Ocasio Cortez HOAXED by Fake Supporter's "Eat The Babies" Solution To Climate Change Crisis
Ocasio Cortez HOAXED by Fake Supporter's "Eat The Babies" Solution To Climate Change Crisis. At a recent town hall event a presumed fake supported of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez made absurd and outrageous demands that we "eat the babies" and "eat the children" in order to solve climate change.This sparked debate and outrage form many and was instantly wielded for political gain by all sides. After the initial demand AOC did not reject or denounce the claims much to the joy of conservatives like Tucker Carlson who quickly pointed it out asking why wasn't her first reaction to say "No!"But it was soon discovered this women was likely a Lyndon Larouche supporter engaging in a hoax on Ocasio COrtez and the democrats. Interestingly though, the demands about eating babies is not too far off from some recent suggestions. A professor recently DID state that humans should consider eating human flesh to stave off climate change.This hoax was clearly meant to take that claim one step further to point of offense.AOC defended herself by stating they were trying to have compassion for a woman who seemed to have a mental condition. While I can respect that, I have to ask why the far left doesn't hold this to be true for another famous activist with several mental conditions, Greta Thunberg.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Distraught woman at AOC town hall urges eating babies to fight climate change.
It was a bizarre exchange.
It was on C-SPAN apparently.
A woman stood up with a shirt that said actually something to the effect of eating the children and said that Ocasio-Cortez didn't go far enough.
It's great that she supports the new green deal, she called it, but that it wasn't going to stop CO2 fast enough and they have to stop having kids and in fact start eating them.
This was, in my opinion, kind of an obvious troll, but I will admit, it's hard to know for sure because the immediate reaction, especially from people like Ocasio-Cortez, was that it was an individual who was probably just mentally ill.
It was a pretty good troll, to say the least.
Now, it's being reported that this was from—this is actually a big hoax staged by LaRouche PAC, right?
Lyndon LaRouche's people.
And there's flimsy evidence, to say the least, but I believe it is leaning towards that being accurate.
So I will levy some criticism to people on the right who often, you know, who jumped the gun on this one.
And I think it's fair to point out that even the way she presented it, like my—like, I personally tweeted that she seems to be trolling.
But a lot of people were saying, you know, Donald Trump Jr.
said, seems like a regular Trump supporter.
I think there were a lot of people on the right who were pointing out that it was clearly absurd and insane.
But there were a lot of people on the right who were taking it seriously, like it was a serious, like AOC supporters were literally saying this.
Here's the problem, okay?
There was a story not too long ago about scientists saying we should eat people.
And that's why a lot of people felt this was real, okay?
So let me stress.
A woman claimed this.
It seems odd to say the least.
AOC didn't immediately refute it and then later tweeted, we were concerned about her well-being.
But I kid you not.
This is a story from last month.
Scientists suggest eating human flesh to fight climate change.
And there was no mainstream left-wing backlash to this.
A lot of the criticisms came from the centrists and from the conservatives on this statement.
You can see it's the New York Post saying it.
So here's the important takeaway.
We're going to read through the story.
I'm going to break it all down for you.
But here we have a woman standing up saying, eat babies.
And a lot of people on the right believed it was real.
The people on the left immediately tried disavowing.
Now they're saying, aha, it was Trump supporters all along.
And there's a lot to break down, but let's get one thing straight.
It's not the first time that the left has propped up someone with a variety of mental illnesses to support a certain cause and then attacked those who would criticize that individual.
And it's not the first time we've seen someone actually suggest eating humans to fight climate change.
This was just someone taking mainstream rhetoric that has been in the press.
Dare I say it, it's mainstream.
It's the New York Post.
This is a guy who's actually said this.
And they just made it a little bit more extreme.
And this is what makes it all so weird.
AOC didn't immediately say, no, no, no, no, stop.
What are you talking about?
Stop this.
And her claim was that it was a concern over, you know, illness, but hold on.
Let's break this down.
Let me give you the facts, and we'll go through this, and I'll show you the evidence that this was a staged hoax.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can send things to.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
You know, I don't know if eating babies will be too offensive for YouTube.
I think it'll be okay, but there's a good chance they actually derank and demonetize this because of the nature of the phrase.
And there's something I can do about it.
If this is a big story that's going far and wide and needs clarification and potential debunking, I'm gonna talk about it.
But you know...
I face those hurdles.
So if you would like to help me overcome those obstacles from YouTube, please consider sharing this video wherever you can share it.
Because deranking and demonetization, it's a real thing.
So let's read the first story from Fox News.
They say, A seemingly troubled woman at a town hall hosted by Democratic New York Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez in her district stood up to demand that Congresswomen support drastic measures to combat climate change, such as eating babies.
We're not going to be here for much longer because of the climate crisis, the woman pleaded.
We only have a few months left.
I love that you support the Green Deal, but it's not going to get rid of fossil fuel.
It's not going to solve the problem fast enough.
A Swedish professor said we can eat dead people, but it's not fast enough.
So I think your next campaign slogan needs to be this, we've got to start eating babies.
Now, you see what this is?
It's a clever troll, at least that's what we believe, where she took some extreme things that are literally true and then just tweaked them up a notch a little bit.
The reason why I say it's clever, not that I agree with it, is that it put Ocasio-Cortez in a position where she can't outright just say, no, stop.
She's kind of frozen.
A Swedish professor did say to eat people.
It has been a subject of contention.
So she should have come out and just immediately said, stop, stop, stop, this person's clearly not well.
But that's not what happened.
They say many of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents appeared confused by the woman's declarations.
Removing her jacket to reveal a t-shirt with the phrase, Save the Planet, Eat the Children, the woman continued, We don't have enough time.
There's too much CO2.
All of you, she went on, turning to those around her.
You're a pollutant.
Too much CO2.
We have to start now.
Please, you are so great.
I'm happy that you are supporting a Green New Deal, but it's not enough.
Even if we were to bomb Russia, it's not enough.
There's too many people.
Too much pollution.
So we have to get rid of the babies.
That's a big problem.
Just stopping having babies just isn't enough.
We need to eat the babies.
This is very serious.
Please give a response."
They go on to say staffers of the New York Congresswoman approached Thurman toward the end of her remarks as attendees in the room became increasingly uncomfortable.
So let me clarify the point I just made before.
Obviously, any sane and rational person, including AOC, is not going to agree with the phrase, eating babies.
But what the woman does was she walked through it until she finally got to that last point, saying a bunch of things that gradually get more extreme.
We only have a few months left.
That's very extreme, but some people have said it.
Supporting the Green New Deal is good.
We need to get rid of fossil fuels.
We need to move faster.
Then she escalates to the Swedish professor.
Then she escalates to, you know, the babies thing.
And people look at this, and I gotta admit, after you see this story about a scientist suggesting we eat human flesh, I have to say, a lot of people would probably believe this was real, including Ocasio-Cortez.
I think it's possible Ocasio-Cortez thought this woman was genuine, because the story exists.
She took it a step further.
So here's what happened.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, Hey everyone!
We had a fabulous town hall tonight and I'll be highlighting some moments from it.
At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis and wanted to ensure we treat the situation compassionately.
Let's not mock or make a spectacle and let's work on Medicare for All.
She said, this person may have been suffering from a mental condition, and it's not okay that the right wing is mocking her and potentially making her condition or crisis worse.
Be a decent human being and knock it off.
Now, I take issue with that.
So this was my response.
First, I said it's so weird, it seemed like a troll.
The most likely outcome, in my opinion, was that she's just messing with people.
That happens.
In the event she wasn't, I said, the woman yelling, eat the babies, seemed to just be radicalized.
She cited actual concerns, but took them to a bizarre and extremist place.
We shouldn't assume it was a mental condition, and it may be important to know if it was or wasn't.
If it's radicalization, then we may see more of this.
There actually have been people talking about eating human flesh to fight climate change.
So here's my point.
If she was being honest, and I don't think she was, Ocasio-Cortez, assuming it was mental illness or mental condition, is jumping the gun at unfair.
When you have people come out and make extreme claims, but they base it off actual news reports, that's not mental illness.
It's radicalization.
There's a difference.
People start to believe things that may be extreme, not because their brains don't work, but because they have seen all of these things in the media, and they are radicalized to a certain point of view.
So when you take someone like Ocasio-Cortez who says we have 12 years left before permanent planetary damage, you take people like Greta Thunberg who said, I believe, eight and a half years, and then went on to say that, you know, fantasies of economic expansion and the war on mass extinction, you get all this hysteria combined.
Don't be surprised when you see radicalized individuals.
I think this is why so many people on the right assumed this was probably a legitimate person.
Like a legitimate concern.
Well, Donald Trump said AOC is a whack job.
Ocasio-Cortez didn't say this, okay?
She said things that are questionable, but this was a troll, but Trump had to nail AOC for it.
Sure.
That's his opinion, and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with him outside of the context of climate change.
But he was citing a tweet from Donald Trump Jr.
who said, I think this is Trump Jr.
poking fun, right?
So there's a story coming out where they point to the right-wingers who jumped on this, And I think it's fair to say that some people on the right did and absolutely assumed it was real.
But I think you understand why.
Like, the New York Post wrote this story.
We've all heard it.
We know they've talked about it.
It's not that shocking to then see someone make this claim.
But I think, at least in terms of Donald Trump Jr., his was vague enough to where it could be like, whether it's real or not, it does seem like a legitimate AOC supporter.
So here's a story from Business Insider.
And now let's get into how this was a hoax by LaRouche.
There's better evidence from Gizmodo, but they say, A protester who called for Americans to eat the babies to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group.
I think pro-Trump is a bit unfair, right?
I mean, sure, I get it, but that's how they're framing it.
Look, crazy people are crazy people.
I do not appreciate when they say Antifa is the Democrats.
It's like, no, dude, Antifa hates Democrats, and they hate liberals.
But this is what everyone does.
Antifa goes out, and you'll see people on the right say Antifa is just the militant wing of the Democratic Party, blah blah blah.
No.
Not true.
They hate Democrats.
And this group, no, calling them pro-Trump is a framing device so that AOC could say it was a Trump supporter.
Oh, please.
We don't need your framing.
It was a hoax.
You were hoaxed.
The point of this story and why I show it is they go on to say, you know, that the right pounced.
Right-wing media outlets and online provocateurs, including Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and the activist Candace Owens, quickly jumped on the exchange, accusing Ocasio-Cortez of condoning the woman's call to eat babies.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said it was pretty revealing that Ocasio-Cortez didn't reject the woman's comments.
I've got to admit, I do kind of agree with Tucker that she should have had—maybe not that it's revealing, but come on, man.
She should have said something immediately.
I can't blame her for not reacting the way I want her to, however, but I would stress, in the future, if someone stands up and says, eat babies, you immediately say, excuse me?
No, no, no, no, no.
Stop.
Enough.
And to that regard, I think it may have been Ryan Saavedra.
But, uh, I don't want to falsely accuse anybody.
There have been people saying that Bernie has called for, um, you know, uh...
Ending the Lives of Babies to Fight Climate Change, Bernie's quote was specifically about birth control.
He didn't say abortion, but we'll move on.
If someone said to you, we need to eat the babies, wouldn't your first response be, what, no, of course not, eat the babies?
Carlson said on his primetime show on Thursday night.
And Carlson did allude, this may have been a hoax, right?
That's the one thing that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't say.
Huh, pretty revealing.
I don't think it's revealing.
I think Ocasio-Cortez didn't really understand how to respond.
But they go on to say that soon after a video of the incident went viral, a far-right fringe group called the LaRouche Movement announced on Twitter it was behind the protester.
I'd like to stop you here.
Just because someone on Twitter says something is true doesn't make it true.
And this is literally how the story launched.
Now, I think they're lucky in that it turned out to be, for the most part, very likely.
But what really bothers me about media is that they see this one tweet from Lyndon LaRouche PAC, it was us, and they immediately say, oh, there you go, it was Trump supporters.
It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, dude, just because someone tweets something doesn't mean it's true, okay?
They shouldn't have published as fast as they did, but here's the thing, in media there's a race to get the story out.
So of course they're gonna publish it without a comment, without evidence, just because of a tweet.
But there's evidence, okay?
So there is evidence.
I don't like them jumping the gun, but it does seem that they're correct, so, you know.
I don't like that game of, you know, uh... Well, I'll leave it there.
I was gonna use an analogy that would probably get me in trouble on YouTube.
But they published and then investigated, you know what I mean?
They say LaRouche PAC, a far-right group that supports Donald Trump, has taken credit for the trolling campaign.
Yada yada.
They go on to show two important bits, explaining the story, which you already know.
They talk about how the group has already tried doing this in the past.
And I believe I have the image here.
This is from Lyndon LaRouche PAC on Facebook.
And you can see on the second, LaRouchePAC out-challenging students with a polemical campaign, Eat the Children, signing up man-made global warming believers to reduce the planet's population one child at a time.
So, they have done this.
And they also have another bit of apparent evidence in that they say, here's a video on Facebook published about 12 hours ago showing a man out-canvassing with an identical Save the Planet, Eat the Children t-shirt.
The man doesn't identify himself as being with Lyndon LaRouche PAC, though the video was shared on the page of Daniel Burke for U.S.
Senate, who was identified as an activist with the political movement founded by the late Lyndon LaRouche.
And I will also stress on their own Facebook, when they posted about eating the children, it was citing Daniel Burke.
So I think it's fair to say that this was a hoax, but I also think it's fair to point out the criticism, okay?
For those that are familiar with the context, let me show you the story from September 9th.
A Swedish scientist speaking at Stockholm Summit last week offered an unusual possible tactic in combating global climate change.
Eating human flesh.
Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Söderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to awaken to the idea.
I want to stop and make one quick point, you know, as I read this story.
I firmly believe this video will be demonetized, though this content doesn't fall under any of its demonetization categories.
I wouldn't know how to rate it, like, what does it really violate?
Eating human flesh is a mainstream talking point here, apparently.
But I believe it will be considered in some way shocking enough that they'll derank it.
And that may be bad for me.
It's gonna negatively impact my channel, but as much as they love to criticize me saying that I do things for the clicks, no, I'd play Minecraft if it was for the clicks.
But the point is, if YouTube does demonetize and derank based on the subject of this content, that's fair to say that it offends the sensibilities of regular people, and it proves the point.
That this idea of eating people is insane.
You know, I understand there's people concerned about overpopulation and they talk about birth control, but this is crossing that line.
And now when you have someone saying, eat the babies, and there's not an immediate pushback, whether or not it was because she was caught off guard or whatever, I mean, it's disconcerting.
No one is going to accept this, and I'm pretty sure YouTube's gonna punish me for it, but let's read on.
They say, Soderlund's argument for human cannibalism was front and center during a panel talk called
Can You Imagine Eating Human Flesh? And see, by calling it flesh, you know they're going for
shock value. At the Gastro Summit, reports Epoch Times, conservative taboos against cannibalism,
he said, can change over time if people simply tried eating human flesh. Some of the talking
points at the seminar included whether humans were too selfish to live sustainably, and if
cannibalism is the solution to food sustainability in the future.
When asked during an interview after his talk if he personally would try human flesh, Soderlund said he was open to the idea.
I feel somewhat hesitant, but to not appear overly conservative, I'd have to say I'd be open to at least tasting it.
I'm sorry, I would not.
And it's actually a subject for nightmarish dystopias when people eat recycled humans, and it has been for decades.
We all know what Soylent Green is.
He suggested more plausible options, such as eating pets and insects.
Before human meat becomes the next cuisine trend, however, history shows there are potential health risks to cannibalism.
And they go on to talk about Kuru and prion diseases and things like that.
But the point is, it's not the first time it's been suggested.
There was another scientist, I can't remember who it was, so I don't want to misattribute it, but they talked about how lab-grown meat could create sustainable human meat humans could eat.
It's not the first time.
So, I'll say this, you know, my main point here before I move on to the final point is that while conservatives should definitely wait a little bit for things to clear, you know, to figure out what's really going on, and because this was seemed like a, I mean, I hate to say it was obvious that it was a troll because it was almost not obvious, but that's what I'm trying to say, that I'm not surprised a lot of people on the right believed it was real when you see stories like this.
It's just another grain of sand on top of a story we've already seen.
Climate change hysteria has talked about the world ending.
I am not exaggerating.
AOC said we have 12 years before there will be irreversible damage to the planet.
A lot of people tried claiming that she was saying the world will end, but I think it's because she did say it, but...
She was speaking, like, kind of off-the-cuff saying, you know, hyperbolically, the world's gonna end, what are we gonna do about it?
And a lot of people took her literally.
Don't.
That's not fair.
But, you know, in reality, you do see this rhetoric then bleed out into other groups where they say, we have 12 years left to live.
You then see people say we have eight and a half.
And that brings me to my final point.
You know, Ocasio-Cortez said we shouldn't—this person was clearly—has a mental condition, it's not okay, the right wing is mocking her and all that, and I agree if she has a mental condition.
We were concerned it was a woman in crisis.
I agree, and you shouldn't make a mock or a spectacle of her.
I completely agree you shouldn't make a mockery or a spectacle of people with mental illnesses.
Now, I understand that there's gonna be a lot of criticism because Michael Knowles, a conservative, referred to Greta Thunberg as mentally ill.
But she is.
I'm not saying that that ends her argument or that she shouldn't be allowed to speak up simply because she has mental illness, but I am highlighting the fact that they will simultaneously say, oh, we're trying to be delicate with someone who clearly has a mental condition.
But what's the difference between Greta and this woman ranting about eating babies?
What Greta is saying isn't as individually offensive to our sensibilities.
But she is saying rather radical things, talking about mass extinctions, blaming society, how dare you, you've stolen my dreams.
It is all very hyperbolic rhetoric, but it is not beyond that line.
So Greta is an individual with obsessive-compulsive disorder, I believe, selective mutism, she's autistic.
None of those things, in my opinion, should discredit her.
and be used against her for the arguments she might present, so long as they're backed by fact.
But I do have to at least state that if you're going to take a child with limited understanding
of how global economics works and fossil fuels and nature and energy, constantly pump them full of
this climate change hysteria and their obsessive compulsive, it's not going to work.
It is wrong, in my opinion, to then make a spectacle of them.
As Ocasio-Cortez said, we shouldn't make a spectacle of her.
Well, this is a woman, through her own volition, came here and stated these things.
Greta Thunberg has been propped up with support, donations, staffers, who are putting her in this place where her obsessive-compulsive personality, this disorder she has, is essentially driving this Anger, and this panic, and this fear.
I do not believe it is acceptable to criticize a woman who's at AOC saying somewhat outrageous things, but then you have Greta Thunberg saying it's not enough, you know, we have eight and a half years, and there's a mass extinction happening, and to me, it's relatively similar.
The only difference between that woman and this, on its face, is that she didn't cross the line into cannibalism.
I understand there's a very obvious line there.
But still, you're making spectacle of a young woman who doesn't understand how the economy works, how the world works, how governments work, how war work, the struggles of humanity, and there is so much that even I don't know.
Okay?
And so I'm willing to recognize that.
But I'm not obsessive-compulsive.
I try to be calm, I try to read the news, I try to find a balance.
They are using someone like Greta as a spectacle To push their ideas, and I think that is just not fair.
Looking at this woman, who stood up and said these things, if we were to assume that she was being honest, I can only say that she's read the news, she's cited the news, and she took it one step further.
That's called radicalization, not mental illness.
But you take someone with a known obsessive-compulsive disorder, and, you know, Add up all of this selective news, and you will end up with paranoid fears.
Please don't make a spectacle of it.
But of course, this is the perfect, you know, child to represent them in that she didn't cross the line, and if you criticize her, they will attack you saying you're immasculine or you're insecure.
A lot of the comments they try to do against, you know, political commentaries that men are fragile and they're weak, and it's not even a rebuttal to the statement.
The point I'm trying to make is, you know, I don't understand why we can take someone like Greta, who has done something similar with climate paranoia, reading all of these selective stories, and then putting her up on a stage and making sure she doesn't go too far.
I mean, she was wearing an Antifa shirt.
She's gone pretty far.
But then you take this story, and an individual, and immediately it must be a mental illness.
I'm sorry, I don't think this scientist has a mental illness.
Because otherwise I'm going to keep saying point over and over again.
There's a difference between someone making things up and being crazy.
This woman at the AOC event, she's probably a troll.
But, you know, in the preliminary view of what she was doing, it wasn't mental illness.
Everything she was saying is in line with the narrative being pushed about the emergency of climate crisis, and what she said is in line with what this guy recommended, eating people.
She just...
So, in the end, I think we have to be careful not to react emotionally, okay?
Because you'll end up falling for fake news.
This seems to have been a troll stunt.
I can't confirm that, but it seems likely.
So, shame on these results for confirming it.
It seems likely.
I think it's fair to point out the evidence points to that, but confirmation would be very different.
Actually, you know, I think it's fair to say that it's just about beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's what I'm trying to say.
You know, they've taken credit for it.
They're in videos doing it before.
So I think we're beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think we're good with confirmation.
So let me apologize to them and say, at this point, my main criticism was, when they first published this, they just had a statement.
But they found photos and posts, so they could back it up.
That's fair.
I think in the end, when we have knee-jerk reactions like this, we end up pushing false narratives.
And so now you do see a lot of right-wing media talking about how this is a real thing.
You know what I mean?
So this Fox News story doesn't mention that it was a troll at all.
I assume these stories will be updated, but for the time being, you know, a lot of people on the right saw the story, latched onto it before there was any verification or confirmation, and this is why I wait.
It really is, so...
You know, I'm gonna wrap up with another quick thought.
I don't know what's going on in politics.
Nothing seems to be making sense.
You know, this Ukraine scandal stuff that's lighting up is the most frustrating and annoying thing I've ever seen because I lived through Russiagate, and I entertained Russiagate, and I covered a lot of Russiagate.
I can't do it again, and I mean that.
And I have to stress, I'm someone with a really high tolerance For this kind of news to like actually hear the same story over again and try and break it down and figure out what's going on, but not this time.
I'm not going to touch Ukraine with a 10-foot pole.
I'm done with it.
It is such a clear political battlefield for Republicans and Democrats with nothing, opinion, conjecture, conspiracies, and I'm just not interested.
Not interested.
I don't, I'll criticize the media very heavily in this regard.
Okay, that's my point.
Now I said point 50 more times.
See what I said?
I was gonna end it.
I'm gonna stop now.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
and I will see you all there.
Go see The Joker.
I almost want to give it a 10 out of 10.
I don't know if I could.
It's rough.
Because 10 out of 10 is reserved for, like, something you see and you just know it's a 10.
But, man, this movie was good.
So, there will be very, very limited spoilers.
I'm going to do my best to avoid spoilers for the most part, but I will mention some themes of the movie because they're very important in the culture war.
Many people have been saying this movie is an incel movie.
That is not correct.
This movie is not an incel movie.
There is no plotline or anything having to do with Joker not being able to get laid.
It is just not there.
So, I'm gonna get into political themes.
You've been warned.
But I will avoid any direct spoilers as to what happens in the film.
But, the movie is left-wing.
Like, Joker, the things around him, the plot, it's a left-wing plot.
I want to avoid giving too much away, so I'll start with talking about the culture war issues surrounding Joker and why I think critics are turning on the film.
You are not going to see action-packed fight scenes.
There's no Batman swinging from ropes.
It is a story about a man, a simple man, and his life.
And to many, that might not be entertaining.
For me, it was incredible.
I'm reminded of these old films, and this is what they were saying, these old character-driven films, where, you know, it's so rarely done today in, like, big blockbusters, or, I'm sorry, with big Hollywood budget films, it's always, like, some special effects, superhero explosion, Transformers, buildings falling down, you know, spaceships, Avengers, hundreds of people running.
It's been a while since I've seen a really simple and powerful and, man, just really, really well done story following A guy.
And his life.
And what happens around him.
And how he becomes this great villain.
And man, they nailed it.
They nailed it!
If there was ever to be an origin story for the Joker, boy, did they nail it.
Here's the thing.
This film premiered in Venice, and it received, my understanding, an eight-minute standing ovation.
It won the Golden Lion Award, the most prestigious award.
But something changed.
All of a sudden, we started seeing critics after it screened in North America.
I believe it was screened in Toronto.
All of a sudden, the tomato meter started dropping.
Because I remember, initially, the tomato meter was like 100%.
It was.
They called it a masterpiece.
Masterpiece is bold, but I do believe this film is... This might be the best comic book film I've ever seen.
I wouldn't say it's... I don't know.
It was incredible.
Take out the comic book themes of it, and you still have an absolutely incredible movie, so they're definitely riding off of Joker to bring people in.
Look, Marvel movies are fun.
I enjoy them.
I like those movies.
But this, man, it had my heart.
At the end of this movie, the final scenes, just was like several minutes of me just like, whoa, like just like everything happening, all the pieces coming together, everything it was doing, I was like, Joker, man.
It's so terrifying.
So here's the thing.
After it screened, all of a sudden the tomato meter started dropping.
They started saying Joker was a movie for incels.
And I was like, what happened?
So I tweeted about it.
The tweet went fairly viral.
It got like 1,200 retweets where I said they called it a masterpiece.
Writers then started saying that it was an incel movie.
The director came out and said, the far left is starting to sound like the far right.
Or he said, they often do.
And then he blamed woke outrage for making this film happen in the first place.
That was a counterpunch.
They said, you made a dangerous film for incels, and he said, no, I made it because of you.
And now the critics don't seem to like it.
That, to me, is absurd.
Now, I will point this out.
In the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, which now have a 93 audience score, completely agree.
I'd personally give it higher.
I want to say, like, 9.8, 9.9.
I'm probably going to go see it again.
There are very few movies I will ever see again.
I want to stress though, do not expect a comic book movie.
This is more like, it's following a guy.
It might be boring to some people.
I thought it was incredible.
It might be boring just to see a guy and going through these things, but Joaquin Phoenix's performance, it was incredible.
My favorite Joker by far.
Really, wow.
So you look at these critic scores.
We can see The Guardian, Slate, The New York Times.
We didn't like it.
And I find that so funny.
These are all left-leaning outlets.
Now, of course, The Wall Street Journal also didn't like it.
That's fair.
And I'm not saying it's all, you know, flung in one direction.
I'm just saying there are some left-wing critics who are slamming the movie and, dare I say it, pretending not to understand the left-wing politics of it.
I'm gonna give you some light, light spoilers, okay?
I tweeted about it.
In the trailers, okay?
I will make this clear.
In the trailers for this film, But you're being warned.
If you don't want to hear about the trailers, and what's in the trailers, and the potential political themes, I am giving you a warning now.
In the trailer, there are multiple scenes where there's fighting, people wearing clown masks, and holding up protest signs about... about wealth inequality.
I'll put it that way.
I'm trying to be light about it.
The people in this film, the message, the motivations, left-wing.
Left-wing.
Man, there's so many spoilers I want to give, but let me just say, the things that set things into motion, it is about a city in poverty, wealthy industrialists, the insults, and absolute wealth inequality.
So here's the thing.
I watched this, and I was fully expecting inceldom, right?
The involuntary celibate stuff.
Nope.
There's maybe some kind of aspect of it where you could watch that and if you're looking for it, be like, yup, yup, yup.
But if you actually just watch the movie and listen to what people are saying, you're like, dude, this is far left.
And it's weird because...
If Joker was not a villain, this would be like a rallying cry for the far left and what he does and who he is and what he represents.
But the point is, he's not a good guy.
But there's no good guys here.
One of the reasons it's so amazing is there's no heroes.
It's just all villains across the board.
Man, it is a brutal and gruesome reality.
There's no good guys.
There's none.
They're all bad.
But it's left-wing.
And so here's what I think happens.
The film comes out at Venice.
And for whatever reason, the people who watched it there didn't care for the culture war.
They called it a masterpiece, and it got a 100 rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
I was pretty sure it had a 100.
Maybe I was wrong, but I'm pretty sure after Venice and an 8-minute standing ovation, it was a 100% in the critics' score.
Everyone was calling it a masterpiece.
I'm not kidding.
Masterpiece.
Like, it's gonna be held in the Library of Congress or something as a great historical work of art.
This is a movie I would consider buying a hard copy of.
You know, look, look.
You might come back from this film and think I was totally wrong and I'm an idiot and that's fine.
I'm just telling you I love this movie.
At no point did I ever consider leaving.
Did I ever think about it being bad.
I was interested the whole way through just watching this guy.
It's kind of like this.
It's like it starts off kind of low and slowly starts skyrocketing towards the end.
The ending was just like Whoa, it was incredible.
I was wondering, like, how do you make the Joker, right?
In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger, crazy Joker guy, and you have no idea how he has bomb expertise and military expertise or anything like this.
He even understands how to fight, and he has henchmen, and you don't understand why.
This movie nails it!
They nail it.
It was political and ideological.
And I'm going to give you a light spoiler right now, so warning for those who don't want to hear it.
This is not necessarily a big, big major point of the plot.
It is a light theme.
Joker supporters are Antifa.
So I tweeted about this because I didn't think it was a big deal.
Some people got upset and said, how dare you, Tim?
But I'm like, you'd realize this if you watched the trailers in depth.
This was brought up by film, I believe it was Film Theory on YouTube, where they mention that the people in the trailers are holding up signs about wealth inequality and the way they're dressed and the things they're doing.
It's Antifa!
I'm not gonna spoil it, but I will say this.
There is no direct statement that they are, but there is a fact.
At no point does someone in the film say, that's Antifa.
It's not like that.
But there is something that happens at one point, if you catch it, where you'll be like, whoa!
That's antifa!
So you have to really know this.
If you're somebody who follows politics, when you watch this movie, you'll notice.
This is a... I don't want to spoil too much, but I can tell you that a major motivation is a very, very left-wing position.
It's a very, very left-wing position.
So let me just stress, this is a guy with a mental illness.
That we know from the trailers, that's not a spoiler or anything.
It's a guy with mental illness, and something happens that's in line with complaints from the left, That causes him to just spiral downward.
And there's a lot of personal things to it.
I want to make sure it's clear that Joker himself is apolitical.
This movie is not heralding Joker as somebody with a great message he's trying to spread.
Absolutely not.
He's a guy.
He kind of does have a message.
And I will say this.
I do think it's fair to point out that there are some things in this that can lead you to talking about incels, but the problem is what the left is doing with incels, they're associating Incel terror with general terror.
This is not incel in any way.
There's no references.
It's not a movie about Joker hooking up with some lady.
That's weird, okay?
It's not a movie about Joker trying to get him some and he can't do it.
That's not in the movie at all.
So if I was gonna say what this is more like, I would say it's more like... I don't know how to describe it.
They're saying it's like incels But I don't understand why, because there's no references at all to any of that.
You could maybe potentially argue one simple thing about his life, that he lives with his mom, this is in the trailers, I'm not spoiling anything, he lives with his mom, and they do show a romantic interest in the trailers, but I'm like, if you watch it, there's at no point does he say any incel rhetoric or anything like that.
Now, in terms of some of the major terror incidents we've seen with, like, schools, Okay, maybe I think, you know, you can see some kind of like nihilistic terror, right?
So for people who are feeling left behind or let down by society, the nihilism makes sense.
So in the end, we have this trailer here from From Slate.
Be careful.
I tried scrolling up really, really quickly.
This has some spoilers in it.
Just, you know, be careful.
There's not... The things you've seen so far on the screen are all in the trailers.
I'm trying to be very, very careful not to ruin anything for you.
But granted, listen, I will say this.
Look, if you've watched this video already, it's gonna affect your perception of the film.
But I gotta be honest.
I gotta talk about it.
You know, I'll be completely honest, I actually recorded a previous version of this for 20 minutes, I stopped, deleted it, and then said, no, no, no, I gotta start over.
Because I just broke down and I was like, dude, I gotta talk about this!
I can't, I can't, I can't.
But look what Slate says.
The real reason to skip Joker is that it's boring.
Not even Joaquin Phoenix can save this monotonous movie.
This review from Slate has hard spoilers.
Like, they just reveal the whole plot of the film.
So I'm not gonna read it.
But I will tell you, they act like they don't understand, and it's so weird.
The motivations of this film and what drives the narrative along is far left, very obviously far left.
It's stated as much in the film, and there are scenes that specifically invoke this wealth inequality anger.
There's no question about it!
I can't spoil it, but trust me when I say, the movie consists of something being done, of things being said, and it culminates in an ending where those things are acted upon.
And I don't understand how you can leave this movie and say it's an incel film.
Like, the last time I checked, incels aren't marching around demanding wealth, you know, with clown masks talking about wealth inequality.
You want to know who's marching around wearing masks talking about wealth inequality?
It's Antifa!
It's not necessarily Antifa, because they're not, you know, Antifa is a colloquial term for those in the black bloc anarchists, do talk about the rich, but there's a difference between anti-fascist and, you know, like, you know, Occupy types.
But it's an overlap.
It's an ideological overlap that we see in politics, and that's, that's, there's no way to deny that.
It's literally the movie.
The movie culminates in this great moment, the ending Several minutes, man!
It was just a rollercoaster straight down for three minutes, and I was like, it's all happening!
This is ins- Oh, man.
My heart was beating like crazy, and it's not action.
Like, it kind of is.
It kind of is.
But it's not mar- It is not Marvel.
It's not flying through the air and shooting rockets.
It is a sit-down conversation.
Like, I mean that in the sense of, like, relative to the explosions and skyrockets, we're like, people talking and character-driven narrative stuff, and you're just going like, So, man, I want to spoil this movie so bad, but I can't do it.
I can't do it.
So, I'll wrap it up here and just say the critics are wrong.
I think the critics are angry at the true political message and who is represented to be the villains.
There's no good guys in this movie.
They're all bad.
They're all bad.
Not an incel movie.
Just absolutely not.
That's made up.
That's absolutely made up.
Absolutely made up.
No.
Go see this film.
Seriously, go see it.
It was sold out.
There was like... I ended up getting a handicapped companion seat.
Because like, they sell these seats when... So they have empty spots for wheelchairs, and they have companion seats.
And you probably have seen this.
You can buy it, but they'll say like, they'll kick you out if someone comes.
So it's like, that's all I could get.
It was like I was impressed. This was a Thursday night preview, and it was
Maybe maybe it's not fair to say sold out because they were like one or like one two or three seats randomly in the
theater But I think it's also fair to point out
What like when you're going with your friends to the movies you don't want to split up your friends that way so people
will space Things out or choose to go so we didn't get to that point
and perhaps it says something call it a masterpiece Maybe but I think if it was truly one of the great movies
of our day in Terms of like the best of the best of the best people would
be willing to sit in those one seats But maybe after reviews like this for Friday night. We'll
see the entire theater sellout I've never gone to a Thursday preview that's... Actually, no, I take that back.
I think Avengers... Did I go to Avengers on Thursday?
I don't know.
The theater by me usually isn't this packed, especially on Thursdays for Thursday previews for a lot of movies, but this was huge.
So, I don't know what that means.
The name Joker is gonna sell tickets.
But this was, in my opinion, 9.9 out of 10.
I just don't wanna say 10 out of 10 because it's like, that's reserved for the end.
It's the end.
It's like, Warp 10 doesn't exist.
9.9 is how you get.
But the point is, I'm probably gonna go see it again.
And that's rare for me.
Because I usually try to judge things based on, was the movie good or bad?
Like Venom, for instance.
I wouldn't call it bad, but I won't go see it again.
The Joker was amazing.
It was great.
I want to see it again.
And I didn't even want to see any of the Avengers movies twice, you know?
It's like, oh, wait till it comes out.
Maybe I'll watch it.
And then I watched Endgame, like, a week after it came out or something.
I want to go see it again.
I want to get some friends and go see it again.
That ending, man.
It is all worth it.
It is all worth it for that ending.
It makes so much sense.
They've crafted the perfect origin for the Joker, in my opinion.
I guess what I really, really love about this movie, and again, this is apparent from the trailers, is that it's not magic.
It's not a fantasy movie.
It's not a sci-fi movie.
It's a real world.
And you see how people come to support the Joker.
That's the question.
How does the Joker have henchmen, you know?
Oh, this explains it.
And they explain it very, very well.
And having gone through the politics we've gone through, I completely understand.
I get it.
It makes sense to me.
I'm done.
Go see the Joker.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel in the next segment.
The U.S.
jobless rate has fallen to a 50-year low.
That's incredible.
It sounds like tremendously good news for Donald Trump.
You see, as I sit here, looking through all of this news, trying to figure out what's going on, I've noticed something in the past couple of weeks.
That the divide and the media framing is getting absolutely worse.
I just want to know what's really happening.
But you can't.
Is it good news for the economy?
Is it bad news for the economy?
It really depends on who's trying to take your money, or your attention.
The more views somebody gets, the more money they make, and that's just the game, that's how it's always been played.
And that means media companies can't just tell you, here's what happened, they have to tell you what is happening beyond the greater context, and they need to provide analysis and all that stuff, and to an extent I do that too.
But I guess to defend myself, I'm trying to figure out which of these outlets is most likely to be true.
And I gotta admit, it's gotten to a point that I can't even reconcile half the stories I've been reading in the past week.
I'm gonna say this, you know, in this story about the jobless rate falling, they say, we'll read a little bit, it's a very short story, but you'll get the news from Politico, it's an AP reporting.
The U.S.
unemployment rate fell in September to a new five-decade low of 3.5 percent, while employers added a modest 136,000 jobs.
The Labor Department says that despite the ultra-low unemployment rate, which was down from 3.7 in August, average hourly wages slipped by a penny.
Hourly pay rose just 2.9 percent from a year earlier, lower than 3.4 percent at the beginning of the year.
They go on to say that hiring has slowed this year as the U.S.-China trade war has intensified, global growth has slowed, and businesses have cut back on their investment spending.
Still, hiring has averaged 150,000 people in the past three months, enough to lower the unemployment rate over time.
The unemployment rate for Latinos fell to 3.9%, the lowest on records dating from 1973.
This is good news.
Here's the problem.
You know, when I see stories like this, I try to fact-check them and compare them.
So we hop over to the story from Vox.
So which is it?
is slowing down. That's bad for Trump. The latest job support is dot dot dot not great.
So which is it? I'm so confused. Now look, I understand that I do something similar to
I'm not going to, you know, play any games about it.
I get it.
You know, I'll take a look at the polls and, you know, I did a video not too long ago saying, you know, Trump's approval rating is up.
Here's why I think this makes the most sense.
Meanwhile, a progressive like David Pakman puts out a video that says, you know, Trump's approval rating is looking bad.
And I try to defend my opinions and my view of these issues.
But I try to base, you know, I'm trying to figure out what the impact will be.
So right now the big story outside of this is Ukraine.
And apparently there's a big story about text being revealed.
So I went to Politico, who I've cited several times, and I looked at their breakdown and they say the facts are, the issue here is not for dispute, we no longer have an opinion about the matter, just the facts.
And the fact is, they say, that according to these leaked texts, it proves that Donald Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden or whatever.
And so, just below this, they say that according to these advisers' texts, or the ambassador, talking about the 2016 Muller probe's origins was a prerequisite for having the meeting.
Okay, here's the problem.
Previously, we had a story from ABC News that claimed it was true.
I had to wait 24 hours because it turned out later it was fact-checked and found to be false.
We now have another story saying these texts are leaked and they claim one thing and I can't tell you what's true anymore.
Is the economy doing well?
I don't know.
I mean, yes, according to Politico, but according to Vox, things are starting to get worse.
It's all about how they frame things.
I genuinely believe that in this instance, Vox is being disingenuous.
Sure, the economy is slowing down, it's bad for Trump, I guess, but what's the real impact?
Is it because there were a lot of jobs last month?
For several months this year, we've shattered expectations.
There was one month, I think, they pulled in like 300,000 jobs in the economy and we were all expecting like 175 or something like that, and then up a couple times.
So it averages out to 157,000 per month, which my understanding is really, really good news.
But depending on what you read, you're gonna have a very twisted and strange view of the world based on framing.
I don't know if there's any way to get around this.
You know, we hear about the people in the media claiming that people on YouTube are radicalizing and lying and conspiracy theories.
I just want to know it's true, right?
So, what's going on with Ukraine?
I mean, it sounds like Trump is trying to investigate the origins of the Mueller probe, but the left and many in media are framing it as he's trying to interfere in the 2020 election, and depending on what you read, you're going to get a completely different framing of what's actually happening.
And it's gotten worse.
It's worse than I've ever seen.
So, I'm going to say this right now.
I am not going to be covering... I'm not going to talk about Ukraine.
This is the last time you'll hear me say it.
On my main channel, I'm not going to talk about it.
I don't know, man.
It's gotten to this point where the media is so fractured and broken.
And it's getting worse.
I think one of the biggest drivers of the divide in our country, and in other similar countries like the UK and in Canada for instance, it's the media.
And it's partisan media particularly.
There have been, uh... So here's the story I'm gonna do at 4, which again, is playing into this... Some woman appeared in an AOC event and said something about eating babies, and it seems so obviously to be a troll.
But then...
you get partisan mickering. The right reports on the story and then the left attacks the right for
it and claims it's a hoax and then it says here's the proof.
And then the people on the left say, see the right is always, they're always sharing fake news
and conspiracies, but then the left and mainstream media are always putting out stories and
correcting them a day later. So it's like, I think this is it, man. I kind of feel like this, you know,
the video I did yesterday on my main channel was, it's time to call it the BS in politics. And I
point out like everything we're seeing play out with Ukraine, it's like a mirror was placed
in front of Russiagate.
You know, but the issue is, because the media is against Trump for the most part, they're now parroting what Republicans were saying about Russia.
And it may turn out to be a big nothingburger, I don't know.
The only thing I can really say is that when it comes to what happened, we'll do an investigation, right?
We did an investigation into the conspiracy nonsense for Russia, why won't we do it for Ukraine?
So, look, I do a segment every day, you know, 10, 1, 4, and then 6, 6.15 to 6.30.
And for this segment, I was looking at the story about the U.S.
jobless rates, and I was going to be like, wow, this is great news for Trump.
I mean, it's a 50-year low.
And regardless of how we're doing going into these next few months, it seems like Trump's going to have a lot to brag about.
And regardless of whether or not jobs are slowing down, I think you're going to find a lot of people who are very happy with the economy.
They're working.
Look, they're working.
Unemployment, a jobless rate, 50-year low.
That means people have jobs and they're making money.
So the left tries to say, yeah, but they're working two jobs.
And that's why the unemployment rate is low.
And they've said it several times.
That's just not how it works.
But when I pull up this story and I want to talk about it, I started looking for other sources and context, and apparently it's bad news.
Now, look, I get it.
Vox is a left-wing outlet, so they're going to frame it as anti-Trump.
But what do you do when you're someone who only reads Vox?
You probably live in a world where the economy is bad.
Trump is screwing it up.
He's corrupt.
He's trying to influence the election.
He tried to influence the election in 2016.
And then he tried to influence the election in 2020.
And if you're on the right, the economy is great.
And Trump is being attacked and smeared by the press.
So how do you break it down?
Well, typically what I would do is I'd pull up all the stories and say, you know, look, I'm going to go with the AP on this one.
And in my opinion, I think this is good news for Trump.
The average is great.
We'll see what happens.
Vox naturally thinks the orange man is bad.
And they need to toe that line that they've created.
So it's kind of like, you know, one way I've explained it in the past with Rachel Maddow, one of the most dangerous things she did was push the Russiagate nonsense to absurdity.
For years, she was putting insane—she had insane segments about, like, one of the most notorious is that Russia would shut off the electricity in Fargo and people would, you know, fritties or something.
She apparently had some guy in the air who claimed Trump was a Russian asset since the 80s.
And what she did was—imagine you have this, like, group of people, right?
This base.
And in the middle, this is your viewership.
So this is the total group of people.
Here's your viewership in the middle.
She started pushing this Russiagate narrative and found that her audience started growing a little bit towards the resistance, towards the people who hate Trump.
But she started going crazier and crazier and started losing people that were, you know, moderate leftists.
She's now all the way to the conspiracy side.
And then something bad happened for her when the Mueller probe, you know, came out, and they said, no collusion.
The meme that, you know, her eyes were watering and people were laughing, saying she was crying, and it's like she looked like she was about to cry, and I have to imagine there's a few reasons.
She probably believed it.
I met with a journalist from MSNBC, and we were sitting at a bar, and we were talking about Assange and Russia and all this stuff, and this individual didn't actually know a whole lot outside of American politics.
They understood You know, Trump and his administration's election, but didn't really know anything about WikiLeaks or the hacker community or where these things came from, like the DNC stuff.
And so we were talking, and there was a little bit of arguing, but I asked.
I'm like, well, this is somebody who I'd seen who had actually done a fairly responsible job covering certain stories.
And I said, I've read your stories, and I think you're correct here.
I think you're, you know, at least being honest to the best of your ability.
Did Trump do this?
Did Trump collude with Russia?
And I was told in no uncertain terms, it's a fact.
Absolutely.
We know it.
And I was like, really?
And they're like, oh yeah.
And the gist of the conversation was, enough has come out that we know that proves he did it, but there's a lot we can't talk about.
So once we get that report, we'll be able to say, there you go, it's definitive.
Except that's not what happened.
What happened was Mueller came out and said it's not true.
This is just not the case.
And so, now I question everything else that person's reported on.
But more importantly, MSNBC as a whole.
So here's the thing.
By the time all the dust settles, and MSNBC has pushed this narrative to the point of absurdity, and then the narrative collapse, Collapses?
What do they do?
So you think about Vox, for instance.
And people have said the same thing to me.
Like, someone tweeted at me that I'm contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and I'm just defending Trump because the media attacks him or whatever.
And it's like, um, that's kind of true?
Like, yeah, the media will lie.
You know what I mean?
The media will push stories like this, and I'll push back on them because I think it's unfounded to claim that a record low unemployment, a 50-year low, is somehow bad news for the president.
But what they're doing is they're framing it in the smallest possible way.
It was one of the criticisms I had for Pacman, right?
David Pacman's a progressive YouTuber, and he did a video about Trump having the worst poll ever.
And I looked at it and said the reason why I wouldn't frame it that way and disagree with his assessment is that there was a poll that came out like a week later that said Trump had his highest approval rating ever.
And so I purposefully made the video saying Trump's record approval.
as a direct contrast to the video that David had done, you know, a week or two prior.
And I even showed David's thumbnail how it's like very similar to a mirror image.
But the point I was making was when you look at the aggregate of the polls,
you can see that this one poll saying that Trump is the worst he's ever been
doesn't show the all the other polls don't show a dramatic swing.
And of the past two years, Trump's approval rating has steadily increased.
So if I see a steady increase and then a blip towards a record high, I say the trend shows an increase in approval and now we have this one poll showing he's doing better than ever.
If it shows a general uptick and then drops a little bit, even at its worst for the time, it's not the worst it's been in six months, seven months, eight months, etc.
So that's what I'm trying to do.
But here's what ends up happening for a lot of these media companies.
For one, as I pointed out in my main channel video the other day, they can't self-reflect.
That's not allowed, right?
They'll never say, you know, maybe we're wrong, maybe we're a part of the problem.
I've said it numerous times, over and over and over again.
In a lot of the videos I've made, I've talked about how if all you watch is me, then you're probably getting a skewed perspective because it's just my opinion.
I do my best.
I do my best.
I respect everyone for watching.
I think I do a good job.
Everyone does, and that's the problem.
Vox probably thinks they do a good job.
But here's the thing.
Vox has joined the chorus of the orange-man-bad media.
And so what happens is, news breaks that the economy is at a 50-year low.
Well, they can't write positive news about Trump.
They've created an audience that is polarized and hates the president.
If they came out and said something to that effect, they'd be attacked for it.
A good example of this is Nate Silver.
Kamala Harris wrote a letter saying that Trump should be banned from Twitter, and apparently it was to Jack or something, and I believe it was Nate Silver.
He said, I believe it's a really good thing that Trump can have a direct line to the president, and immediately got attacked, saying that he's supporting all this other nonsense, and he got attacked for it.
What ends up happening with a company like Vox, because I'm not going to point to FiveThirtyEight or Nate Silver and claim that they're overtly partisan, but they kind of are.
What happens with Vox is just like what happened with Rachel Maddow, but not to the most extreme degree.
They've found that when they talked smack about Trump, they got a lot of traffic.
And so they played up that narrative, and they got to a point where they built up their audience, and now they know what their audience wants and what's going to get traffic.
It's not going to be, honestly, like, look, the Politico and the AP tend to be fairly, you know, I respect them, I think they do a good job.
U.S.
jobless rate falls to 50-year low.
There's no intentional framing to praise the president or his plans or anything like that.
And they do mention that the China trade war may have had a negative impact.
This seems to be rather fair and balanced.
Vox, on the other hand, has taken a complete negative framing because if they took a positive or neutral framing, their audience would revolt.
And they've already lost the moderates they once had.
Vox used to be very, you know, middle of the road.
And therein lies, you know, the big conundrum.
I think everybody in media understands the pressures of what your audience might or might not like.
But, you know, for me, I always try to explain to people—it's funny, like, David Pakman made a video where he said there are a lot of things he can't talk about.
He can't talk about, like, Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang.
He gets attacked when he criticizes them.
He can't talk—you know, there's a bunch of things he can't talk about.
Because he will get a backlash from his own base and from their supporters who come to his channel and the cost is just too high.
And I think everybody gets that.
Now for me, I will stress, you can actually go through my channel and find videos where I've gotten massive thumbs down.
Look, I have no problem saying what I feel, you know what I mean?
And I think because I'm fairly moderate, I can get away with my opinions that are genuinely my opinions with relatively little fear, you know?
The far left doesn't come and brigade me, and when I say things the right doesn't like, They sometimes do, or the people who watch will give me a thumbs down.
And so I've had a few videos, you know, it's usually like a couple videos, maybe a couple videos a month or every other month where I get massive thumbs down, and I'm like, whatever, man, I don't care.
But more importantly, like, the videos I put out yesterday, it's just what I feel like putting out, and I can see my viewership doesn't compare to a lot of these other people who do more hyperbolic content.
It's so frustrating, right?
And so this is what this is, it's kind of like a follow-up to yesterday's video, where, you know, I made that video because to me it kind of felt like, in a sense, a day off.
I was looking at all this news and I got to the point where I was like, it's all the same story over and over and over again.
And I just, what am I gonna do?
Say the same thing?
No, here's what I'll do.
I'll say exactly this.
And so that's how I operate.
Whenever I see a video, whenever I see a news story, I get an idea.
I say, this is what I want to talk about, and here's how I see it.
And if it so happens that I'm looking at all these stories and getting frustrated, and thinking it's all the same thing being regurgitated, then I say, I'm just going to talk about that.
I'm not going to sit here and try and shoehorn in some video once again to claim one thing is or isn't.
I'm going to call it like I see it.
All of these stories are a mirror image.
We're now seeing, you know, Trump being accused of what the Democrats did.
It's Russiagate 2.0, but it's flipped.
And I'm like, it's not just that, it's the stories about impeachment and everything, and I'm like, how many polls need to come out saying the same thing?
How many stories need to come out saying the same thing?
And so here's what happens today.
I went and saw The Joker last night.
I went and saw Joker.
It's not The Joker, it's just Joker.
And it was amazing.
So this morning, I said, I'm just going to talk about that.
I got so much I want to talk about.
And then when it came to setting up for the 1pm video, I saw this economy thing doing really, really great.
And I'm like, well, that's more good news for Trump.
And so when I tried pulling up, you know, other information, this is where we get.
And I said to myself, you know, this video is not about the economy, man.
This video is about This twisted divide where you can frame anything you want as positive or negative.
Trump could do a backflip and it would land with perfect form and they would say Trump goofs off in front of crowd, embarrassing nation.
You see the point?
You know what these outlets are going to say.
You know why they're going to say it.
It's becoming monotonous.
It's becoming redundant.
And I think what we're really seeing is everyone in media and politics have kind of like Blown their load, to say the least, right?
That's it.
There's nothing left.
And the analogy I like using is that, you know, they say you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, right?
You're trying to get what's left, but... I love this.
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard that wood chips are flying out.
There's nothing left.
They're literally just hacking away at the base of the barrel, putting a hole in it.
And then the barrel won't be able to hold anything anymore.
I think the political battle has gotten to the point where there's just nothing to complain about.
Another Trump scandal!
Oh, wow, that's the 856,000th article I've seen this year saying the same exact thing.
So what do you do?
I don't know.
I really don't know, but I do know people are getting turned off from all of this.
The polls show it.
People are fed up.
Nobody wants to hear this stuff anymore.
So, I got news for you.
I do have a political video coming up at 4 p.m., but we'll see what happens.
You know, what I wanted to do with my main channel was talk about the presidential run.
I thought, you know, my main channel should focus on bigger news issues and less so on cultural issues.
And I did do, like, a cultural video with, like, Louis CK, and it did really well.
And I thought to myself, I'm like, well, maybe I shouldn't be doing overt politics all the time because people do, like, cultural issues, but then I thought, you know, this channel does cultural stuff, so maybe I should separate that on purpose and let my main channel be the big, top stories that are, you know, more contextual.
But something happens then when all of the news starts becoming wood chips from the bottom of the barrel, just scraped dry and there's nothing to talk about.
And I'm like, this is it.
You know, these stories we're seeing in the press are the complete lack of substance in their attacks on the president and statements about anything having to do with Democrats and Republicans.
It's just literally nothing left.
So, you know, we'll see what happens.
But I think I don't know what the issue is.
I don't know how to solve this problem.
But it's frustrating, to say the least.
I'll have more to say on this in the next segment.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4pm.
I'm going to be talking about the Eat the Babies thing, if you've seen it or not.
And there's a lot to talk about.
A lot to talk about.
Some fake news, some potential hoax, the context behind it.
So stick around.
Thanks for listening to this media collapse rant, whatever.
And I'll see you then at 4pm.
Now I'd like to call this a masterful play, causing untold strife for the Democrats, but it may just be Ocasio-Cortez's fickle nature that she successfully pulled off a huge smack to the centrist, more moderate Democrats.
Now, as many of you may know, the progressive Democrats do not like the moderate Democrats.
It's basically an ongoing civil war.
There's sometimes a tacit agreement on certain issues, but man, are they fighting.
Well, Ocasio-Cortez calls impeachment boring.
Says she's so over it.
I want to make sure I give you the full context of what she says, because she is in favor of impeachment.
But the point is, she is essentially washing her hands of it, saying there are more important issues to be focused on.
And this is so boring, and we need to focus on long-term issues.
You know why this is such a master play in screwing over the Democrats?
Nancy Pelosi resisted with all her might the impeachment inquiry.
They still haven't voted on it.
But it was only about two weeks ago that Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats' refusal to impeach Trump is a national scandal.
I kid you not.
And it was part of this pressure and this big press push that finally pushed Pelosi over the edge.
And then within a week of Pelosi going, OK, we'll do it, Ocasio-Cortez goes, I'm bored.
Let's do something else.
And now Pelosi is stuck.
AOC can do whatever she wants, but she just pulled Pelosi and the Democrats into the fray and then walked right out.
She pulled Pelosi onto a sinking ship and jumped right off.
Let's be real.
Support for impeachment, according to the polls, has gone up, but it's still not the majority.
And in swing districts and target districts for Republicans, they find impeachment to be unpopular.
So this is an NRCC poll that found that in the districts they're targeting, two-thirds of people say they want to focus on issues.
Well, now Cortez comes out and says, we've got to focus on the issues, thus leaving The Democrats on the sinking boat, unable to get off as she rides away into the sunset.
Talk about sabotaging the Dems.
Now look, I would like to say what a masterful play, but let's be real.
It's just her being fickle and unpredictable and not thinking things through, for the most part.
But I will stress, okay?
Much respect.
Absolutely.
Much respect to AOC because I agree with her.
I disagree with her on the issues.
I agree with her on some.
Like, I am completely against private prisons for a lot of reasons.
And we can talk about that, but the main issue is the Green New Deal's a bad idea.
Her identitarianism, that's what she's talking about, bad idea.
But I'd love to discuss those ideas.
I would love to challenge her.
I would love to be here hearing her say something and rebutting that.
That's healthy discourse, to an extent.
I do not want to sit here and talk about scandals and Russiagate 2, Ukrainian Boogaloo.
I'm sorry.
I just, I'm over it.
Please.
So absolutely, AOC, I agree with you.
Much respect.
Look, there have been several times I've given her praise, so don't act like I only ever smear or insult her.
When she worked with Ted Cruz on the lobbying thing, I absolutely said much respect.
There have been many circumstances where she's done things I agree with, and when she does, I will say it.
When she called out big tech surveillance, when Elizabeth Warren did, I'm not here to play tribes, I'm here to call out what I think makes sense.
It makes sense for her to say impeachment is boring and she's over it and we gotta focus on policy and other issues, and I'm like, I agree.
I assure you.
When you present most of those ideas, I will not agree with you on those.
But I absolutely agree that you should present them, and that's what we should be talking about.
So, bravo!
At the very least, I could say that Ocasio-Cortez finally realized what was really important.
Not this stupid scandal nonsense.
But I want to give you the full context.
She is in favor of impeachment.
She's just saying she's going to focus on other things.
From the National Review, AOC calls impeachment boring.
Says she's over it.
They say rep AOC, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, told supporters during a town hall in Queens on Thursday that impeachment proceedings against President Trump were boring and distracted from the goal of social and economic and racial justice in the United States of America.
He should have been impeached a long time ago.
I'm over it.
And so that's how I feel about it, because we've got work to do.
She said before going on to argue that impeachment of this president is the short-term action we need to preserve our democracy, but if we are really going to thrive as a country, we need to make long-term investments.
Okay, let me stop.
Immediately, for some reason, people on the left started getting mad at me because I pointed this out on Twitter.
They're like, oh, I'm being disingenuous.
Of course she supports impeachment.
And I'm like, dude, are you reading this?
Listen, of course she supports impeachment.
They all do.
She's focusing on other things.
That was the point of her statement.
Of course she supports impeachment.
What I'm trying to say is, if she's going to come out and make a statement and fight for impeachment, Okay.
She's not.
She agrees with it, and she wants to focus on other things.
She wants to focus on social and economic and racial justice in the United States.
I completely agree with that sentence.
I, too, want to focus on social and economic and racial justice in the United States.
I just fundamentally disagree with her ideology on how to get there.
I believe racial justice is when we have equality of opportunity, not outcome.
I believe that social and economic justice are extremely important, and while we may never be able to regulate into perfect equality, I do believe we should focus on justice, period.
Hey, great!
So when you come out and say something like, I don't know, Harvard should be allowed to discriminate against Asians.
Well, I believe you're acting against racial justice, and I will argue that with you.
But that's important, right?
Because she thinks a thing.
She shares that idea, and people believe her.
I think a different thing.
I share my ideas, and people believe me.
And our ideas fight.
Okay?
Not us.
Our ideas go head-to-head.
Which idea is better?
Well, you know what idea doesn't make sense?
Impeaching Trump.
It's unpopular.
It's riddled with political partisanship and opinion and nonsense.
And it's just Russiagate 2, Ukrainian boogaloo, man.
I am not interested in a sequel.
I do not want to hear it.
Sorry.
I don't care who the new villain is this time.
It's gonna be the same tropes, the same arc.
Not playing.
Not playing.
But now we have this.
After finally convincing the moderate Democrats to get on board, she says, we should be focusing on long-term solutions.
So even if she's still going to, you know, vote for it, which she probably will, she's passed the buck to them and walked away.
If she's going to come out and say this is a national scandal, the Democrats won't do this.
She was taking a front and center position in the media.
Her story is picked up by everybody.
She was asked about it several times.
Look at this tweet.
232,000 likes.
At this point, the bigger national scandal isn't the president's law-breaking behavior.
It is the Democratic Party's refusal to impeach him for it.
To then go two weeks later and say, I'm bored.
I'm over it.
That's a big kick in the gut to the Democrats.
Hands down.
Because, you know, she asserted herself as a leader and then walked away.
So, Ocasio-Cortez, who has long been an advocate for impeaching the president, also pushed back against allegations of misconduct by Adam Schiff, who apparently learned of the whistleblower complaint before it was filed.
Now, she's defended him, and I don't care about this.
And then they go on to talk about the stuff on my main channel about the fake Trump supporter and the weird message.
It was a hoax.
It was a hoax.
So, let me make a point about her intelligence.
I do not believe AOC has below-average intelligence.
I think she's fairly average.
Okay?
I don't think she's, to be completely candid, I don't think she's stupid.
I think she has bad ideas.
I think she needs to spend more time doing research.
I think she has a lot of people whispering in her ear.
I think she's fickle.
I think she's young.
I think she's ignorant.
I agree with her on many things, whether it's because a broken clock is right two times a day or it's because she really understands why certain things make sense.
The point is, This probably wasn't on purpose, but it could be.
I've called her Mini Trump.
You know, she's very much like him.
She knows how to play the social media game.
She knows how to rope the press into doing what she wants, and she can get away with whatever she wants.
Much like Trump.
She, like, so actually, let me do this.
She gets the Democrats to fall in line because of the press.
So does Trump.
You see, they know how to play the press.
Whether AOC realizes it or not, she's like a pseudo-mini-Trump who does similar things, whether she recognizes how much she's like him.
She makes hyperbolic statements.
She says nonsensical, outrageous things, much like Trump.
She is the Democrats' answer to Trump.
She is widely popular among the far-left base.
She has millions of followers.
She's not nearly as big as Trump is.
He's the president, for sure, but also says it mini.
She's like a tiny version.
And she uses similar tactics.
So now the... Look.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks said he was going to tear out the establishment Democrats from the core.
He was going to attack them to their core and go after them.
And he helped support AOC.
And that's why when I look at this, whether it's intentional or not, they're following through.
This is bad for the mainstream Dems.
Nancy Pelosi finally gets pulled into it.
Unpopular.
It's going to hurt them in Republican target districts.
And she can't back out now.
She made that national announcement.
Is there going to be a vote?
We'll see.
There's been no vote so far.
But AOC can do whatever she wants.
She's not the Speaker of the House.
She can say, I changed my mind.
Eh, whatever.
And walk right away.
And then all, you know what else she can do?
She can say, I realized the issues were more important and the people wanted us to focus on policy.
And what can Pelosi say?
I changed my mind too?
Eh, no, sorry.
You roped everybody into this.
And now it's on track.
So, you know, whether it's AOC or Trump, They know to use social media to force this, right?
Look at this tweet.
232,000 likes.
That's huge.
And that's shocking for me to then see her come out and be like, later, but yeah, whatever, I don't know.
Let me know what you think.
A lot of people, comment, let me know what you think if you're listening on YouTube, whether it was intentional or not.
Because I'd much more prefer to be like, she pulled a fast one on the Democrats, But it was probably just her being fickle and young, I guess.
Whatever.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
What a terrible and awful take.
Now, this is a story from the New York Times opinion section called, My word!
That title is incorrect and terrifying.
Free speech actually protects us in so many ways.
Noxious language online is causing real-world violence.
What can we do about it?
That's just such an absurd jump to conclusions.
Free speech protects us from tyranny and atrocity.
Free speech allows us to challenge major corporations.
It allows us to challenge the president.
I can sit right here, look into this camera and say, Donald Trump, are you listening?
Screw you!
Because we live in a country with free speech, where I don't have to worry about someone saying that was offensive to someone's sensibilities.
It is an incredible thing, because very few countries actually uphold these tenets, that I can tell the president, in no uncertain terms, to go screw himself.
It's amazing, right?
I think whether you like the president or not, you recognize the importance of being able to say that.
It's the old adage, I condemn what you say, or I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Well, the New York Times, thanks, free speech is killing us, because the New York Times is, well, they're out of their gourd.
This is by a guy named Andrew Marantz, who, uh, uh, I know, and I am, uh, uh, what's the opposite of a fan?
See, here's the thing.
This guy, who wrote this story, also wrote a story about me for the New Yorker.
It's right there.
You see those two pages?
Where's my hand?
Where's my, there we go.
Okay, see those two pages right there?
It's a story he wrote.
In it, he mishmashed some quotes from me and made a false narrative.
That created a controversy.
And then instead of saying they misquoted me, like we accidentally explaining, like we took two stories from Tim Pool and mashed them together, changing the context, they said we removed the quotes because they contained errors from Tim Pool, or something like that.
Or it said we removed the quotes from Tim Pool because they contained errors.
That's the best of my recollection.
The point is, They screwed up.
The correction they put in Friended as if it was my fault, and that was used against me.
You know what they say, you ever see the movie Almost Famous, where the musicians call the journalist the enemy?
I'm like, I wonder if people ever think about that when they look at stories like free speech is, you know, this story from the New York Times saying free speech is bad, essentially.
Or if they think about what Trump says about the enemy of the people.
They literally in this movie called him the enemy.
And so I want to stress something about my personal experience and my personal opinion with journalists like Andrew Marantz.
They will meet you, they will smile, they will shake your hand, they will act like they understand you, and then they will come out and insult you and degrade you and lie and hurt you.
They will try to destroy you.
And that's why you have to be very, very careful around these types of people.
And I know a lot of people who trusted him, and all of a sudden now he's framing it like they're propagandists and provocateurs.
And it's a complete negative stereotype.
He did a TED talk where he basically said, we need restrictions on speech and all this other nonsense.
He tries playing the game, which is a bad faith manipulation of the actual argument, where he says, in this, private platforms don't have to uphold free speech.
No scholar reading the Constitution would ever believe that.
And then all of the people who don't read the news sit behind him, clapping like monkeys with cymbals, agreeing with him, because he's misconstruing the actual argument.
The actual argument is that tech platforms have overtaken the town hall in terms of political discourse.
And that means the commons have been usurped by a major multinational corporation for which we must regulate this.
That's the argument.
Not that a private company should be forced to do whatever the government wants.
That's a fake argument.
Let me restate it for those in the back who don't quite understand it.
The Commons.
A referral to our public resources, the air we breathe, the water, the things we share in our existence.
Town Center.
Town Hall.
The place where we come for political debate.
It has been usurped.
Okay?
Now let me tone it down.
It's been overtaken by technology.
Information travels through these digital networks, and when we want to have conversations, these conversations happen on a private platform.
Because there is essentially one private platform for political debate, Twitter.
And while we can say Facebook for the most part, we know the media circles Twitter.
We now are faced with a problem.
Somebody who is banned from Twitter is no longer engaging in the political arena.
The most important point is that Donald Trump is on Twitter.
Donald Trump is not on these other platforms.
He's on Facebook.
So Facebook, as a fair argument, there's more than one.
But the point is, If Trump says something, and it's newsworthy, and you want to engage with it, and a private platform closed the door so you can't, that is a private platform usurping the right to address a politician.
Could you imagine what do you think would happen if Twitter decided to start banning any leftists to criticize Trump?
Yeah, they'd flip in two seconds and demand free speech.
That's the point.
I don't care what your ideology is.
They have usurped the commons, and it's time for something to be done about it.
Well, let's read this story from the New York Times!
There has never been a bright line between word and deed.
Is that a joke?
That's the first sentence?
Are you insane?
Yes, there is!
What?
There's a huge bright line between word and deed, and we have lawful precedent to set that.
You can literally say, go do a thing, and that's illegal.
You can literally say, it would be nice if someone did a thing, and it's not illegal.
We know where the line is when you direct someone to do it.
And if you want to talk about word and deed, those are both words.
Okay.
Saying, oh won't someone rid me of this priest.
While we understand the danger of saying a phrase like that and what it might lead to, there is a distinct line between that and going out and taking out the priest.
Okay?
Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit, along with the consumers obsessed with these products and the investors who stood to profit from them, tried to pretend the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn't metastasize into physical violence.
In the early years of this decade, is he referring to Antifa, I guess?
Because they're the ones who typically started, right?
Not always.
Typically, I said.
In the early years of this decade.
Back when people associated social media with Obama and the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as the free speech wing of the free speech party.
Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.
No one believes that anymore.
I'm sorry, dude.
This is one of the worst things I've ever read.
And this is why the New York Times has become trash.
Here's a guy who essentially screwed me over and ruined a story that was factually wrong because he mismatched two different quotes for whatever reason.
He must have written them down.
I have no idea.
And then combined two stories, and it changed the context of what he was actually saying.
And this is important.
Context matters.
And it triggered a bunch of outrage, and now he has the nerve to say no one believes the internet is a force for progress.
Of course it is.
The cat's out of the bag.
The future is here.
This is democratization of political opinion, and you can do nothing about it.
Okay?
We have a constitutional right to our opinions.
To express our opinions.
I understand.
The public debate is happening on a private platform.
Well, yeah, that's a problem.
And my position is we need to take back the commons.
I don't know what you do when a private... Look, conservatives don't agree for the most part.
He says, not after the social media-fueled campaigns of Modi and Duarte and Trump.
I'm pretty sure Modi supporters, Duterte supporters, and Trump supporters all agree it was a good thing and that meme magic really helped them out.
No, you can see how he frames it.
He's clearly on the side of the people who believe in the authoritarian restriction and tyrannical approach to shutting down anyone who dares speak up in the face of their oppressors.
You, my friend, It's really, really funny.
He tweeted, you know, something about... His tweet said something to the effect of, now we have Nazis on this platform, and, you know, so now we have to do something about it.
And I'm like, it's really, really funny that he would actually complain about needing to suppress speech because of Nazis, because you sound literally like the Nazis.
I hate the argument they do, you know, this stupid...
It's insane how everything devolves to who's the bigger Nazi, but come on, man.
When you're talking about authoritarian speech restrictions, and you're cheering for the massive, multinational, billion-dollar tech company to restrict what is allowed to be said, you're the baddie, okay?
We're on the side of the people, okay?
Even the bad people, because we recognize that sometimes bad opinions are said.
But that line is clear to us.
And we do have to recognize that sometimes people cross that line.
We can publicly condemn that speech.
Congratulations!
You have cancel culture!
How about that?
Are you happy now?
How about you keep your cancel culture but stop banning people?
How about that?
Let the crazy guy stand in the corner preaching about the sky falling, and everyone will think the person is crazy.
And then people will choose not to associate with him, but he'll still be allowed to speak.
Twitter, Facebook, and yes, to an extent, YouTube, have dominated public discourse and our ability to share ideas because we're not going out anymore.
We're not going to town hall.
And that's why, by all means, take away someone's monetization on YouTube.
I agree with that.
You have no right to YouTube acting as an ad agency on your behalf.
But when you suppress videos, when you ban people, you are now removing people from public discourse.
Look, I'll agree.
It's true.
The speed of which information is traveling, the information overload, has resulted in some insanity and some extremism.
But what is his solution?
We must recognize the First Amendment should be changed.
He goes on to mention that 2A.
Has ever heard of the Second Amendment?
Yes, because we do have restrictions on 2A and we do have restrictions on 1A.
We recognize incitement is not legal speech or expression.
But expressing how you wish someone to do something actually is.
It actually is protected.
He says, Using free speech as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt.
For one thing, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.
What an insane and pathetic statement to make.
It's almost like he's lying to people on purpose.
Who doesn't already understand this, you know, what, 200-year-old statement that means nothing, addresses nothing, and speaks to nothing about the argument?
Even the most creative reader of the Constitution will not find a provision guaranteeing Richard Spencer a Twitter account.
Ah ha ha ha, Twitter, a specific product, I get it.
But even if you see social media platforms as something more akin to a public utility, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Anyway, libel, incitement of violence, and child bad videos are all forms of speech.
But they are not legal, and we know it, and there is a big difference between Twitter banning you for saying, I just plain don't like this person, and you doing something that is literally a crime.
What you're advocating for here is to uphold legal precedent on social media platforms.
Yet we censor all of them, and no one calls it the death knell of the Enlightenment.
Yeah, right, because we agree.
Courts have set precedent.
We know that restriction.
Okay, you know what?
I'm gonna stop right here.
We get it, okay?
I can rant on the New York Times condemning free speech.
Sure, it's an insane article.
But let me just say, based on what you just said, Andrew, I'll agree with you.
And I think you're right.
Twitter should be held to the exact same standard for all speech, shouldn't it?
Yep, yep.
So if somebody wants to post libelous material and it can be proven, if somebody wants to post incitement to violence or calls for violence, yeah, we should ban those things.
Agreed.
And everything else that is legally protected speech should be allowed.
Is that the point you're trying to make?
Okay.
Whatever, man.
The New York Times... Look, I could read more into this, but I do... I keep these segments short for a reason.
I love the people at the New York Times who try and rag on political commentary saying that we pretend to, you know, we try and stuff our videos.
And I've gotten that criticism too, but let me assure you, I do everything in my power to keep these videos as short as I can.
Because as you may know, I can literally talk forever.
So I'm going to wrap this up here.
New York Times trash opinion.
I appreciate the publishing of it though.
I do.
It allows me to see what this person believes.
I'm not going to put it on the New York Times for publishing it.
I'm not going to blame them for posting someone else's opinion.
But isn't that funny?
Isn't it funny how it works?
That Twitter says, we can't be held responsible for someone else's opinion.
And then news organizations say, we just publish it as an op-ed to entertain ideas.
It's a lovely situation, isn't it?
I just can't stand it.
Let people speak their minds and let us choose what is good or bad and who should be ostracized.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you shortly.
The latest breaking update from Hong Kong.
It's getting serious.
It's getting dangerous.
And this may be breaking down into full-blown rebellion.
Hong Kong is not China.
But China does want Hong Kong.
For the longest time, Hong Kong was a British colony.
And there's like a bunch of rules and a bunch of things happening.
I can't get into the full details because I'm not an expert.
But China is slowly taking more control.
This is resulting in a pushback.
Because you can imagine, communist China versus, you know, liberal democracy Hong Kong.
The latest news.
A 14-year-old was shot.
They're now in serious condition.
In response to the shooting, protesters beat the crap out of the cop and torched him with a Molotov cocktail.
So, I'm gonna show just a quick still of this video.
But you've been warned, for those that are watching.
You're gonna see a person in flames.
So, let me back up here.
And there it is.
So, as this cop was being beaten, People start running away, and someone chucks a Molotov, and the flames engulf him.
And there he is.
There's his leg.
That's his head.
He stands up.
He runs out of the fire, pats the fire out.
He's probably been burned.
People don't realize that... You know, you see these prank videos where someone will take hairspray and a lighter, and they'll do it really quick to their friend, and the friend gets first-degree... I don't know what degree the burns are, but, like, the first layer of their skin gets singed off and their hair gets burned off, and everyone doesn't realize that could leave permanent scars and seriously, seriously cause damage.
So, yeah, this is serious.
This is a dude being hit by a Molotov.
So they say, Hong Kong protesters— This is from Jake Hanrahan.
Hong Kong protesters beat a police officer, set him on fire, then tried to steal his sidearm after he shot a 14-year-old protester in the leg with another live round.
Again, another young protester has been shot with a live round.
So here's the big breaking news.
That boy is in serious condition after being shot, I believe.
A teenager's been struck by a bullet.
After an 18-year-old became the first processor to be hit by a live round on Tuesday.
I believe this is the story.
They don't know, this person's saying he doesn't know if it's a live round, but it appears to be.
So, for those that haven't been following, over the past few days, there have been several updates in this regard.
There was, um... Some protesters were fighting with cops, a cop pulled out his gun and put a bullet in the chest of this young man.
Apparently in serious condition, not life-threatening, and he's gonna be okay, I'm not sure.
But now, I believe it's only been, what, like a day or two later?
The first thing we saw a while ago was a warning shot.
And people started getting worried that warning shots mean the real ones are coming soon.
And now we have two people.
So there's serious concerns.
Let me read the story from Sky News.
A 14-year-old boy is in a serious condition after being shot in the leg during protests in Hong Kong, according to Sky Sources.
It is unclear whether the teenager was shot with a live round or a rubber bullet, and whether it was fired by the police or someone else.
Many reports are saying it was live.
I'm adding that, by the way.
The boy who was shot in the left thigh has been transferred from Phuk Oi Hospital to Tuen Mun Hospital.
It comes after a teenager became the first person to be shot with a live round since the protest started in April.
Tsang Chi-kin, 18, was shot in the shoulder on Tuesday, was later charged with rioting.
So it looked like he was getting shot in the chest.
It must have went to his shoulder.
They say the offense carries a penalty of up to 10 years in jail.
He was shot as around 100,000 people took part in widespread rallies on China's National Day, as the Communist Party marked its 70th anniversary, despite a Hong Kong police ban.
The 14-year-old boy was shot before a ban on protesters wearing masks came into force in the country.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the use of emergency powers which haven't been invoked for more than 50 years after months of violent protests.
Lam said Hong Kong faced extensive and very serious danger, but stressed it was not under a state of emergency.
Anyone breaking the mask ban could be jailed for a year or fined.
It came into force at midnight on Saturday, the 5th of October in the territory, which is seven hours ahead in the UK, which matters little to us.
But here's the really big story.
Hong Kong is imposing a face mask ban in flaming protesters.
The Daily Beast reports, demonstrators who take pains to make sure they can't be identified defied the edict in the hours after it was announced.
Now here's what's interesting.
The parallels between this and the U.S.
are so profound.
The big difference is the tribe.
In this instance, Hong Kong, which is for a long time sovereign, I mean, it was a colony of the UK, but they're not part of China, are now slowly being overtaken by China.
They're resisting.
China is ruled by the Communist Party, which currently puts Muslims in camps.
They call them re-education camps.
Let's call them concentration camps, where they go up and round up Muslims and lock them up.
China is doing very atrocious things.
The left would argue the U.S.
is putting undocumented citizens in camps, but they're not citizens.
The government isn't going and rounding up its own citizens.
They're rounding up people who are in the country illegally.
The left would argue that's irrelevant, yadda yadda.
The point is, the parallels are really fascinating when you look at Antifa.
Antifa in Washington, D.C., for instance, on January 20th, several hundred, 270 maybe, were arrested.
I was among those arrested, but I was released without charge very, very quickly.
The left doesn't like it when I say that.
They're like, no, Tim, you weren't arrested.
I literally was.
I was told three times I was.
And based on the legal definition of arrest, I was arrested without being processed.
I was released.
That's a normal thing.
It happens.
So I was not detained.
I was not free to go.
I was held for like more than an hour.
And then the police, you know, I navigated my way out with my press credentials and they let out several journalists.
But in D.C., these Antifa people wear masks.
There are numerous laws saying you can't wear masks in protests for certain reasons.
It's because the protesters and the rioters in the U.S.
put on all black, and they do this so that you can't identify them when they break the law.
And the government tried charging them with conspiracy because they wore these clothes.
I think that's a dangerous precedent.
You can't do that.
Look, man, if somebody's gonna wear a hoodie, you can't blame everybody who wears hoodies.
You just can't work that way.
So they've actually imposed this face mask ban.
But here's the big question, I guess, in what's going on with Hong Kong.
The police have now shot two people.
At what point do the people have a right to put on masks, fight back, torch things, and riot?
It really is a big challenge, I gotta say, I gotta admit.
There are a lot of circumstances where you see Antifa making arbitrary claims and just trying to destroy a system that's You know, not that bad, right?
So there are a lot of things that are bad about the U.S., but the U.S.
is pretty free.
We have a constitution.
We have protections of our rights.
We don't have authoritarian communists trying to, you know, come into our country and take over.
And so some could argue that Hong Kong being separate from China, this is China, you know, preparing an invasion of Hong Kong.
But for the time being, Hong Kong is fighting with its own police force.
So I ask you, Take this story.
Contrast it with what we've seen in the U.S.
And I mean this sincerely.
Define for me that line.
Like, what is it?
Is it tribe?
Is it because in the U.S.
it's capitalist, you know, constitutionalists who use state force and police power to enforce these laws?
Is it because China is communist and is rounding up Muslims in camps?
You'll see a lot of people in the... Is it majority?
Is it because so many people in Hong Kong agree?
You know, what if 50% of, like, the people in the U.S.
protested making a demand?
Would we then have to agree and say, yes, stand down.
That's the will of the people.
But we're not a direct democracy.
We're a constitutional republic, which means people elect representatives and we have electoral system and Congress and things like this.
We have multiple branches.
Why, you know, when you're going to see people Actually, let me rewind.
When the Hong Kong people started waving the American flag and singing the National Anthem and calling for free speech and things like that, many people on the left started accusing them of being far-right.
Many people on the left started defending Communist China, saying these people are attacking cops.
And it was the weirdest thing for me to see.
People on the right supporting the protesters and people on the left supporting the police.
Because in the U.S., it's inverted.
It makes me feel like, for the most part, all that really matters is your core ideology.
If you're a communist, then people will defend your right to put on a mask and throw a Molotov cocktail and attack that cop.
If you're a capitalist, then people on the left will defend your right to attack the cop, right?
So, it's tough.
The way I see it is, it's not so, you know, easily defined as ideology.
It's just like, if you're for free speech and protecting the rights of the people, then I agree with you on pushing back on unjust laws, no matter what your political position is.
The left would argue that that's exactly what Antifa is doing.
Communism is the ultimate fight for the people.
But then we can look at the history of communism, and we can see all the people who have been killed under it.
So I disagree.
And there's the impasse.
The communists will say, those weren't real, that wasn't real communism, and you're wrong.
The right will say, oh please, don't try me, every time communism has been tried, it's failed.
I happen to agree that, for whatever reason, every time they try to make communism happen, they have to go around killing people, and it may be because the only way to institute societal homogeny is to kill those who disagree.
It's like the, it's the plot from Captain America Winter Soldier, when the big ships are gonna wipe everybody out to make conformity.
So for me, it's clear-cut.
I understand why the Hong Kong protesters are fighting.
I do.
I disagree with them beating people they think are cops.
I disagree with the destruction and the violence.
But here we are.
Here we are with cops shooting people.
Now what?
What now?
I don't know.
I really, really don't.
I really, really don't.
Because at a certain point, everything breaks down.
How long can I criticize them for smashing windows when it comes to the police shooting somebody?
Going back to Occupy Wall Street, there was a guy named Scott Olsen, was standing still, and a cop in Oakland shot, I think it was a tear gas canister, hit him in the head and gave him a traumatic brain injury.
Cannot support that.
It's, it's, that, you know, and then the crazy thing about it was when the, when other protesters tried to pull him out, a cop threw a flashbang grenade.
It wasn't, it wasn't necessarily a flashbang.
It was, um, I forgot what they're called.
Flashbangs are bigger, louder, but it was, it was a, uh, it was a disruption.
I forgot what they're called.
It was like a flashbang, but it's weaker.
So the point is, you know, back then it was clear cut.
That cop shot that young man in San Francisco in the head.
We can all denounce that and call it out.
And that's why many people protested.
Today, Antifa shows up and beats up civilians.
And there's a big difference, right?
When Antifa is attacking regular people, torching the limo owned by a migrant, we can clearly call that out as being wrong.
To me, that's where the line is.
But at the end, we just see people in masks wanting to protect their identity.
We see Antifa make a similar argument.
These people in these protests have beaten, you know, seemingly random people.
I don't know, man.
I really don't.
But let me just say, at the very least, it seems like with these two live rounds, you know, it's breaking down into full-blown rebellion.
