Trump Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint Drops, Delivers on NOTHING, Media Pushed Lies And Fake news
Trump Ukraine 'Whistleblower' Complaint Drops, Delivers on NOTHING, Media Pushed Lies And Fake news. There it is, the complaint officially drops and proved what most of us knew or suspected. It was based on hearsay and press clippings, it made assumptions and claims without evidence, and most importantly is proven to be incorrect based on the transcript of the call from Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.Democrats put to much on this bet and they are going to lose bad. Already media is pushing fake news and lies to drum up their ratings or to push a political agenda, while others publish fake news because they are just bad at their jobs.In the end the "whistleblower" has no direct knowledge of anything and is just complaining about executive policy. Wile Trump lightly referenced Joe Biden and Hunter Biden he mostly asked about Crowdstrike and 2016 election interference. If it is a crime to investigate corruption because the accused in running for office then how do we actually stop corrupt politicians?In the end however the left and right are divided. Democrats insist this is the proof they need and their allies in media agree. But then we see the fake news, the smears, the retractions, and past statements proven false by the release of the documents.The democrats overplayed their hand and now they will reap the rewards. The media is leading them to the far left and to absurd claims that can't be backed up and as long as they don't stand up to the press they will continue to be led astray.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The media surrounding what's going on with Trump in the Ukraine is insane.
There's just numerous fake stories.
There are corrections being issued in the early hours of the morning.
Quotes are being fabricated.
They made so many claims before the transcript was released that Trump pressured Ukraine eight times, that there was a promise, there was quid pro quo.
You do this for me, I'll do this for you.
So Trump dropped the transcript, and no, there's nothing really in there.
In fact, it turns out the Ukrainian president brought up Rudy Giuliani first.
Now, Trump did ask for a favor.
We can criticize him for that.
But it's not like Trump offered them anything in return.
The best that the left had to offer was that it was mafioso, that the quid pro quo was implied because they need U.S.
aid.
I think that's a stretch, and it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
But apparently it's enough for the left.
Well, here's the problem.
When the transcript came out and it proved to be mostly nothing, people then started saying it's not a real transcript and we need the actual whistleblower complaint.
Unfortunately, then the whistleblower complaint came out and we're learning that the whistleblower, alleged whistleblower, I do it in quotes because they're not really a whistleblower, They were wrong.
A lot of the things they claimed were just not true, were not in the transcript.
This whistleblower had no direct knowledge to these circumstances, and it wasn't a matter for the intelligence community.
So this individual, who doesn't have direct knowledge, issued a complaint based on press clippings and rumors.
Now we're seeing the mainstream media either outright lie, and yes, I can prove it, publish
fake news, which we can chalk up to an accident or incompetence, but there is at least one
outright lie.
And then we can see the media come to the defense by attacking Trump's allies for using
their talking points.
Well, as many of you know, I'm no fan of Trump, but I got to say, when I see all of these
claims every day, and then the transcript drops, nothing.
And then they say, but what about the complaint?
Nothing.
And then the media comes out and calls everyone a Trump supporter?
I'm sorry.
I've got actual evidence of misinformation.
I'll tone it down a little bit.
I won't call them lies.
That implies it was deliberate.
But direct misinformation, fake news stories, and slimy journalism where they publish a story and then in the wee hours of the morning issue that correction.
They do it.
How many times have I said this in the past several weeks?
That they put out the bombshell and then a day later issue that correction.
They keep doing it.
It is... You know what, man?
The media and the Democrats cry wolf non-stop.
They have no credibility.
I don't care.
You know, I tweeted earlier, I just wish politics in this country was about what we can do to make American lives better.
And there are some people on the left doing that.
Don't get me wrong.
But it seems like the news cycle is always, always about Trump being bad.
I don't care.
None of this speaks to America.
So let's do this.
I want to go through some of these stories and point at the fake news.
And I want to address some of the criticism from some mainstream journalists targeting those who would push back on their lies.
The first story I have for you is from the Daily Caller.
Trump phone call transcript appears to undercut two bombshell reports about whistleblower complaint.
Now, keep in mind, the complaint is out.
And the next story we have is complaint from so-called whistleblowers riddled with gossip and blatant falsehoods.
Now, of course, these are two more right-leaning sources.
And the reason I'm going to use these is because after this, I'm going to show you direct fake news.
Listen.
You know, these stories drop, and I can't just pick up these sources because a day later, they're corrected, okay?
So this is the best I can do in trying to choose verified sources, third-party verified sources that I believe to be trustworthy, because the rest of them, MSNBC, Axios, ABC News, they published fake news.
The Washington Post, they published fake news.
I'm gonna show you.
I have proof.
Whether it was intentionally misleading or just incompetence.
But let's start here very quickly.
Before I 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, the best thing you can do, share this story.
Okay?
We're gonna be... Look.
The divide between the left and this right in this country is extreme.
There is no middle ground on this.
The mainstream narrative, what you're going to get from CNN, WAPO, the New York Times, is going to be profoundly different from what I send you.
If you think what I'm saying makes sense, then please consider sharing this to help, I don't know, spread the perspective, the news, the fact-checking.
Or not, whatever, I don't know.
Let's read.
The Daily Caller says, Trump phone call transcript appears to undercut two bombshell reports about whistleblower complaint.
I'll just read the quick bits.
A rough transcript of President Donald Trump's phone call appears to undercut these complaints.
The Washington Post reported Trump made a promise to the Ukrainian president during a phone call central to the complaint.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump repeatedly pressed for an investigation into Joe Biden's son.
A rough transcript of the call released Wednesday by the White House contains no indication of a promise.
It also shows Trump mentioned the Bidens only during one part of their 30-minute conversation.
And not only that, but it was the Ukrainian president who brought up Giuliani first.
Now here's the thing.
Let's address the first bit of fake news.
We saw this story.
Let me actually, let me pull up this first tweet before we get to the correction.
Axios tweeted just in, an advisor to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence
for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition
for the now infamous July 25th phone call.
This is from Axios, and they're actually just re-reporting what ABC News reported.
So you've got to go from the tweet to the story to ABC News to figure out what's actually
going on.
And in it we learn something very, very important.
A correction has been issued.
See here's the thing.
I saw this story last night and I said, whoa.
This changes everything.
I just put out a video saying that there was a nothing burger here, but now we're learning that there was a prerequisite to this phone call.
Shocked.
I was absolutely shocked.
I said, wow.
I mean, this proves it.
This shows Trump's wrongdoing.
That, of course, there's nothing in the phone call.
Trump set it up beforehand.
And then we see this.
ABC News reports it.
It's then picked up by Axios and then we finally get this from Christopher Miller setting the record straight.
Leshenko's confirmed to me what those of us in Kiev already knew.
He is not currently an advisor to Ukraine Zelensky and wasn't at the time of the call.
He said he did not tell ABC insistence for leaders to discuss Biden probe was preconditioned for the call.
How did that happen?
I don't get it.
How does it keep happening?
How does this keep happening?
Christopher Miller is a correspondent covering Ukraine, Russia, Belarus.
Bylines for Politico, The Guardian, The Times, Atlantic, CNN International.
And here he is saying, setting the record straight.
5.45am.
Shocked.
Well, guess what happened only a few minutes later?
One of the reporters on the story issued his 6am correction.
Important.
The advisor in my story below, Serhii Leshenko, is not currently an advisor to Ukraine's President Zelensky.
He'd advised Zelensky's team, but has distanced himself, has been distanced by the administration since at least May.
This, admittedly, this story came out after my video was published, but I was reading it like, whoa, I gotta, I gotta issue a big update.
This is huge.
This is essentially how Trump framed this conversation.
We saw in the transcript, Ukraine brought up Giuliani first, but if this was true, okay, now we got something here.
But you know what I did?
I decided to wait, because the stories end up being corrected.
They end up turning out to be false.
And that's exactly what happened.
Axios then issued a correction on the story.
And I was shocked.
Correction.
We have updated the story to reflect he is no longer an advisor to the president.
He wasn't at the time of the call.
And according to this journalist, I don't know who's right.
I don't.
Maybe this guy's wrong.
He said, according to Leshenko's, he said he did not tell ABC that there was a prerequisite.
So who do you trust?
I honestly don't know.
But they had to issue a correction already, so I'm just gonna go ahead and say... I don't believe it.
It happens every single time.
I got some more fake news for you.
But before we get into the more direct, overt fake news, I just want to point out, right?
Because it's happened so much, because the media has repeatedly done this, check out this story, I don't want to read through this, it's from January.
Beyond BuzzFeed, the 10 worst, most embarrassing U.S.
media failures on the Trump-Russia story.
It's not actually 10.
You see what The Intercept has done here is compiled.
I've cited this before.
I won't read through it.
They cited 10 stories where the media made some report and then almost like a day later issued that correction.
It keeps happening.
But here's the truth.
This story from Glenn Greenwald, it's actually 21 instances because, yes, although he does show the top 10 times they've issued fake news and then retracted, he also highlights 10 dishonorable mentions at the bottom of the story.
This is a long story, mind you.
So he's got 10 dishonorable mentions, even referencing CrowdStrike.
That's what Trump asked Ukraine to look into in 2016.
But he also has a special mention.
21 stories, where most of them, most of them involved a big breaking bombshell, verifying all of this news, corrected a day later.
And I've cited this several times in the past few weeks.
And here we are.
I can't believe it happened again.
And you know what's really annoying about the whole thing?
The 6 a.m.
correction.
This one user responded to the journalist saying, Release a story at 8.21 p.m.
and issue a correction at 6.04 a.m.
the next day.
Seems like intentionally misleading the public.
Someone needs to resign from their position to save their integrity.
You see, the thing is, when you publish a story at night, 8 p.m., yeah, people are gonna see it.
There's a big spike in news readership as people are getting ready to go to bed, they're logging off, you know, or they're getting home from work, I should say.
6am?
You start to see an uptick around 10 or 11.
But the correction came at a time when most people won't see it.
Take a look at this story.
Now that the whistleblower complaint is out, we can see that comparing the transcript to the whistleblower complaint shows us The whistleblower was wrong.
The whistleblower was actually citing press clippings.
I kid you not.
My mind was blown by this.
And what's really, really frustrating is how many people on the left, because you have
the acting director of national intelligence testifying before the intelligence committee,
and they're saying that, Alyssa Milano, for instance, tweeted that officials, she said,
they're trying to cover up what Trump said in this phone call by hiding these transcripts.
And she cites this tweet that says, officials, official statements.
No, I'm sorry, let's stop here.
This whistleblower, I hate, I hate calling them whistleblower because they're not, claimed
they heard from someone else.
There are no official statements.
There are no official citations.
There is a third-party complaint.
That's it.
If you want to actually get to the bottom of this, and we want... Okay, whoever those people were who told this whistleblower, this individual, these things happened, let's have them testify at least.
And then they can talk about what they saw or heard the president do and why they're upset about it.
But to have gossip and press clippings to me is mind-blowing.
Let's read this story a little bit because I do want to address mainstream media criticism from CNN.
Complaint from so-called whistleblower is riddled with gossip and blatant falsehoods.
The formal complaint from an anti-Trump quote whistleblower alleging various crimes by President Donald Trump is riddled with third-hand gossip and outright falsehoods.
The document was declassified by Trump Wednesday evening and released to the public Thursday morning.
The complaint, which was delivered to the Chairman of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, follows the same template used in the infamous and debunked Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier.
Rather than provide direct evidence that was witnessed or obtained first-hand by the complainant, The document instead combines gossip from various anonymous individuals, public media reports, and blatant misstatements of fact and law in service of a narrative that is directly contradicted by underlying facts.
A footnote in the document even boasts about its use of ample open source information.
Now listen, I don't like using overt partisan sources, and The Federalist and The Daily Caller are, but I just showed you ABC News playing this game, bombshell.
And it was actually the conservative media, I shouldn't even say necessarily conservative media, but the anti-establishment pushback.
And that's what I'm looking at now.
Those who are challenging the narrative.
In fact, The Federalist wrote about how there were many Republicans during Russiagate that were willing to entertain the possibility.
Today with Ukraine, Republicans are staying mum.
They're not saying anything except for Mitt Romney.
Because they know what's going to happen.
It's fake news and it'll fizzle out.
And boy, do I have proof.
I've got a couple more stories for you.
Just wait.
Sean Davis writes, contrary to news reports asserting the complaint includes volumes of information incriminating Trump, it is instead based entirely on the president's July 25th phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky and various public media reports.
They said, when the transcript was released, first, it's not a real transcript, but besides, they said, the whistleblower complaint contains more information than just this phone call.
Yeah, press clippings.
No, seriously, like a report from the Hill.
Quote, I was not a direct witness to most of the events characterized in the document, the complainant confesses on the first page.
Instead, the complainant notes, the document is based on conversations with more than a half dozen U.S.
officials.
Those officials are not named and their positions are not identified anywhere in the letter.
The complainant begins by falsely characterizing a July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky, the transcript of which was released by the White House on Wednesday.
Now, falsely characterizing or just being wrong.
It's a third-hand account.
They heard a rumor from someone else.
They didn't know it was in the transcript.
So of course they got it wrong.
It's a game of telephone.
We've seen how this plays out.
They're complaining about something they never heard or saw, and the Democrats move forward with impeachment based on a complaint they never heard from someone who heard a rumor from someone else.
It truly, truly blows my mind.
Trump made a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee and examined by the U.S.
cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, the complainant alleges.
A review of the transcript of the call shows that while Trump mentioned CrowdStrike once during the call, he never made such a request about locating and turning over multiple servers to the U.S.
The complainant also falsely alleges that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current Prosecutor General at the time, Yuri Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
Quote, The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuri Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position.
The complainant alleges based on gossip he says he heard from unnamed White House officials.
Trump made no such suggestion to Zelensky.
According to the transcript of the phone call, while Trump did say that it was unfair that a prosecutor who was very good was shut down, it's not clear that Trump was even referring to Lutsenko as a previous prosecutor named Viktor Shokin was fired after he opened investigations into a Ukrainian energy company that placed Hunter Biden, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's son, on its board.
Trump directly references Shokin later in the conversation.
It goes on.
It really does.
When I read this story, I couldn't help but think about the concept of coloring the water, which I've mentioned on my second channel, and it's a concept I really, really love.
Imagine this.
You have three cups on your counter.
They're all full of water.
Beneath all cups is a pool of water.
One of these cups is leaking and you don't know which one.
So you put red in one cup, green in another, and blue in the last.
Whatever color the puddle turns, you know which cup is leaking because they have unique colors.
I couldn't help but wonder...
If this is another instance where Trump set a trap, or the Trump admin did, that select information was leaked to certain individuals to try and figure out who was leaking information.
Because sure enough, information keeps getting leaked, and Trump wants to know by who.
So now we hear a direct claim that this whistleblower alleges they overheard That Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine into keeping Litsenko.
In the transcript, Trump never said that.
What if Trump said something to a particular individual that he told Ukraine to do this?
That way when that individual complained to that third party, this complaint is released and now Trump knows who leaked it.
I'm not saying that's true.
It could just be a game of telephone.
This person heard gossip.
It's not a whistleblower complaint.
You can't overhear something from someone else and then complain about it to a person who's not involved.
Let's read on.
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son.
That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, Trump said.
That's it?
It's such a tepid half-statement from Trump.
In 2018, Joe Biden bragged on camera that his threats to withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from Ukraine directly led to Shokin's firing.
The complainant then alleges, without evidence, that efforts to secure the records of the call to prevent unauthorized access to classified information are themselves proof of corruption.
The transcript was, quote, loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature, the complainant claims.
One White House official described this act as an abuse of the electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.
Please, have that person testify.
Find out who that is.
This whistleblower... Who said that?
I'm sorry.
We don't know who it is, we don't know what the evidence is, and this is insane.
It's hearsay.
My understanding is it would be inadmissible in court.
Why are we entertaining this?
This is going to be a long video because I've got a lot to go through.
Trust me, the fake news that you are going to see will blow your mind.
MSNBC essentially fabricated a quote outright.
This is one of the most shocking and brazen instances of a fake news cycle I have ever seen, and I definitely want to get into what CNN said.
The complainant provides zero evidence beyond the opinion of an anonymous official that phone conversations between world leaders do not contain anything remotely sensitive.
Trump formally declassified the transcript of the phone call, which had previously been classified as secret, no foreign.
Meaning that information could not be shared with unclear U.S.
individuals or any foreign nationals earlier this week.
In a footnote, the complainant even alleges that the mere classification of phone calls between world leaders was itself a corrupt act.
Following the section of Trump's phone call with Zelensky, the complainant then devotes several pages to summaries of various news articles as proof of the underlying allegations in the complaint.
The complainant quotes George Stephanopoulos, an ABC News employee who previously served in President Bill Clinton's White House.
No, ABC News just published fake news, as I've shown you.
The story from Axios citing ABC News that an advisor to President Zelensky said there was a prerequisite is being debunked.
They issued a correction and there is.
So no, we're not going to take ABC News at their word.
The Hill, Bloomberg News, Politico, Fox News, The New York Times, and even Twitter were cited in the complaint.
The document itself is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous sources officials allegedly told the complainant.
I have received information from multiple U.S.
government officials.
Officials have informed me.
Officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me.
The White House official who told me this information.
I was told by White House officials.
It goes on.
I'm not going to read all these.
It's just seriously, there's probably five to ten more statements where it's, I was told, I was told, I was told.
A review of the entire complaint showed it is not so much an example of whistleblowing, an act that can only be done by the individual holding the whistle, but an elaborate gossipy game of telephone between unnamed individuals whose motives and credibility are impossible to ascertain.
In fact, the DOJ found in its review of the complaint from the anonymous official that the Intelligence Community Inspector General found indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.
Quote, the complaint does not arise in connection with the U.S.
operation of any U.S.
government intelligence activity and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community.
The DOJ legal opinion noted, rather the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the president and a foreign leader that the intelligence community complainant received second hand.
Welcome to this poli- It's Russiagate all over again.
It is Russiagate all over again.
Please, take a look at this tweet.
Molly Hemingway says, here's video evidence of MSNBC's Katie Turr going out of her way to repeatedly lie about what Trump said to Ukraine president.
The favor he asked for help with was the Department of Justice investigation into Ukraine's meddling in the 2016 election.
In this story from the Federalist, here's the quote from Katie Turr.
Quote, Will you do me a favor and investigate Vice President Biden's son? Will you do me a
favor and get involved in the 2020 election? Vice President Biden is my chief political opponent,
Turr said. Trump never said that.
Trump never implied that.
That's not what happened.
Trump directly referenced CrowdStrike.
Trump was asking about the 2016 election interference.
Trump talked about Biden, sure, if you want to criticize him for it, fine.
The problem here, though, is that whether or not Joe Biden did anything wrong, we don't know, there's not been an investigation, is that there's a clear conflict of interest, and the investigation was shut down, and that's all Trump said, a very tepid half-statement where he said, a lot of people are upset about that.
And as I mentioned several times, it was in fact Zelensky who brought up Rudy Giuliani first.
Now, you can criticize Trump for what's in this, but all I can really say is, for one, not a legal expert.
I've heard from, you know, we had this debate going on with Fox News where Judge Napolitano said it was a crime because it was helping his campaign, but then you had another attorney on Tucker Carlson saying it's absolutely not true.
I don't see it.
Look, the question to me then becomes if Joe Biden did do something corrupt, and of course the left won't believe it, I don't know.
I see a conflict of interest.
I think it should be looked into.
I think we're looking into Trump and the complaint.
Great.
Let's look into Biden.
I've seen comments from the left saying, let Biden and Trump share a cell.
Fine.
Let's look into it.
The issue is, If somebody commits an overt act of corruption, are they immune from prosecution then because they're running for political office?
Hillary Clinton did break the law, it's my understanding, when she was subpoenaed to give up the emails and she deleted them.
And nothing happened.
Why?
Well, she was a rival political candidate.
Is that the shield?
I've got more fake news for you.
Check out this story from the other day.
Intelligence director adamantly disputes Washington Post report he threatened to resign.
I kid you not.
The Washington Post reported Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, was going to resign.
So let me read the Daily Caller what they said.
The Acting Director of National Intelligence unequivocally disputed a Washington Post report published Wednesday that he threatened to resign if the White House blocked him from testifying candidly about his handling of a whistleblower complaint concerning President Donald Trump.
At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role on August 16, 2019.
I have never quit anything in my life, and I'm not going to start now, Maguire said in a statement minutes after Washington Post's story was published.
I am committed to leading the intelligence community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.
The Washington Post story cited anonymous, current, and former officials familiar with the matter.
In his testimony today, he was asked about this.
Did you ever threaten to resign?
And he said, no.
How did Washington Post report this?
What was their source?
It used to be that you needed three sources to confirm a story, and now we are just staring at all of this insanity and fake news.
This complaint is nothing.
It's hearsay.
It's a game of telephone.
The things claimed by this whistleblower were refuted by the transcript itself.
The things he claimed that were in it are not in it.
Let's do this.
Let me highlight Oliver Darcy.
He says, how Fox, Breitbart, and the Gateway Pundit are covering today's news.
The main takeaway from Fox's straight news division is something.
I can only assume this is very critical, because people on the right hold a similar opinion to me.
In fact, probably the same opinion.
It's all fake.
Oliver also has another tweet.
Front page of CNN.com.
Whistleblower alleges White House cover up.
Right.
The person's not a whistleblower.
This is important.
A whistleblower is someone – let's say this.
You work for a company.
Let's say you produce soda pop.
And you find out that your boss is ordering people to put some additive in that soda pop.
And you say, like, you're working for this person.
He says, this is what I want you guys to do.
So you blow the whistle.
I refuse to do this.
This is a violation.
Let's now figure out who this person is.
Let's say there's a person who is a truck delivery guy.
He comes into the factory, where he doesn't work, and he overhears someone talking about how they saw the boss do this thing.
So the truck driver then goes and complains and says, I read some stuff in the news and I heard from some of these guys at the factory.
That's not a whistleblower.
That's gossip and rumors.
I'm sorry.
We need the individuals who witnessed Trump doing these things to prove it.
However, I have to stress, based on what this whistleblower believes, he was wrong.
As I've shown you already, I mean the Federalists showed you, a lot of what he claimed was in this was not in this.
Oliver Darcy says, Pro-Trump media allies are doing their best to spin, deflect, and obfuscate.
But at the end of the day, this story is clear and easy to understand.
Trump, using the office of the presidency, pushed a foreign power to investigate a political opponent.
Hold on.
That's the argument.
Okay, that Joe Biden is immune from investigation in a potential conflict of interest, maybe criminal, maybe not, because he's running for office.
Okay, I'll keep that in mind.
If I ever need, you know, to get away with a crime, I'll run for office.
Is that the claim?
That the president can't have a conversation with Ukraine about the 2016 election interference and how Biden bragged about getting this prosecutor fired?
I guess so.
I gotta admit, it is a conflict of interest in itself that Donald Trump would do this.
And that, I think, is worthy of criticism.
And so we're looking at the transcript.
And so we're looking at the complaint.
But I don't think it arises too much.
Just a conflict of interest.
But what do you do?
If Joe Biden was playing quid pro quo with foreign governments to benefit his son, I think everyone should know about it.
And simply because he's running for office doesn't make him immune from investigation.
But they'll pull that out of the context.
They'll say, Trump just wanted his political rival investigated.
To me, is there a political advantage to Biden being investigated?
For sure.
And I think Elizabeth Warren is feeling it, and she's loving it.
Elizabeth Warren stands to gain the most.
The far-left Democrats stand to gain the most.
They hate Biden.
But this, the way Oliver Darcy is framing it, I'm sorry, it strips out very important context.
And I will also stress, I do not like Trump.
End of story.
But you know what I've been thinking about lately?
As much as I really don't like Donald Trump, you know, the way I always preface it is, like, I obviously don't have Trump derangement syndrome.
He's just a president I'm not a fan of and wouldn't vote for, and that's about it.
I've been through presidents like that before.
I grew up, okay?
I think now we have to move on, and I'm a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard.
But no, they frame it in such a way that the only people who would call this out are going to be pro-Trump.
I guess technically, if I'm calling you all liars and saying you're publishing fake news, which they are, Well, I don't know what you want me to do, man.
When the Director of National Intelligence, the acting director, says that's fake news, when Axios and ABC are forced to issue corrections on a story a day later, when MSNBC comes out and says that Donald Trump directly referenced 2020 election and his political opponent to Ukraine, which is not in the transcript at all, you think everyone's... That's pro-Trump.
To call you a liar is pro-Trump?
No, you've just lost all credibility.
But let me show you what's really happening.
Rep Al Green.
He warns, the public is going to turn on us if we don't impeach Trump.
But more importantly, is what he says at the end.
I'm concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get re-elected.
And there it is.
There's the game.
Okay.
Yeah, he probably will get re-elected.
That's too bad.
Grow up.
If the Democrats paid attention to what Americans actually cared about, maybe they'd be doing better.
That was what I tweeted.
I wish politics in this country was about what we can do to make American lives better.
Instead, it has been three years of orange man bad.
And I really mean it.
They say Trump's wall is immoral.
He's a bigot.
He refused to condemn this group.
Trump is bad, Trump is bad, Trump is bad.
Russiagate, Russiagate, Russiagate.
Obstruction of justice.
Now Ukraine.
They wanted to impeach Kavanaugh, now they're on Ukraine.
That's all it is.
That's the news cycle.
And you know what it comes down to at the end of the day?
At the end of the day, the media is wrong.
Okay?
The media gets it wrong.
The Democrats follow the fake news, but not the correction.
So I really do think at the end of all this, the media is at fault.
And that's where we are.
How many times do we have to see stories refuted, denied, corrected?
But the Democrats are chasing Twitter, and they're chasing the fake reports, and this is what we get.
They have no leadership.
They can't stand up to the press.
So this whistleblower complaint is a big nothing burger.
And the media has no choice because they've hyped it up so much for ratings.
They have no choice but to claim everybody who's calling us out.
Trump supporters.
Okay, well, uh, the Director of National Intelligence has denied it.
A correspondent covering Ukraine with bylines in The Times, The Atlantic, and CNN has also claimed that the story from ABC News was fake.
And we actually have this story, MSNBC, fabricating a quote.
Let's hold it down a little bit.
Maybe she wasn't fabricating a quote.
Maybe she was implying that's what Trump did to make it seem like that was the case.
That's just absolutely fake.
It just never happened.
And this is what the media does.
They drum up insanity.
They get the ratings.
Everyone gets all excited.
And then the Democrats follow in.
Nancy Pelosi resisted as long as she could.
And you know, I'm not a big fan, but I have tremendous respect for her refusing to get on the impeachment bandwagon.
But then because of this, because of the media outrage, she just walked right into it.
Now she's playing the game, and they screwed up.
They screwed up bad.
I don't know what'll happen.
It might be bad for the president, it might not.
But I've never been as shocked as I am today when I saw all of this fake news.
This MSNBC clip is maybe one of the most shocking things I've seen in fake news.
Trump never mentioned Biden or re-election or 2020.
I'm sorry, Trump never mentioned Biden in the context of a re-election.
He didn't mention Biden being his chief political opponent.
I don't think Trump would even say anything like that.
He mentioned that Biden bragged on camera that he got a prosecutor fired that was investigating a company his son was making $50,000 a month at.
And he said, a lot of people, you know, are concerned.
They think it's terrible.
It was a tepid half statement.
Congratulations, media.
Congratulations, Democrats.
They've become a mess, a complete and utter mess.
So let me just wrap this up.
What I really want to take away from this is that these bombshell claims that were supposed to be in the transcript weren't there.
And so they said, well, it's got to be in the transcript.
I'm sorry, it's got to be in the whistleblower complaint.
And when the whistleblower complaint came out, it turns out the whistleblower doesn't—he was wrong.
The transcript proves a lot of what the whistleblower thought was wrong.
So there's all this hype from the press.
They have to eat it now.
So of course they'll deflect.
Pro-Trump media allies are doing their best to deflect.
Okay.
I don't like Trump.
Whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
And I will see you all then.
The other day, Dave Rubin tweeted that it looks like an event he was going to be speaking at is being cancelled due to a smear piece and threats from Antifa.
According to this smear piece, Dave is a far-right YouTuber who radicalizes people, and that is the most insane thing ever.
It's fake news, it's smears, and it's part of the ongoing culture war, and it's shockingly fake.
It's mind-blowingly fake.
The New York Times actually ran a story Which, when you look at the data, shows Dave Rubin de-radicalizes people.
I kid you not!
I'm not exaggerating.
The New York Times ran a story trying to claim that YouTubers were radicalizing people.
What they actually showed was that a conservative started watching intellectual dark web content like Dave Rubin and then became progressive.
I don't understand how we can live in this world.
It is truly, truly insane.
And I gotta say, it's only getting worse.
Now, I want to keep the focus on Dave Rubin and his event, because I want to stress, this is the same tactic they used against the event I sponsored near my own home.
For those that aren't familiar, at the beginning of the month, I believe it was actually the end of last month, the 31st, there was an event set up by a group called MythInformed.
I sponsored it.
I spoke there.
And they threatened... There were a bunch of threats.
I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty.
But the goal, or the tactic, I should say, is to increase the cost in every way imaginable to shut you down.
That includes writing fake stories, overt, insane fake news, where they're claiming Dave Rubin is far right.
It's some of the most insane smears I've ever seen.
Ever.
But you know what?
And I want to stress, I want to keep this to Dave Rubin, I have to point out, you know, following all of this Ukraine-Trump scandal stuff, my mind has been blown.
I have never seen this level of outright lies and fake news dropped so quickly.
Mind-blowingly fake, made up.
MSNBC went on and completely fabricated a quote.
Or I should say, to be as fair as I can, Katie Tur of MSNBC made up the circumstances in which Trump was talking about and made it seem like Trump literally said, please interfere in the election.
So again, I want to keep it to this, but the reason I highlight that is, man, we are really coming to some kind of crux and I don't know how we rectify this.
And I've talked to a lot of people about, you know, civil war and what that would look like.
Well, we're certainly in some kind of cold civil war, some kind of information civil war, where Dave Rubin can't have a sit-down conversation because of smears, lies, and threats.
I mean, come on.
That's low-level terror.
What they did to my event, and we won, by the way, in the short term.
We're in a longer legal battle now, going after the theater for violating a legal contract they held for over five months.
I don't want to rehash all this.
But anyway, we ended up sort of winning that fight, right?
We had our vent, we did lose money, but we refused to back down.
But this is pure insanity, that we're coming to this point where people can send threats anonymously over the internet with no repercussions.
You know, people talk about civil war and they imagine there's gonna be people marching in the streets with guns, but here's the thing, man.
No, we're at a point now where resources are being fought over, ideas are being silenced, politics, it's being shut down, and it's very unique.
I'm grateful we're not at a point where, you know, there's physical violence, but this is still nightmarish.
So let's actually read the story.
This is from the Daily Wire.
They say, On Wednesday evening, commentator Dave Rubin stated that his September 29th event with People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier, who was a candidate for Canadian Prime Minister at Mohawk College in Hamilton, had been cancelled because of threats from Antifa and an article in the Hamilton Spectator that somehow found cause to call Rubin a far-right YouTube personality.
If you are someone who doesn't fact-check, you are victim to this.
There are, you know, culture warriors getting jobs in media purposefully to get scalps.
I mean that figuratively, right?
Like, look at the story of that dude Carson King.
You follow this?
He made a joke sign that was like Venmo me money for beer, raised over a million dollars, everybody was really happy, And some woke journalist dug through eight years of Twitter history to find an off-color joke from when he was 16 and tried to destroy him with it.
What is wrong with these people, okay?
I have to stress.
If you are trying to destroy someone's life and career, this is an act of political conflict.
It's not physical conflict.
We're not there yet, and hopefully we don't get there, but we've seen street battles.
You know, a lot of people say there will never be a civil war because they think in one dimension.
There is a Princeton professor, there is a former Russian oligarch, I believe it was, who have all said, nah, the U.S.
is in it.
We are in it.
You put out a story that's an overt lie.
It's information war.
Look at what's going on with Ukraine.
It is mind-blowingly terrifying.
I'm not exaggerating.
I'm gonna get into all of this later.
But it is terrifying what is happening.
A story came out that claimed, according to an aide to the president of Ukraine, It was a prerequisite that they talk about the Biden investigation before the call.
And then guess what happens a day later?
Correction, fake news.
So this is what they do to Dave Rubin.
He says, he posts images of these stories where they call him a far-right YouTuber as part of a radicalization pipeline because of Cornell University study.
And there it is!
I talked about this study, remember?
I said this would happen.
The study.
Let me tell you what they did.
And Dave, I hope you're listening.
The study took a bunch of YouTube channels and arbitrarily defined them as alt-right, alt-right, or intellectual dark web.
For instance, they claim Ford Fisher was alt-right.
Alt-right is typically defined as civic nationalists.
Except Ford Fisher is just a journalist, and his YouTube content is dry journalism.
It's him walking around interviewing people, including Antifa and the far left.
It is fairly... It is straightforward news.
Documentary footage.
No personal opinions, no arguments, nothing.
It's him walking around filming.
They said that was alt-light.
They also claimed Sargon of Akkad was two different people, even though the subject matter of his channels are the same.
He has two channels, right?
He has multiple channels.
They claimed that Sargon was Intellectual Darkweb, but the Thinkery, also Sargon's channel in much the same vein of content, was alt-light.
Interesting.
Why?
Well, the goal of the study was to show that commenters would go to one channel and comment, then later go to an alt-right.
What he was saying was that people who comment would go to IDW, then later go to alt-right, and then later go to alt-right, thus proving the pipeline.
The only problem?
Well, there's two big problems.
The study's fake, okay?
I mean, they did a real study, but boy, did they just make it up.
They claim certain people are alt-light when they're not, or Sargon as two people, because what's really happening is, they're not showing the pipeline of comments moving in one direction.
They're taking randomly placed comments, but aligning the channels arbitrarily, so that it looks like comments are flowing in one direction.
But I assure you, that's actually... It's fake, but here's the thing.
In the study, they actually state, somebody who watches the control group And who watches the intellectual, like, so somebody who watches the control group versus somebody who watches the intellectual dark web are no more likely to comment on alt-right or alt-like content.
That's what the study found.
So fact check me on that, I don't have it pulled up.
But this is what they're using to smear them.
There you go.
Somebody works for a university, they publish a paper and say, fact, without checking, and boom, the media uses it as a smear.
It is a weapon being loaded into the canon of fake news, and it's working.
They are trying to win political territory with lies, with fake news and smears.
You know, I had this thought a long time ago.
Actually, I'm sorry for kind of derailing on the subject of the Rubin stuff.
Dave said he's going to be putting up the 10,000, I'm sorry, the 10,000 times secure, let me slow down.
Dave said he has offered to cover the 10x security fee himself.
So the strategy is to increase costs, both personal, professional, and
monetary.
They want to scare people and say, oh, we'll destroy you.
You know, they'll threaten your career, they'll threaten your building, they'll physically threaten you.
And so you have to worry about the costs of doing business, of having these conversations.
That's the tactic.
Why, you know, I don't know what the solution is, but something needs to be done about it.
But I had this thought a long time ago.
You know, I grew up in the hacker community.
I grew up doing fundraising.
Fundraising is essentially sales, if you're not familiar, where you try and pitch someone an idea and convince them to hand over money.
The difference is, in non-profit fundraising, you're selling them a hope and a dream, whereas sales is they're going to get something for it, be it medical devices or a beer.
So my job was to convince people that by giving me money I would do something good with it somewhere else, right?
So we're gonna save the trees.
We're gonna save the whales.
We're gonna save the environment.
I was pretty good at it.
And I started to think about this 13 years ago.
What's the point of war?
In war, your goal is to get resources and gain political power, for the most part.
It's rather reductive, but a lot of war is about, you know, there's ideological war, which is, I would put religious in the same space.
People don't like the encroachment of certain ideologies, so they go to war.
There's war for resources.
You know, people need food, water, or rare earths, or, you know, nuclear power or something.
There's war for revenge.
Some people just, you know, get emotional and want to fight.
But typically, it's about gaining power over some kind of space.
Why?
Why would you ever?
I always thought this when I was doing fundraising.
Why would you ever use a weapon and force someone to do your bidding?
In the event that all else fails, I can certainly understand.
But manipulation is, for the most part, it's foolproof.
I always explain this to people.
You can absolutely control someone's mind and behavior.
And the first thing I do when I explain social engineering is a field of hacking where you're controlling people using social expectations and behaviors.
It's actually most of the original idea of what hacking is and most of what people think hacking is breaking in emails is social manipulation like phishing.
Trust me, this is related.
So I always thought about this.
Whenever I talk to people and explain to them social engineering, I'll say something like, I'm going to tell you this, and what you're going to say after I'm done talking to you about this subject, you're going to respond with, yes, but not me, or something to the effect of, it wouldn't work on you.
And they go, oh, OK.
I'm telling you you're going to say this.
And they're like, uh-huh.
Then I go through the spiel, explaining the basics of how people do social engineering.
There's a bunch of different tactics and techniques for manipulation, but invariably, well, not invariably, but, you know, 99% of the time, once I finish explaining this, they go, I get it, yeah, but that would never work on me.
And I'm like, didn't I just tell you I was going to make you say that?
Proving it did work on you.
I try to explain to people, listen, if manipulation didn't work, Coca-Cola wouldn't be buying billboards, they wouldn't be buying commercials, advertising, propaganda, we know how this works.
The reason I'm bringing this up is looking at what's going on with Dave and the smear piece.
Why bother with a physical front, with a physical attack?
When you can just manipulate people's minds using fake news.
It's effective.
It works.
You don't need to actually hurt someone.
The fear of harm, it's my understanding, I could be wrong about this, but the fear of pain is more effective than the pain itself.
I read something about, like, you know, torture, and this was a while ago, but that's another thing, you know, people know about in interrogations, that the fear of pain is more powerful than actually inducing the pain.
So when you think about what's happening right now, and the context of what a civil war would be.
Okay.
Dave Rubin was going to be talking to a political candidate, a high-profile one.
They shut his event down.
It may still happen, I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like it's cancelled.
A bunch of people lie.
They publish lies in the paper.
Why the media tolerates this, I have no idea, but I can only suggest the media has been corrupted entirely.
I don't want to keep this too long, but here's the point I'm trying to make.
What they're doing to Dave, what they tried doing to my event, you know, we'll see if Dave, you know, can push back on this one.
It's a manipulation tactic very much so in line with an ideological war.
They don't want our ideas to be heard.
Who did we host at my event?
Well, we had Daryl Davis, one of the most famous anti-racists in the world, a man who de-radicalized over 200 Klansmen.
And he happens to be black.
And he was our headliner and he got a standing ovation from the crowd.
Because people at the event that I sponsored genuinely don't like violence and racism.
But what is this?
What is this Antifa, this far-left stuff, these threats?
They claim to oppose violence.
They don't.
It's a lie.
They're manipulators.
They're liars.
They're trying to gain political power through manipulation.
Here's the thing.
Violence will not be tolerated.
It is ineffective to actually engage in physical violence for the most part.
In today's day and age, the biggest mistake you can make is fighting someone physically because people reject it.
People don't want the conflict.
It was a mistake they made with Andy Ngo, and boy are they reeling because of it.
The Antifa people who physically attacked Ngo put him on a pedestal, gave him a big, you know, everyone started talking about what happened, and they essentially bolstered his brand.
And they know it was a mistake, and they've been trying to come after him ever since with smears and lies and everything.
Now, I'm not saying Andy's perfect.
I think he gets a lot of things wrong, that's fine, but physically attacking him was absolutely wrong, and it empowered him.
That's why, you know, whatever it turns out to be in this, you know, civil war, whatever it is, I mean, it's been going on for years.
I was at VidCon in 2017.
I believe it was 20, it might have been 2016.
No, it was 2017.
And a leftist on the stage referred to what's happening as a cultural civil war.
A Princeton professor said, a cold civil war.
It's been repeated over and over again.
Stop imagining people running through the streets with, you know, machine guns and bandanas and throwing grenades at each other.
We're in the information age.
You can get someone to hand over everything with information.
The threat of violence may be more powerful than the violence itself.
Keep people in fear.
Manipulate them with lies and you don't need to worry about anything else.
Let's go back in time.
You know, 1930s with the Spanish Civil War.
I understand why people fought.
It was the only thing they could do and they didn't know.
There was no way to know what the other person, what they thought, who they were, what they wanted.
In today's day and age, we have electronic communication.
We have cyber attacks.
We have hacking.
Why bother with showing up and using force against someone to force them into submission when you can threaten to destroy everything and leave them in fear?
These Antiva people tell you, we will destroy your life, we will destroy your business.
We will make- we will reduce you to ash.
Don't worry!
You'll physically be healthy, but you'll have no job, you'll have no home, and you'll have no friends.
That enough is power.
We're looking at a different kind of warfare, and this has been going on for a long time.
Whether it ever gets to the point of actual physical conflict outside of the street battles we're seeing, I have no idea.
But this is it.
This is terror, okay?
The fake news they write about Dave Rubin.
It's mind-blowing what they write.
Let me actually read it.
Dave Rubin is a far-right YouTube personality and a significant part of a radicalization process ushering people into the neo-Nazi movement, according to a recently published study out of Cornell University, which analyzed 79 million comments and over 330,000 videos to track the effect.
That's fake.
Absolutely fake.
The study didn't conclude that.
The study said that the intellectual dark web and the control group were no different, basically.
That people who watched The Guardian and people who watched Dave Rubin are no more likely than each other to comment on alt-right videos.
And the New York Times story, though it tried concluding there's a pipeline to radicalization, actually showed the inverse.
That's the point.
It's a lie.
It's a game.
They want power.
They don't want someone like Dave Rubin to speak.
Because Dave Rubin gives space to their political opponents.
Dave Rubin is possibly the most dangerous individual when it comes to the cultural civil war for the left.
And people like me as well.
The reason is, and I really do mean this, Dave Rubin is not an overt Trump supporter or conservative.
He's a gay, married, pro-pot smoking, public, I don't know his official stance on public health care, but he used to be a pretty Democrat guy.
Similar to my position in a lot of ways, though I think Dave and I do things relatively differently.
We probably disagree on a lot.
I think Dave's become a bit more right libertarian as of recent.
But the reason Dave is possibly one of the most dangerous individuals in the culture war is just because of that.
Because there are people who are former moderates, Democrats, who will listen to Dave, and Dave's gonna say, listen, you know, these people, they're lying.
They're smearing us.
They're trying to manipulate you, and they can't have that.
It's not so much that Dave is a path to radicalization, it's that Dave presents a platform where people can hear the other side and break the brainwash.
Dave is not perfect.
His show is not perfect, and I disagree with Dave.
And we did a really great video where I called it like, you know, I think it was like, Dave Rubin Destroys Tim Pool of Logic and Facts.
It was a silly title.
But I addressed, to the best of my abilities, some criticism, to the best of my, you know, political ethics as well, some of the criticisms that's been levied against Dave, and Dave responded to them.
Not perfect.
There's, you know, a lot of people got angry.
A lot of people appreciated it.
There were some people who said, I'm glad, you know, Tim asked these questions.
But as I stated in that video, I think, you know, no one's perfect.
Dave's not perfect, but Dave is, in my opinion, for the most part, an honest platform, an honest place for an open discussion.
If you're willing to engage rationally and focus on, you know, ideas instead of targeting his character and doing stupid YouTube drama garbage.
If, you know, if you're somebody who watches Dave Rubin, Dave has created a massive platform for individuals to hear ideas they haven't heard before.
Naturally, they have to take it to its extreme.
Well, that's proof that Dave is opening the door to Nazism.
That's psychotic.
No, Dave is going to sit down with someone like Jordan Peterson and have a political conversation, and people who might not have heard any of these ideas before are now realizing Hey, that conservative guy who was on Dave's show?
Not so bad.
Wow, I didn't realize that.
Dave's creating a place where people can actually come together and find some unity.
Not always.
Not perfectly.
A lot of people on the right don't like him.
More people on the left don't like him, as we can see here.
But this is why he's so dangerous.
It's why I'm dangerous.
It's why moderates are dangerous.
It's why they want to smear everyone as right-wing.
The problem is, you know, look, someone like Steven Crowder, He plays to a conservative audience.
Conservatives like him, moderates probably watch because they're interested but disagree, and the left doesn't like him.
But what happens when you have someone who's actually on the left policy-wise, opening the door for a conversation, humanizing the other?
Well, that breaks the narrative.
They can't allow that.
That's why they must, at all costs, stop someone like Dave, and they don't, for the most part, care too much about higher-profile conservative types.
Though, let's be real.
They've gone after Crowder.
They've gone after Tucker.
But Dave is not a path to radicalization.
He's a door that can go both ways.
You can be on the right and come to the left.
You can be on the left and come to the right.
It's not a path to radicalization.
It's a sit-down conversation.
And that's dangerous, because it breaks indoctrination.
Dave's platform is not perfect.
He doesn't host a lot of the SGW types, and it's not necessarily his fault.
There are a lot of people who demand debates with him, and I think there's a lot to criticize the guy for, for sure.
But it's really scary what they do with this event, and it's really scary what they did with my event.
The scariest thing to me, in all of this cultural civil war, whatever you want to call it, was that we hosted an event, this was my event, called Ending Racism, Violence, and Authoritarianism.
It was a bunch of, like, mostly centrists, mostly moderate individuals in this country looking for answers.
My understanding is most people there were centrists, leaning a little bit to the left, a little bit to the right, and a lot of libertarian types, which, You know, I don't even know where libertarian falls in the spectrum anymore because there are left libertarians who are actively engaged.
So it's very centrist, right?
The headline speaker, famous anti-racist, de-radicalizing Klansman.
And they tried to shut that down.
And that to me is scary because it says, if we can't have these conversations between progressives, we had some social justice activists, we had progressives, and many women pulled out.
But if we can't sit down and have these conversations, how do we move forward?
Well, here's the thing.
These people, the far left, Antifa, the smear merchants, they don't want us to move forward.
They want the breakdown.
They will never have their communist, socialist, whatever, Unless the current system breaks.
So they cannot allow people like Dave.
Steven Crowder!
Steven Crowder plays to one side.
They go after him for sure.
They want to shut him down, don't get me wrong.
But, with Dave, he's creating space to bring people closer together.
And Stephen does as well, but Stephen plays more to one side.
And admittedly, Dave is now doing similarly because of his pushback on the far left, and the left going insane.
The point is, centrists are dangerous.
The people who are willing to reach out to left and right and entertain these ideas and come to compromise are threatening their ability to destroy everything.
And they really mean it.
Look, I'm not going to say every single person on the left, that's absurd.
But there is a contingent of people on the left, some of whom I know personally, back from the days of Occupy Wall Street, who want to destroy the system.
Having told me explicitly, some of these activist organizers, these are like Antifa types, There's no way you can get rid of capitalism through reform.
There is no way that you can vote in socialism.
They believe the system has to collapse entirely, and then they have to win the fight and force socialism to exist.
That's not every activist.
It's just enough.
And that's why they're playing this game.
This video has gone long, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up on this channel at 1 p.m.
And, you know, I'll see you there.
It is what it is.
Take a bow.
Take a bow, you glorious, glorious internet trolls who somehow managed to alter the course of history, making a widely accepted hand gesture a racist symbol to the point where it was disputed.
And people got really angry, saying, enough, enough.
The OK symbol is not.
It's a hoax, OK?
It does not mean white power.
Please stop.
But you persisted.
You persisted and refused to back down.
And now we have the breaking news.
And get this, the bowl cut and my favorite, an anthropomorphic moon man have been added to hate symbols database.
Well, there you go.
The World is a joke run by clowns.
It's a sitcom.
You know, sometimes I feel like the world ended in 2016.
I remember the day Donald Trump got elected.
And I'm sitting in this room, and I just imagine, you know, what probably really happened is that I was sitting there, and a giant meteor just crashed into Earth, just wiping everything out.
Because here's the thing, you know.
Like, life's been pretty good.
And, but it seems like we're on repeat.
With weird, fake nonsense.
Like, this can't be real, right?
It seems like just... It's just not... How can this be real life?
We went through decades of this monotonous, same old establishment.
Ah, here we are!
People have seemed to have completely lost their minds.
The bowl cut!
That's great.
But no, but really, the uh... The anthropomorphic moon-wearing sunglasses.
Ah, yes.
The famous racist symbol of anthropomorphic moons wearing sunglasses.
Does that mean, like, okay, so what does that say for the Raisin Bran guy?
You know, Raisin Bran cereal that's got the sun with two big scoops and his big ol' smile on his face?
Or wait, didn't Coca-Cola do a sun with sunglasses?
Is that like the anti-fascist symbol?
What is wrong with people?
Well, I'll tell you this.
As somebody who's worked for non-profits, I'll give you my personal opinion.
They need a fight.
You know, I've stated before that the goal of a non-profit should be to put itself out of business.
But a non-profit typically, typically, not always, seeks to challenge a problem and solve that problem.
Now, regular businesses do this too, but these are problems that have no permanent solution, right?
So if you said, you know, when you clip your nails, your nails go all over the place.
So you invent something that catches them.
They do.
They have those nail clippers now with, like, the back.
And, hey, that's an invention.
But here's the thing.
You will still need new versions of that product.
You're not going to go out of business.
A lot of businesses do play the planned obsolescence game, which is disgusting, in my opinion.
But, hey, I get it.
Wish it wasn't so.
But nonprofits tackle a problem like, I don't know, deforestation.
Well, what happens when you pass a law that creates a sustainable lumber industry and requires them to replant trees and things like that to maintain certain levels of forestation?
You'd be done, right?
Well, no.
A lot of these organizations just find an excuse.
Well, The Anti-Defamation League I've been very, very critical of.
I don't put them in the same categories like the SPLC, in my opinion, based on the reporting.
I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is an overt scam.
I think the Anti-Defamation League plays fast and loose, and uses dirty tactics, and has insane goals.
But I know I get a lot of criticism for this.
I don't.
I think they're willing to go after anybody they don't think is in line with their position.
That includes the left and the right, unlike the SPLC, which just, you know, is a scam in my opinion.
But I'm no fan of the ADL.
I just think, whatever, I made my case.
But anyway, the ADL has added the okay hand gesture, the bowl-style haircut, Does that mean- you ever see Dexter's Laboratory?
What was the bad guy that Dexter hated?
He had the black bowl haircut?
Is he now like a white symbol of Nazism?
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
I have no idea what the hell the anthropomorphic moon-wearing sunglasses has to do with hate.
They're among 36 new entries in the ADL's online database of hate symbols used by white supremacists and other far-right extremists.
They say the ADL added the symbols to its online Hate on Display database, which already includes burning crosses and Klan robes and, you know, we get it.
They say they launched the database in 2000 to help law enforcement officers, school officials, and others recognize signs of extremist activity.
Oh, man.
That's it.
You've seen it.
If you go to school with a bowl haircut, Reported.
That's a red flag.
We're gonna take your guns.
Even as extremists continue to do symbols that may be years or decades old, they regularly create new symbols, memes, and slogans to express their hateful sentiments.
Some of the new entries started trolling campaigns or hateful memes on 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit before migrating to Facebook, Twitter, yadda yadda.
The ADL has updated its database to include the OK hand symbol.
You've lost the plot.
Every scuba diver, anywhere, at any time, who has to use that symbol, you are officially displaying hate.
But the ADL is extremists also are using it as a sincere expression of white supremacy.
That is not true.
That is not true.
There's two tiers to the troll.
The first troll was that actually there's three.
So let me explain.
The first troll was that Donald Trump makes that hand gesture when he talks.
He still does.
So Trump supporters started doing it to symbolize their support for Trump, to trigger the libs.
4chan, level 2, made the hoax into white supremacy.
And the ultimate troll, level 3, is when white supremacists started flashing the sign.
But here's the thing.
It doesn't mean white power.
It's meant to cause chaos.
They're not flashing a sign to say white power.
That is not the intent.
No one!
Okay, 99.9% of people, I don't want to be absolutist, but when you see these crazy white supremacists flashing the symbol, it's not to say white power.
It's to trigger the media and push the next level of the hoax, which they have caught hook, line, and sinker.
The ADL says they're using it as a sincere expression of white supremacy.
No, they fundamentally don't understand the point.
The point is this.
They want to sow discord, disruption, and chaos.
So now scuba divers have to use a different symbol?
They're gonna make up- You don't- I'll give you a symbol.
Scuba divers.
Use this one.
I'm gonna get in trouble for that, I think.
I don't know.
Can I get in trouble for that?
For those that are listening to the podcast, I just flipped off the camera.
But I don't know.
YouTube might get mad at me for doing that.
I'm going to skip over some of the nonsense.
They say at this point, there's enough of a volume of use for hateful purposes that we thought it was important to add.
An earlier addition to the database was Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character that became hijacked by online extremists.
And what was it?
Celebrities like Katy Perry used it.
Yep.
Famous white supremacist Katy Perry used it, right?
And Hong Kong protesters use it.
Now, the Happy Merchant I totally get.
The Happy Merchant, one of the new database entries.
I'm surprised that's new.
The Happy Merchant has been an anti-Semitic trope for a long time.
Here you go, another edition.
The Moon Man meme is derived from Mac Tonight, a character in a McDonald's advertising campaign during the 1980s.
Internet trolls transformed the sunglasses-wearing cartoon moon into a vehicle for rap songs with racist and violent lyrics.
You know what's insane to me?
There's so few white supremacists in the world, and they make a ton of jokes on the internet, and everyone is bending over backwards to give them command of symbols.
Why?
I don't understand.
The ADL also edited the Dylann Roof bowl cut, an image of the hairstyle worn by the white supremacist.
We know, yeah, we know who he is.
They say, the bowl-style hair became an avatar for extremists, including a D.C.
man whose relatives contacted the FBI to report concerns about his behavior.
Oh, just, you know what, man?
The bowl cut.
Okay.
Logos of white nationalist groups include the Rise Above movement, you know, AIM.
The recently formed American Identity Movement is a successor to the now-dissolved Identity Europa, which frequently plastered its white nationalist propaganda on college campuses, yadda yadda yadda.
Four members of the group, I don't care.
You know what, man?
I'm truly, truly impressed that we've come to this point.
But let me just stress, the media wants to eat all this stuff up.
The media wants these stories.
But why should we care what the Anti-Defamation League thinks?
You know, it's been so mind-blowing to me that the media is willing to bend over for all of these various, you know, bend over backwards.
Or, you know, the other way, for all of these different organizations when they make these claims.
What's to stop anyone else from making an organization that functions identically to these, but doesn't?
What's to stop someone from actually starting a non-profit to challenge racism and then doesn't play this game and calls out the other side when they do the same thing?
Now that's the point I was making about the ADL earlier that I don't want to get super into because that's not the point.
But they've called out Ilhan Omar and okay, great, I respect that.
The SPLC on the other hand is like...
It's been called a scam for decades.
So while I'm no fan of the idea that this is insane, they've called out Ilhan Omar and people on the left.
You know, not as much, but they do.
They have really weird definitions of what left and right means.
Like, if you're a racial supremacist, you know, if you're a white supremacist, you're right-wing, but if you're a non-white racial supremacist, you're left-wing.
I don't understand how that makes sense, and I don't... I don't know.
I'll end by saying this.
I'll keep this one short.
Congratulations, internet trolls.
I'm not talking about the white supremacists.
I'm talking about the people who are bored, sitting in their rooms, and decided to create a troll campaign to manipulate our society.
And this may be the most powerful troll I've ever seen.
Actually, you know what?
Let me tell you a story.
There was this thing on 4chan a long time ago.
What was this?
Nine years ago?
Called Operation King Cone.
That I saw happening on 4chan was basically, there was a street cone in New York City someone had seen on something called Earth Can.
And so they went on 4chan and said, we must use our collective internet powers to knock the street cone over.
To influence the real world.
The joke was kind of like, can all of these people on 4chan actually make something happen in the real world?
And eventually, somebody walked by, like some kids, knocked it over.
And it was a joke.
The campaign was to influence the real world.
No one, who cares if a cone gets knocked over?
But I think about it as kind of a distributed intelligence.
There was a willpower emerging among this swarm of people on 4chan, to which Stephen Colbert once called a hornet's nest.
In a famous segment.
So this swarm was trying to develop its willpower.
Knock the street cone over.
Eventually they did.
Took a long time and someone came and knocked it over.
It was a joke and the people who apparently went to knock it over heard about, you know, the meme or whatever and went and did it.
And it was a harmless, silly joke where on this webcam you could watch the cone get knocked over.
Flash forward, you know, eight years or so, well, you know, seven years later, six or seven years later, and that consciousness has now effectively created a series of symbols that Hillary Clinton herself has called out.
It is gone in only a few years, this collective conscious, this willpower, whatever 4chan is and wants to do, I changes, from struggling to knock over a street cone to getting a presidential, a top contender, Hillary Clinton, To push the idea they wanted her to push.
Congratulations.
The Pepe thing.
That's how insane it's gotten.
And now here we are in 2019.
Officially.
The okay hand gesture.
It was done.
Thy will be done, 4chan.
They've done it.
I wonder what the next thing they'll try and make.
I mean, they memed the president into office, apparently.
I'm gonna stop now.
But congratulations, trolls.
Their power is growing.
And this is probably, you know, maybe the war we're seeing now is kind of like the establishment, centralized, authoritarian hive of the internet versus the decentralized, more, you know, Anti-establishment hive.
Like these two hive minds competing.
That's what culture war is.
I don't know.
Whatever.
I'm done.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
We're gonna be talking about the Ukraine scandal and how it's just fake news.
Seriously, I've got a bunch of fake... It's all fake news.
All the corrections.
All the lies.
Man, my... What a world.
It's absolutely insane.
If it wasn't for the podcast, the order's inverted.
So anyway, stick around.
I'll see you on the next segment.
Because I know you all love living in this nightmarish hell world, every day, non-stop, just permanently.
Something happened.
In 2016, the world ended, and we are trapped here in purgatory, where every story just repeats itself.
Lo and behold, Huffington Post, Donald Trump has actually two whistleblowers to worry about.
Don't forget about the whistleblower alleging possible interference with the IRS audit of the President's tax returns.
Alleging.
Possible.
Potentially!
Oh, this is great.
You see, they're already lining up the next news cycle.
You know what?
I'm gonna turn my channel into, like, I'm gonna go out and buy a bunch of guinea pigs, and from now on, all you're gonna see me do in every single video for an hour and a half per day is just roll around, watching the guinea pigs do their thing, because this is just so insane.
It's predictable, it's insane, it goes nowhere, and it won't stop.
Huffington Post, Donald Trump's two whistleblowers.
Well, let's read the news and get ready.
Because as soon as this ridiculous Ukraine cycle ends with nothing, and it will, it will end in nothing.
Get ready for the next one.
The IRS, the taxes.
Oh man, it's just so miserable, isn't it?
An intelligence community whistleblower has stunned Washington with possible evidence that President Donald Trump perverted U.S.
foreign policy for his own personal gain.
Okay, let's break that down.
An intelligence community whistleblower.
Wrong.
They're not a whistleblower because they don't work with the president.
They were instructed to do nothing.
They have no first-hand knowledge of anything.
They're blowing the whistle on nothing.
They don't even have a whistle!
Has stunned Washington.
Yeah, only the people who aren't paying attention.
Possible evidence.
No.
The transcript is out.
When's this story from?
This is from yesterday, so okay.
I'll cut them some slack.
No, I'm sorry.
The complaint was released.
They had no evidence that Donald Trump perverted US foreign policy.
But there's another whistleblower.
One with possible evidence that Trump tried to corrupt an IRS audit of his personal tax returns, who has received relatively little attention.
Well, you can count on me, everybody, to bring up the insanity.
Okay, only criticize the insanity.
The tale of two whistleblowers reflects the Democrats' differing strategies as well as the whistleblower's own approaches.
The intelligence whistleblower brought the complaint to the IC inspector general, who told Congress about the report but didn't hand it over because of objections from the White House.
I believe that has to do with executive privilege.
Excuse me.
More importantly, the individual claiming to blow the whistle doesn't in fact work in any capacity with the president, and we're now learning, I think from the New York Times, that they're a CIA agent.
Is that what it is?
Do I have the right story pulled up?
Yes, Whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House.
Well, there you go.
The tax whistleblower, meanwhile, went straight to Congress, specifically to the House Ways and Means Committee, which had sued the Trump administration for refusing to provide copies of the president's tax return in response to a formal request.
Democrats say they need Trump's returns to make sure the IRS properly enforces tax laws against the president.
Yeah, are they going to do that for everybody, or is this going to be the game we play from now on?
Everything's just devolving into absurdity.
Just complete chaos.
And these people revel in it.
You know what I'd like to do?
I'd like to go, I don't know, skate or something.
But I guess this is the world we live in now, where everything has to be about scandal and controversy and scrutiny.
Will we ever have a president again that doesn't face this kind of scrutiny?
No matter who they are, for whatever reason, there will be accusations and innuendo and whistleblowers and just trash.
In a brief last month, the committee told the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia that a federal employee had approached them with evidence of possible misconduct and inappropriate efforts to influence an IRS audit of the president.
The document provided no further detail about the whistleblower.
But in a footnote, Democrats offered to tell U.S.
District Judge Trevor McFadden all about it in private.
You can see they are preparing for the next cycle.
The story about Biden and Ukraine was from months ago.
It's like May or something.
They are preparing the next scandal.
You heard it here.
Excuse me.
You heard it here.
This will be it.
They want his tax returns, they want to stop him from getting re-elected, and they can't do anything on policy, because he's speaking to… because the economy is good, and they're not speaking to the people.
They say, a spokesman for the committee said last week that McFadden, a Trump nominee who donated to the Trump 2016 campaign and volunteered for the Trump presidential transition, has so far not asked to hear more about the whistleblower.
He denied a Democratic motion to speed up the case.
Neil declined to discuss the whistleblower this week, citing guidance from House lawyers.
Other Ways and Means members who said they closely follow the tax returns issue have said they don't know anything about the person.
The whistleblower accusation is fruitless, it's probably baseless, and it's probably absurd.
It's presented to McFadden, who looks at it and goes, are you nuts?
This is ridiculous, and rejects it.
They then float around in the media and say there's this whistleblower complaint being rejected by a Trump donor and nominee, and then they drum it all up, they talk about what Trump potentially did, what he allegedly did that potentially could be damning.
You see that?
Allegedly and potentially.
And then once the media drums up this big news cycle and Trump is smeared, the actual complaint drops, and it's hearsay gossip, third-party nonsense, and it's kind of not really anything at all.
Sound familiar?
It's basically what they keep doing.
The tax return issues has dogged Trump since he refused to release his returns during the 2016 campaign.
And now it could wind up as part of an impeachment proceeding.
And there it is!
You see what they're doing.
I'm warning y'all.
Democrats moved toward impeachment this week largely as a result of information related to the intelligence whistleblower's complaint, which is still secret.
Boy, it must be embarrassing now the complaint is out and it's all gossip, hearsay, third-hand accounts, and press clippings.
I kid you not.
Not one first-hand account of anything.
And here we are.
Trump is the first president since Nixon not to voluntarily disclose his tax returns.
Not a fan of it.
Gotta admit, not a fan.
Why doesn't Trump want to disclose his tax returns?
Every other candidate, you know, has done it.
Bernie did it, and Bernie got dragged through the media for it when we learned he was a millionaire.
Trump has done a lot of things that I think is worthy of criticism.
The problem is, I can't even talk about it because of this.
Because of all this, okay?
Okay.
Trump re-appropriates funds from other military budgets and departments towards the wall.
Hey, let's have a conversation about that.
Is that appropriate?
If Congress won't provide the funding, is this appropriate?
Sorry.
Orange man is bad, the wall is immoral, and Trump is using his influence on the 2020 election.
Okay, great, thank you.
We can talk about asylum.
We can talk about anything that Trump is doing.
Unfortunately, this is all they want to talk about.
In a court brief this week.
So let me make that point.
I'd love to have a conversation about Trump's tax returns.
He's not obligated to release them.
They're just mad he isn't.
And I think, I gotta admit, I'd be willing to bet the tax returns come out and it's a nothing burger.
Think about the bombshell.
They've been all lined up.
All of these big stories.
Yeah.
Trump's finally going to release his tax return, and it's going to be like tepid.
It's going to be like, well, Trump isn't really worth as much as he likes to claim he is, but he is a billionaire and made a lot of money.
There's nothing really there.
The Democrats overplayed their hand.
That's what's been happening nonstop.
More importantly, it could turn out Trump's tax returns are really bad.
If I was going to make a bet, I'd say it shows Trump isn't making as much money as he— Like, I think the thing is, you can be a billionaire with assets, but I think the tax returns might show that he's not making as much money per year.
In which case, he has assets, but income is probably bad.
When you consider what he did in, like, the 90s and 2000s with, like, devaluing properties, Which I know, it's to an extent standard business to get tax write-offs.
We may see tax returns that show Trump doesn't make that much money.
Though he does have the assets, you see what I'm saying?
In which case, they will use that against him.
So the point is...
That's what I think might be in it.
Is that a scandal?
No.
Is it bad for Trump?
I mean, I guess his image and his brand.
Will that result in anything bad for the president in terms of his presidency and politics?
No.
Again, it's just my speculation.
In the end, it may turn out his taxes show he made a moderately high income.
Like, he is making millions and millions of dollars.
He's a very wealthy individual.
He's a billionaire.
And the Democrats overplayed their hand.
That's my— So, actually, it's an interesting bet because Initially, early on, I'd be willing to bet that Trump's tax returns would show his income is low.
His assets are high, his income is low.
Probably write-downs and stuff like that.
However, based on what we've seen, I would not be surprised at this point to see another Democrat cried wolf, and Trump's tax returns are just being withheld because Trump knows he can drag it out, and then once they pop up with a scandal, he can be like, oh, here you go, fine.
And then we learn nothing.
He's a rich dude with taxes, you know what I mean?
I think there might be something in there that you'd be like, oh, that's interesting, and that's about it.
Like, everything we've seen so far, we've looked at these scandals and said, you know, Trump probably should have said that, but, you know, it's not a criminal, it's not that bad.
And the Democrats scream at the top of their lungs.
The White House has declined to comment on the tax matter.
Republicans in Congress have said they don't know anything about it.
In her Tuesday announcement, the House was officially investigating whether to impeach the president.
Nancy Pelosi said the oversight committees, which include Ways and Means, would submit evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it drafts articles of impeachment.
Jeff Houser, director of the Revolving Door Project, an anti-corruption advocacy group, said the overall impeachment case would be stronger if Democrats could show that the Ukrainian shakedown wasn't an isolated case.
The House Ways and Means Committee must figure out a way to make the public aware of the serious cause to worry that the IRS might have been corrupted by Trump.
Ah, heavens, corrupted by the president.
Well, I'm sorry.
What I see here There may be a scandal involving Trump, but I just can't believe you anymore.
And I think it's unfair to blame me.
Now, Trump supporters support the president no matter what.
But I was reasonably interested, like, hey, maybe there's something here.
You can go back and watch my videos where I say things about Russia, like, you know, Trump may have done this.
Now I'm just like, oh, get out of, I don't even want to hear it, man.
Okay, you know, my friends, the people I talk to are so tired of this.
They're so over it.
I think I want to make sure, like on this channel, I have this channel so that I can sometimes get away from a lot of the political stuff sometimes.
You know, like I'll be talking about the Joker later today, the Joker show.
It is still cultural and political, like we're trapped in this world, but there you go.
My final point.
I don't care.
Huffington Post, I'm sorry.
I don't care.
I don't believe you.
I don't want to hear it.
I can't believe they're doing more hearings on this.
I live for politics, okay?
I'm passionate about this stuff and news and how the world works.
I'd like to hear about how they plan to change the healthcare system.
I'm interested.
Yeah.
Too bad.
Can't have it.
Anyway.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Millennials are fleeing big cities.
I think it's more than just millennials.
People in general are dropping out of big cities.
My personal opinion?
I think it has a lot to do with the internet and digital economy.
This is fascinating because it's going to have profound impacts on politics.
I want to show you this, but I also want to show you this.
Democrats and Republicans aren't just divided, they live in different worlds.
The economies of big cities and of rural areas are completely different.
Now here's the thing.
As of right now, big cities have digital and professional design, creative, that kind of work.
Journalists tend to be in big cities for this reason.
They tend to hold a specific ideology.
As they move out into rural areas, we can see the spread.
People have complained that Texas is turning blue because people are coming from California, or that Colorado is now embracing insane California policies because people are leaving LA.
Young people who vote for ridiculous things leave because things get bad, and then bring those policies with them.
Something interesting is going to happen, though.
A lot of these rural jobs, the Republican types, the red areas, they're labor jobs, right?
Actually, let me just jump right in and see if I can get to the actual point here.
They say, in terms of industries, there are blue industries and there are red industries.
Republican districts, by contrast, hold growing shares of the nation's agriculture, mining, and low-skill manufacturing jobs.
Many of which do not require a college degree, have lower pay, and are more exposed to overseas competition.
It's kind of good news, in a sense, that millennials are leaving big cities, because the only other place they could actually go are suburbs and rural areas.
And if we're actually looking at a divide that's so hard, that they're completely different economies as to how the
blue and red folks operate, millennials leaving might actually start to mend these
issues. However, they'll probably bring their politics with them. Let's read the story about
millennials from the Wall Street Journal, and then we'll come back here. Let me jump to the beginning,
and we'll talk about the divide.
Another really interesting fact from this Wall Street Journal story, the second one, is that the Democrats overwhelmingly represent the highest income-earning districts, whereas Republicans represent the lower income-earning districts.
So, take that for what it is.
The Wall Street Journal reports, Large U.S. cities lost tens of thousands of millennial and
younger Gen Z residents last year, according to census figures released Thursday, that
offer fresh signs of cooling urban growth.
Cities with more than half a million people collectively lost almost 27,000 residents
aged 25 to 39 in 2018.
I'm one of them.
I live in the New York area.
I moved out.
I'm in the Burbs now, so I'm technically still in city areas, but I'm 20 or 30 minutes outside of the Philly area now, so I'm slowly moving as far away as I can.
They say, according to the Wall Street Journal analysis of the figures, it was the fourth consecutive year that big cities saw the population of young adults shrink.
New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington, and Portland, Oregon were among those that lost large numbers of residents in this age group.
I'd like to know the racial makeup of this group.
I would like to know this.
I'd be willing to bet it is overwhelmingly white.
The drop in young urban residents last year was smaller than in 2017, when big cities lost nearly 54,000 residents in this age group.
But the sustained decline signaled a sharp reversal from the beginning of the decade, when young adults flooded into cities and helped lead an urban revival.
But I also want to stress, isn't it, you know, a back-and-forth, right?
You have a period where people rush into cities for cheap property and then leave for cheap property?
I think the digital economy and creative work, it allows people to work from anywhere.
Let's say you're a graphic designer.
You don't got to come to the office.
Here's what I need.
Can you make it?
They make it.
Hey, that's good.
You get paid.
You could literally be in Antarctica working as a graphic designer.
You wouldn't want to be.
It's actually probably expensive to live there, like prohibitively expensive in the sense that You probably need some kind of government approval because there's no resources, but you get the point.
You can be anywhere as long as you have internet.
They say city officials say that high housing costs and poor schools are the main reason that people are leaving.
Although millennials, the cohort born between 81 and 96, are marrying and having children at lower rates than previous generations.
Those who do are following in the footsteps and often settling down in the suburbs.
Oh no, that's what I did!
Okay, I'm not super concerned about what this means.
I think it's interesting, that's why I wanted to highlight it.
But what I really want to focus on is this.
Democrats and Republicans aren't just divided, they live in different worlds.
Take everything I just told you about Millennials.
Moving out of- and young Gen Xers.
And now take this story into consideration, and let's read.
The two parties represent radically different slices of the American economy.
This is really scary to me.
They say America's political polarization is almost complete.
Its two main political parties increasingly represent two different economies, and they barely overlap.
Democrats can be found in educated cities and suburbs, where professional jobs are plentiful.
Republicans live in working class in rural communities, home to agriculture and low-skill manufacturing.
And I think that's why I fall where I do, right?
I grew up in the city, but I grew up really poor.
So you take these semi-affluent young, you know, white progressives, their parents make more than six figures, they went to college, they got a degree, they might have student loan debt.
But of course, they're going to hold this ideology, and that's going to be largely... Also, let me say this, to better state that point I was going to make.
They live in big cities with infrastructure, internet infrastructure, and closer proximity to each other, so they spread their ideas much more quickly than those who live in the middle of nowhere.
If you live in the middle of nowhere, you're going to have weaker internet and less people around you, and so your ideas are likely to be centralized.
You'll probably watch Fox News.
You'll probably watch some select YouTubers.
If you live in a big city, there's information traveling much more quickly between people and the internet.
That fast flow is likely why we see the left veering super far to the left, and the right is kind of teetering around where it's always been, with moderates sort of being ripped apart.
But let's move on.
I think the big part here is, I don't know how we function if the economy is split in half.
And that's what I was really scared about.
Parallel economies.
Really scared about is parallel economies.
And I talked about this before.
When you start having businesses emerge that cater to only one side or the other, we're at the point now where industries are being run either by Republicans or Democrats.
What would happen if every Republican said, we are no longer going to deliver to cities?
That would make a huge impact, because they're doing manufacturing and agriculture.
What happens when all of a sudden New York can't get its avocados?
Yeah, good question.
I say let's take a look at GDP, or the value of goods and services produced, to understand how the two parties are divided.
These days, Democratic House districts are doing substantially better.
Two-thirds of the nation's GDP comes from those areas, with Republican districts making up the rest.
This is not population distribution.
This is wealth distribution.
Lo and behold, gross domestic product is overwhelmingly held by Democrat districts.
Advertisement.
There's nothing there.
This is striking because the Republican share of GDP is shrinking.
Even though the party controls more House districts than a decade ago, those districts account for less economic activity.
And this plays into the point and why I brought up millennials leaving cities.
The issue here is the digital economy.
Manufacturing dries up.
Learn to code, they say.
Seriously, a lot of people don't.
But these digital jobs are taking over, which means cities are going, you know, at first, people are going to be doing creative work.
I think what we may end up seeing happen, as millennials leave to more rural and suburban areas, they bring their politics with them, and they're going to either get absorbed by the Republicans, meaning the Republicans will continue to dominate these areas, and the cities will lose a lot of their power, or These people will bring their policies with them.
That's the point I wanted to highlight.
If these jobs, the new digital economy, allows for people to move wherever they want, let's say you have 100 Republicans and 10 Democrats move in.
Those Republicans are going to outvote, the Republicans will outvote the Democrats, which means the city lost a piece of its voting power relative to rural areas.
But if too many, too many people come to your area, it'll flip blue.
Let's move on.
Check this out.
You can see the change most dramatically by looking at House districts ranked by their contribution to GDP.
A decade ago, Democrats represented House districts with both the most and least economic output.
This is really fascinating to me.
Look, around 10 or less, you can see Democrats represent them, Republicans were not as poor, and 90 billion dollars or more.
Check this out.
Now, It's flipped.
Republicans tend to be in the lower economic GDP area, and look at this, $90 billion or more has overwhelmingly shifted Democrat.
It's the rich people.
You know, I've talked about the identity politics stuff, and I really do think it's a way to, it was a way to destroy the 99% movement, occupy Wall Street.
By telling poor people the issue wasn't money, the issue was race.
The paycheck picture, check this out.
Republicans, their income has gone down, Yes, the paycheck picture.
Household income tells a similar story.
Democrat income has skyrocketed.
Republican income has dropped.
Once again, this is what we can see.
So I'm going to try and get through all of this.
What's behind the split?
Blue industries.
Democrats represent districts with the biggest cluster of professional jobs.
That includes tech hubs around Silicon Valley and Boston.
Nearly three-quarters of jobs in digital or professional industries are in Democratic districts.
That's the point.
So I'm gonna have to write this up.
I do try to keep these short.
So I'll say this.
What ends up happening as the Internet allows anybody to live anywhere, We may see a flip.
Cities are shrinking.
That's a fact.
That's the main point I wanted to bring up.
Cities are shrinking.
They're losing millennials.
So is Facebook.
And this is going to have a huge, profound impact come 2020.
They say, look at the data another way.
This chart shows where industries cluster, and the pattern becomes even clearer.
Share of jobs in digital and professional industries in 2008.
in 2008. 3 to 3.3 percent is red, but 15 percent of more of the share of digital jobs, it's Democrat.
Share of low-skill manufacturing jobs.
Here's a good picture of why Trump won.
All of these low-skill manufacturing regions, Trump won them.
Let me ask you this, because this might go longer than I want it to.
How did the Democrats lose the manufa- You know what?
There you go.
You see this red?
That's the working class.
Those are the low-skill manufacturing jobs.
These are the laborers.
And the Democrats do not represent them.
I'm gonna wrap it up here, okay?
Let me try and bring this together, because I do try to keep these shorter.
It's a really interesting story.
But, you know, I think I've made the main point I could.
Right now we're seeing something fascinating where Trump played to those who lost their jobs, the manufacturing centers, and Hillary Clinton didn't.
Because of the race politics, they've created a strange divide where Democrats are sacrificing the working class who tend to be white and in middle America.
With a change in how our economy is functioning, I think we're going to see Millennials end up in very Republican areas.
They may try and change things.
They probably won't be able to.
If, you know, a hundred Millennials move into a big Republican area, and they're Democrats, the Republicans are going to outvote them.
And they will be absorbed, and eventually their votes just won't have an impact.
This could spell big change coming to 2020.
Trump is on- I think he's gonna win.
Take everything I told you, let me try and bring it together, and just say, 2020 is for Trump because of where we're at so far and everything we know.
But this, everything I'm showing you, that's 2024.
Okay, I'm done.
It's kind of confusing.
I tried to figure it out.
Forgive me if it was a little all over the place, but there you go.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Joker director responds to outrage, quote, far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda.
Hold on, hold on.
The far left and the far right sound exactly like each other all the time.
It was a horseshoe theory.
The further you get to the extremes, the more similar things start to sound.
What we typically refer to as the far left in this country shares a lot of strange ideological positions with people we also call far right.
And no, I'm not talking about conservatives and liberals.
I'm talking about the overwhelming identitarian collectivists that exist in the fringe of the left and the fringe of the right.
Now, I gotta stop and say...
Left and right means very little, for the most part, because a lot of these, you know, white, identitarian types aren't actually right-wing in terms of economic policy.
They tend to be, though, in terms of traditionalism.
And that's where the left and the right thing, it's complicated, it's nebulous, I can't even explain it to you half the time.
The point is, they sound alike.
Colloquially, to me, it's the same thing.
Let's read the story.
Because the truth is...
This guy said, outrage is a commodity.
And he's correct.
And I don't know how you stop it.
I mean, I'm sure to an extent, people click this because they see a sort of outrage in it, right?
They're hearing commentary and content about something they find shocking or outrageous or wrong.
What do you do?
Honestly don't know.
I personally am a more cynical.
I think I provide a kind of cynicism of, you know, when I read the story the other day about, it's this one actually, that the military was warning of violence, and I use this as an example on purpose, You know, I tried saying, like, I don't really believe it.
I think that's absurd.
Why would you publish this?
How is this true?
But I don't think I'm special or invincible or unique.
I think we all play the same game.
I think humans are hardwired to see things that shock them, that they're concerned.
So look at it this way.
If you were presented with two, like, envelopes, and one says, everything is fine, and one says, quick, you're going to die, which one are you going to read?
You're gonna be like, if everything's fine, what do I have to worry about?
That one says I'm gonna die, I better read that.
That's what happens, it's just how humans behave.
It's unfortunate.
I think there's a lot of good-faith people on every side who genuinely believe they're doing the right thing, and just like I do, it's all part of the same game.
How you solve the problem, I really don't know.
I have to keep calling out things that I think are bad, because I want the bad things to go away.
But in the end, we just get insanity.
Let's read.
They write Joker director Todd Phillips shrugged off controversy over his upcoming movie, comparing the far left to the far right and declaring outrage is a commodity, after being asked in an interview with The Wrap why there has been so much outrage in the media over Joker.
Phillips replied, I think it's because outrage is a commodity.
I think it's something that has been a commodity for a while.
I'm going to have to do it.
I'm going to play the partisan line.
Listen, the outrage for the most part is coming from the left in terms of the cultural issues.
If you want to talk about policy issues and immigration, sure, we can say it's coming
from the right.
But who's complaining about Joker?
It's not conservatives.
There was like one movie conservatives were upset about, and they were only sort of upset about it, and that was that one where they were being hunted down by liberals.
In fact, I saw a lot of conservatives angry that Trump was tweeting negatively about it and wanted the movie released.
The point is, woke outrage Cancel culture?
It's always the far left, dude.
The people trying to shut you down and complain about incels are the far left.
What far-right outrage is there about cultural issues?
It exists, for sure, but cancel culture is the left.
He said, What's outstanding to me in this discourse, in this movie, is how easily the far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda.
It's really been eye-opening for me, he proclaimed, also explaining in the interview.
It wasn't.
It wasn't, we want to glorify this behavior.
It was literally like, let's make a real movie with a real budget and we'll call it F-ing Joker.
And that was it.
Dude, I can't tell you how much this resonates with the things I've seen online and the outrage.
You look at PewDiePie.
PewDiePie recently came out, he said he wasn't going to donate to the Anti-Defamation League, he was wearing a Georgian cross, and all of a sudden cancel culture ignites, why would he wear a German cross?
It wasn't, it was Georgian, and it's just a symbol.
It doesn't mean anything.
And they were outraged.
And I'm sitting there thinking, like, I'm willing to bet a lot of money that PewDiePie didn't think twice.
He was just like, you know, everybody thinks it's this big conspiracy, that it's a plan, someone's twirling their mustache, there must be evil people somewhere.
Reminds me of the movie Wonder Woman.
Where she believes that if she just defeats Ares, the god of war, all war will stop.
No!
Human behavior, human nature, the things we want, the things we do, it happens.
They wanted to make a movie called Joker.
They wanted to get a budget, and they wanted it to be about... the Joker!
That's it!
I love that!
Let's make a real movie with a real budget, and we'll call it effing Joker!
Done!
Can we just watch the show?
Why do you have to be angry all the time?
Look at the Carson King story.
He's the guy who did the beer joke.
A journalist heard about a guy who raised a million bucks for charity, dug through eight years of his Twitter history to destroy his life.
That's not the far right doing that.
That's the media.
It's not even the far left.
It's regular people who are thirsty for blood.
Joker has been at the center of controversy, with some critics claiming the movie could inspire violence.
Yes, because everything inspires violence, please.
Please just stop.
Some people are nuts.
Violence happens.
We work to prevent it.
We have law enforcement.
To an extent, we have too much surveillance.
I'm not a big fan of the surveillance apparatus, but we do have a massive surveillance apparatus.
It could do a better job.
But I can't believe we're at this point now.
Check this out.
One group of people who lost family and friends in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, where a shooter dressed obsessed with the Joker from The Dark Knight murdered 12 people and injured 70 more during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises, asked Warner Bros.
to condemn gun violence ahead of the movie's release.
Everything's politics.
I know we're gonna rehash a little bit of stuff I talked about the other day, because in the context of the latest development, But everything is politics.
The dude laid it out.
He said, we just want to make a movie and call it Joker, man.
And now they're saying, denounce the gun violence.
I bet this dude's going like, what?
It's a movie about a guy who dresses up like a clown and there's protests.
It's the Jokers.
He fights Batman.
And they're like, yes, yes, but gun violence.
And it's like, dude, everything has to be the narrative, the war, the cultural crisis, whatever you want to call it.
It has to be.
They want everything to be political.
They want to force you to take sides.
And some people just want to play video games.
They don't want to do this.
They don't care.
It's a movie, dude.
It's just a movie.
If you can't differentiate fact from fiction, you've got problems.
I'll admit, I think one of the biggest problems we have as a society is that we have a large faction of people who can't differentiate fact from fiction.
They don't understand the concept of evidence and proof.
And what's even more scary is that there are a lot of people who believe proof doesn't even exist and there's no objective reality.
And thus we get this.
Dude.
When they made Batman, there was none of this.
It's getting worse.
It's the culture war.
According to Vice, the FBI and the United States military have also issued warnings about incel and extremist violence that may occur as it hits theaters.
In response to the controversies, Warner Bros.
issued a statement.
Oh, they did, they did.
Here you go.
Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies.
Our company has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including Aurora.
And in recent weeks, our parent company joined other business leaders to call on policymakers to enact bipartisan legislation to address this epidemic.
At the same time, Warner Brothers believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues.
Make no mistake, neither the fictional character Joker nor the film is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind.
It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers, or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.
And he's not going to be.
It's called a villain.
Joker is a bad guy.
They're making a movie about one of the most notorious bad guys there is.
Yes.
There is power in writing a story about how you sympathize, not empathize, sympathize with a villain.
Mr. Freeze is a great example.
You guys know the story of Mr. Freeze?
I grew up with the Batman Animated Series.
So for me, it's just the way things have always been.
But apparently, in the Batman Animated Series, they re-wrote the history of the villain, Mr. Freeze, in a way.
It won an Emmy.
It was one of the first cartoons, I believe, maybe even the first cartoon to do so.
Originally, he was your typical comic book villain, but he was rewritten to be a sympathetic character, a story that's incredibly sad, that I believe could do with a reimagining today, in a more modern context.
Mr. Freeze is a bad guy.
He hurt people.
He didn't care about hurting people, because he only cared about himself.
Actually, he only cared about saving his wife.
It was still a very selfish thing to do.
You're not supposed to empathize with him.
You're supposed to understand why he turned evil.
In the story of Mr. Freeze, he was a scientist, and he was misappropriating research funds to try and develop a cure for his wife, who had cryogenically frozen.
When the big boss finds out what he's doing, he sends in his security to come and shut it down.
A fight breaks out, and the cryogenic chemicals get on Mr. Freeze, lowering his body temperature and making him, you know, he then ends up needing this suit, and he develops weapons based around ice, and he becomes a villain.
He doesn't care that he's hurting other people, because he'll do whatever it takes to save his wife.
You can see his descent into villainy, and it's very, very sad.
And that's why the story is so powerful.
But in the end, you realize he is a bad person.
And that even if you experience some tragic loss, you can't be evil.
You can't hurt innocent people because someone you love is in danger.
Ultimately, the heroes we hold up are people that are willing to sacrifice those they love most if it means they're going to save those in the greater good.
You think about stories where there's a potential trolley problem, where you have, say, Spider-Man, and he's holding the love of his life in one hand and a bus full of kids in the other.
Now, I get it, in the movie he saved them both, but the point is, the heroes we worship They fail to save those people they care for personally, and would die for the children.
Now, admittedly, in The Dark Knight, when it comes to saving, you know, Bruce Wayne jumps out the window to save his girlfriend, instead of fighting the Joker, leaving the Joker.
I have no idea what happens!
It's a kind of a plot hole, but whatever.
The point is, there's two ways to look at a sympathetic character.
It's not an endorsement of the Joker, okay?
You have one character who is affronted with controversy, and he is belittled and bullied, and then he gains great power.
Spider-Man.
He was picked on in school, he was nerdy, he gains great power, and through trauma, the death—imagine this, in one story, Spider-Man's Uncle Ben is killed.
And he then learns it was wrong of him not to stop this bad guy, that with great power comes great responsibility.
And he becomes a hero, self-sacrifice for others.
He learned that lesson.
You could easily take that story and make it a villain story in that Spider-Man gains this power after being bullied, he then sees someone murder his uncle, and he rejects society, and he becomes angry and seeks revenge and self-gain.
You see how this plays?
Neither is an endorsement.
But who does our society actually look up to?
Our society does not look up to the Joker.
We like the idea.
It's fun to watch.
There's sometimes a visceral reaction of, like, watching the system burn, say, like a movie like Fight Club.
But in the end, the hero is Batman.
A kid who lost his parents and then trained very hard and became a vigilante to fight for good.
And he's super smart, and he refuses to kill.
He refuses to hurt others.
And that was the great thing about The Dark Knight.
Batman absolutely refused to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was absolutely willing to kill anyone and everyone in his path.
That's who we cherish.
The person who, even when faced with a difficult decision of killing the villain, refuses to do it.
Whereas the Joker is the opposite.
The Joker is the guy we don't like.
He's a good character, he's a good villain, because we detest it.
And they're trying to make it seem like depicting the character is propping it up.
I gotta keep these short.
I'll wrap it up there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10am, podcast at 6.30.
