oh man, really?
Cult of personality?
The most disappointing case for me was the cancellation of a week-long theatrical run that was already agreed upon at the Carleton Cinema in Toronto.
Because apparently, one or more staff complained about the film even though they most likely hadn't watched it.
So this is the point I want to make, and we'll read a little bit more, talking about what the film is and all that, but not to continually beat a dead horse, but I recently sponsored an event in Philadelphia, and I bring this up in this context because When you look at what happened with Saturday Night Live, now with Jordan Peterson, it seems that if you enter the public sphere from this point moving forward, or from like two years ago moving forward, you will be cancelled.
It's almost like they're trying to do away with the idea of fame or notoriety.
There are famous people who have done ridiculously offensive things ten years ago who get away with it.
Not everybody, you know, Kevin Hart was a good example.
But here we have, in this instance, even though the Jordan Peterson film isn't necessarily about controversial issues, you know, it's just about Jordan Peterson, so it probably has some contained within, people are willing to shut it down just because it's Jordan Peterson.
And even an event I was sponsoring with Daryl Davis, the famed anti-racist, was still protested, and the theater canceled the event, though the event still went on.
It shows that it's not... I don't know how you describe it, but there's a cutoff point.
Something happened, maybe around 2015 or 16, maybe 2014, maybe it was Gamergate, I don't know.
Something happened that moving forward, new personalities will always be too controversial, no matter what.
And I'm talking about people in a cultural context, right?
But this includes comedians.
Comedians hired by Saturday Night Live and then fired a day later.
Well, let's read a little bit more about the film and we'll continue.
The film, which is the follow-up to the shorter and aptly named Shut Him Down released last year on CBC, documents the past three years of Jordan Peterson's life, his rapid rise to fame, emerging first as the professor against political correctness, arguing his opposition to compelled speech as Canada wanted to legislate for the forced use of trans people's preferred pronouns.
He then gained even more followers after the mainstream media tried to manipulate his views in the Kathy Newman interview on Channel 4.
He finally became a household name across the world with his book, 12 Rules for Life, An Antidote to Chaos.
After many years as a relatively anonymous psychology professor, surely this deserves a closer look.
And I completely agree.
It seems that Jordan Peterson in the last year or two is no longer this culture war figure.
I remember when he was being called all right and smeared, and now mainstream outlets are actually entertaining him.
Like, they're bringing him on.
They're letting him talk about other issues and ideas.
He's a famous academic expert.
It's disappointing on many levels.
This film was made with different perspectives in mind, and there's something in it for everyone, even if you're not a Jordan Peterson fan.
Marcocia told me.
The issues he raised and his presence in public discourse had a huge impact on society at large.
That is undeniable.
So for a film about him, and about this high-profile period to be dismissed because of fear or so-called moral principle, As though the very presence of a documentary covering it is problematic, is backwards in a free and progressive society.
It also ironically supports Jordan's criticisms about the dangers of social justice taking things too far.
And one of the things Peterson's talked about Is that we know when the right goes too far, but the left doesn't have a check.
You know, we can all come out and say, hey, the right's doing too much, but the left just gets away with it, to the point now where the man who would criticize this, the person who brings up the point in a high-profile context, you know, Jordan Peterson saying, the left needs to know, or society needs to know when the left is going too far, is being shut down, so it's almost like the guy warning about the fire is being silenced by the fire, essentially, right?
It's too bad.
Let's read.
Marcocci added, she's not interested in participating in any political campaign with this film, and that some organizations that are right-leaning have also rejected showing it.
Presumably because after watching, they saw that it wasn't a film that could easily be used as a political propaganda tool.
This isn't the first time social justice warriors tried to shut Peterson down, of course.
In March, his offer of a fellowship at the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University was rescinded after a photo of Peterson with a fan wearing an ironic I'm a Proud Islamophobe t-shirt emerged.
The rescindment placed Cambridge firmly outside its proud tradition of open inquiry and free speech.
Two days later, Whitcool's, a bookstore in New Zealand, pulled their copies of 12 Rules for Life, linking it to- Oh man, you know what the funny thing about this is?
Okay, I gotta be careful in what I say because... because YouTube's gonna shut me down when I show or say certain things, so you could maybe have already seen what was on the screen.
But for those listening, Whitcools in New Zealand removed 12 Rules for Life.
It's a self-help book about being responsible and cleaning your room.
And they left up great books from World War II individuals.
If you know what I mean.
Very, very offensive ones.
That's fine.
That's another point about this weird grandfathering in.
You can literally go to a bookstore and find Dictator's Manifestos, Terror Manifestos, but Jordan Peterson's self-help book.
This is why I think there's a fissure and things can't be mended.
Because it started at some point, but moving forward there is a clear divide that will never be breached.
That will never be mended or bridged.
Jordan Peterson can write something not controversial.
Doesn't matter.
Pull it from the shelves.
Someone complained.
You could make a movie about the man.
Pull it from the theater.
Doesn't matter.
Someone complained.
Would they do the same thing about a documentary about, I don't know, say Mao?
What if you wanted to do a documentary about the rise and fall of Mao Zedong?
Would they allow that?
Of course they would.
It's gonna air on the History Channel.
But do a documentary about Jordan Peterson, and it's too controversial, whether or not it's critical or supportive is irrelevant.
That means something scary.
You can't even publicly mention the dude's name?
That's absurd.
And you know, I will say, like I mentioned several times in this video, he is getting more mainstream play, but we can see something weird has happened now.
There are two societies already forming.
We all agreed on the past, and that's probably what happened.
In 2015 or whatever, we all watched the same things.
And then the split happened.
Both left and the right moved far away.
It's actually left and right.
It's the moderates and the right.
And the left is shot off, you know, going who knows where.
But now that split has happened, anything beyond this point is either, like, acceptable to one side or not the other.
So, after society splits, Jordan Peterson emerges, while moderates and conservatives listen, and the left is gone.
So to the left, he's far-right, alt-right, unacceptable, ban him from the theater.
But what about someone ten years ago?
Oh, that would allow.
In fact, it's funny to see George W. Bush getting praised by the left, sharing candy with Michelle Obama.
It's like, I have no idea what's going on at this point.
But, uh, well, there's the story that just about, I suppose.
We get it.
Jordan Peterson's continuing to be shut down.
I try to keep these videos short, as I say all the time, so I'll jump to the next segment, but thanks for hanging out.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all there.
The guy from Blink-182, Tom DeLonge, of which I might add I was a big Blink-182 fan when I was a kid, could play all their songs.
is working on tracking UFOs, or UAPs as they're called.
See, they used to be called Unidentified Flying Objects, and now they're Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
So apparently he has an organization that tracks these things, and here's the interesting, breaking news.
The Navy says the UAPs, in Tom DeLonge's videos, are, well he says the UFOs are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
The U.S.
Navy has officially acknowledged that UFOs are real!
and violate American airspace.
But I have to wonder...
Do I trust?
What's the saying?
You know, should I trust the government?
The answer is usually no.
And it's not because you don't like the government.
It's because we know the government keeps secrets.
We know they have to keep secrets.
They have confidentiality.
They have top secret.
You know, they have information that is only for certain people in the interest of national security.
Sometimes these are bad things.
Oftentimes there are bad things.
And then we learn about, you know, through leaks, the bad things they're doing.
Some of these things are good.
Some of these things are important national security things to help keep us safe.
I get it.
This is interesting, though.
But before I start reading the story, I want to point out, it's entirely possible, and I believe they do highlight this, these things that we see on camera, that are being apparently highlighted by Tom DeLonge's organization, very well may be American military devices, weapons, or vehicles.
They mention that there's an experimental research facility.
And the Navy may be saying, oh yeah, those violate airspace because they don't want to give away any information as to what it really is.
It's entirely possible the people who are speaking about this in the Navy don't even know the programs exist.
Now, I don't believe for the most part that aliens are coming to Earth and, you know, coming down and spying on us or watching us or whatever, for the most part.
And it's just astronomical odds.
The simple solution is the U.S.
government produces weapons in military grade, whatever, and they don't want to leak secrets about it, so they compartmentalize, and it's very likely just that.
But I want to make one quick point about aliens to give you some perspective.
If aliens exist, the gap in the evolution of the alien versus us is likely to be astronomical.
It may not be.
Let's also enter in the possibility that there is a similar life form that's been around for almost the same amount of time as humans, but have recently, you know, mastered interstellar travel and made their way to Earth to investigate this small, wet planet with little, you know, humanoid creatures.
And they've seen, say, our radio waves.
Here's a thought experiment to help you understand why I don't think aliens would care to come to Earth.
Let me ask you a question.
For, uh, actually, hold on, let me start over.
Let me just say this.
I learned this from some video I watched on the internet.
Humans and ants, like ants, little bugs, We share a common ancestry to a certain point, a very, very long time ago.
By most mathematical standards I've seen, or like equations, any alien life that's mastered interstellar travel probably has a longer evolutionary track than we've been on.
The point is, if we build a road, the ants have no idea what that road is.
Their brains can't even comprehend the concept of what asphalt is.
It's alien and foreign.
Their brains don't see it.
They don't even see it existing.
Okay?
When we build a highway, the ants live in their little ant, you know, hill or hole or whatever, in their little hive, whatever you want to call it.
I don't know.
I don't know what it's called.
Colony!
Ant colony.
There you go.
And they have no idea the highway's there.
This is a really interesting idea I heard.
What that means is there could be alien superhighways right above us in outer space that we couldn't comprehend.
So think about like Marvel.
In the Marvel movies when they use jump points, there's a weird honeycomb thing that opens up and they jump through it and it transports them basically somewhere else.
Something like that could exist that we can't see or can't detect.
We won't even know about it, just like ants not seeing a car or highway.
But let's scale this up.
Let's say Your dog.
Your dog understands the general concept of a car.
Dogs are mammals, and humans and dogs share a much later common ancestor than ants do.
But you could never explain to the dog the basic principles required to comprehend what a highway is.
In this instance, the dog can see the highway.
The dog knows the cars are dangerous.
The dog knows the highway is there, and the dog can understand the concept of things being built.
If we were to scale up how I imagine a dog would interpret cars and everything, it would be like you seeing a ship teleport and just appear in front of you.
To the aliens, who are on a level above us, they can understand the basic concept of how the ship travels around.
But for us, it just looks like magic, and no matter how much the aliens would try to explain it, we would never get it.
Never.
You cannot explain to a dog internal combustion engines.
I'm sorry, you just can't do it.
And we actually can communicate somewhat effectively with dogs.
We train them, we teach them words, and they can follow, and we can team up and do projects together.
We can hunt together.
Sorry though, the human mind, even though it is very closely related to other mammals, is just too far beyond a dog.
Now imagine what an alien would do.
I don't know.
I just wanted to bring that up.
Let's read the story now that I've kind of talked about something else.
They say, in official statements, the U.S.
Navy has, for the first time, officially stated that three UFO videos made public by former Blink-182 singer Tom DeLonge's UFO research organization are footage of real, unknown objects violating American airspace.
Even scarier, what if they're like Russian or Chinese?
Navy spokesperson Joseph Gratisher told Motherboard, that the Navy considers the phenomenon contained, depicted
in those three videos as unidentified.
Previously, the Navy never addressed the content of the videos. The terminology here is important.
The UFO community is increasingly using the terminology, unidentified aerial phenomena, to discuss unknown objects
in the sky.
John Greenwald, author and curator of The Black Vault, the largest civilian archive of declassified government documents, originally reported the news.
Greenwald requested information in August from the Navy regarding the content of the three popular videos purporting to show anomalous aerial objects.
In 2017 and 2018, three videos taken by Navy pilots from the aircraft made national news.
They're stories I've covered before, so we'll move on.
Quote, I very much expected that when the U.S.
military addressed the videos, they would coincide with language we see in official documents that have now been released, and they would have labeled them as drones or balloons, Greenwald told Motherboard.
However, they did not.
They went on the record stating the phenomena depicted in these videos is unidentified.
That really made me surprised, intrigued, excited, and motivated to push harder for the truth.
Roger Glassel, a writer for the Swedish magazine UFO Aktuellet, and an expert who specializes in Freedom of Information Act requests also said it was notable that the Navy is using this new terminology.
That the Navy is using the term Unidentified Aerial Phenomena shows that they have broadened what is expected to be reported by U.S.
fighter pilots to investigate anything unknown in their airspace that in the past has been contacted with a stigma, Glassell told Motherboard.
If these investigations are due to an interest in finding the cause of the U.S.O.
phenomenon, in a UFOlogy sense, Or due to reducing flight hazards or to counter unidentified intrusions by known adversaries and readiness for technological surprise remains to be seen.
Okay, that was a very complicated way of saying we don't know what they are or what they're doing.
So they mentioned that earlier this year, I covered the story, the Navy changed their policy to now actually address these.
And I think it's important because when people operate under the assumption they're aliens, you're jumping the gun so far.
It could literally be a Russian vessel and don't you think we should know if the Russians have a new weapon?
But, uh, what I wanted to bring up, more importantly, I guess I don't have it.
There's, uh, I'll show just a little, little, little, uh, screenshots here from the, from the videos.
You can see these strange objects.
In this video, the object begins to rotate.
And I gotta say, check out the videos, it's really amazing.
They're old videos, so I don't need to play, I'm not gonna play them.
But it's interesting, because you actually see the, whatever it is, start rotating.
They go on to say... Man, I don't want to just keep digging through here, but they go on to say that... Actually, let me just read this right here.
These unidentified objects may have been tracked by one, likely all, of these highly sophisticated nearby military facilities.
And that's the point I wanted to get to.
But when asked about the 2015 incidents, Ron Flanders, a Navy spokesperson, said, We have checked the records, and despite the public reporting and video of the incident, no records exist at FACSFAC.
I have no idea what you're talking about!
surveillance facility for the events in question.
So here's what I find interesting.
They talk about these extremely secretive experimental facilities, and then ask those
experimental facilities if the strange vehicles floating above were recorded by them.
What do you think the answer is going to be?
I have no idea what you're talking about, because to me, if you have—so, so, they
Accounts of the Navy's 2014 and 2015 UFO events have been a little more ambiguous.
Based on limited eyewitness reports, it's speculated that the two videos from 2015, known as Gimbal and GoFast, were captured while the Roosevelt Carrier Group was operating in the Jacksonville Training Complex off the Florida-Georgia coast.
In this location, Carrier Strike Group 12 would have been in the purview of the naval nuclear submarine base King's Bay, roughly 300 miles south of the flotilla, in the Navy's Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center.
According to the Navy, making use of the multitude of in-air and deep-water tracking systems, AWTEC is capable of monitoring and controlling upwards of 500 nautical miles at a height of 70,000 feet around the facility.
So let me just say this.
If you see strange vehicles and they're within the purview of a test facility with advanced technology, gee, I wonder what they would say and I wonder what these devices could be.
Now I'm not gonna say they are for sure anything one way or the other.
They say the only conclusion we can draw is that if the most advanced and powerful military on the planet bumps into objects in its own airspace that it cannot identify, everyone should be a little worried.
Or perhaps they can, and it's just compartmentalized.
And the research facilities where these ships are near are products of that.
Hey, man, it'd be really cool if we actually had, like, inertial dampeners and warp drive and all that fun stuff, and maybe we do.
But for now, until we display these weapons in the actual theater of war, you probably will never hear about it.
The Manhattan Project was kept a secret.
And then there were, like, 300,000 people working on that, and no one knew for sure what they were doing.
Let's say World War 3 really breaks out.
I'd have to guess that the somewhat archaic nuclear bombs we have, like MIRVs, Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles, that carry like 12 warheads, a bit outdated.
I don't believe that the military has been sitting around doing nothing.
And I believe if a war truly broke out, you would see the emergence of power and weapons you never thought possible.
When the bombs were dropped in World War II, it shocked the world.
What do you think would happen if war broke out now?
It's not going to be a nuclear war.
It's going to be something totally different.
So anyway, there you go.
I thought this story was really fascinating, but I also want to mention...
I've been talking about doing a Mysteries and Unknowns podcast.
We've got the podcasting space getting set up, and we're almost good to go on pulling the trigger on a new show.
It'll be a new channel, a new podcast.
It's gonna be managed probably by somebody else, and the primary host won't be me, but I will be a frequent guest in the show, if not on every episode.
So expect to hear from me and a couple other people as we talk about interesting, strange phenomena around the world.
This will be a separate show because What I do here is definitively sourced, right?
We have, you know, green checkmark sourcing, you know, third-party verified outlets, and I comment on what is presumed to be true.
This new show will be a new channel where we just kind of speculate and have a good time and talk about the mysteries of the unknown.
I'll leave it there, though.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6 30 p.m.
