New York Times SLAMMED For Publishing FAKE Trump Supporter Interview, Media Lost Touch With Reality
New York Times SLAMMED For Publishing FAKE Trump Supporter Interview, Media Lost Touch With Reality. As media struggles with ideas and information overload starts to turn us away from media desperation sets in with journalists and fake news becomes the only solution.The new york times wrote a fake conversation between "urban guy" and "flyover man." Flyover Man is essentially a straw man argument against Trump and his supporters.The desperation for content is becoming palpable especially with this article. It pretends Trump supporters see him as the devil and corrupt but that its worth it for a good economy.Democrats have laid out their arguments and policies, media has argument them to the point of exhaustion and now there is little left. For Democrats, in order to stand out they continue to push further and further left in order to maintain press, for the media they just make stuff up.But what about regular Americans who are not online as much? For these people they are being left behind.Democrats are facing a serious problem if they keep chasing the will of Twitter and ignoring the will of the people. We all know it but at a certain point it becomes obvious the media will not stop. In their last breath they refuse to give up the narrative and instead just push harder into the ground.They are scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard wood shavings are coming out.After the recycled story about Kavanaugh the New York Times and the correction, the book sold only a few thousand copies, abysmal. How many times do we need to hear the same thing over and over again?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Before we get into the story, I want you to do something for me.
Imagine a field.
A field full of horses.
Only the horses aren't standing up.
They're all laying down.
It's because these horses are no longer alive.
And in this field is an army of journalists beating those dead horses relentlessly.
And that's how I felt a couple days ago when I did the video about calling out the BS and, you know, politics.
And I made a kind of follow-up yesterday.
And that's how I feel.
I feel like the media, they've said what needs to be said.
They've talked about all of these policy positions.
They've talked about Trump and his scandals.
And now they just keep doing the same thing.
And the final straw for me was Ukrainegate.
This big scandal with Trump and Ukraine, which I hate talking about.
It is literally Russiagate 2, Ukrainian Boogaloo.
Well, what happens when there is literally nothing but a field of dead horses?
I hope you guys understand the idiom, being a dead horse, right?
It's when you're literally doing nothing, but the horse is already dead.
Get it?
Well, there's only one thing you can do.
Make it up!
And there have been some overt stories that are outright fake and they've been called out, but those are rare.
There have been a lot of corrections.
There's a lot of the media, what they'll do is they'll jump the gun on the story and just say, like, people familiar with the president's thinking have said.
Or they'll say, like, you know, the other day with the fake AOC supporter rallying and saying all that nonsense, They say, like, oh, someone on Twitter claimed it was them, therefore it's true.
Now, granted, in that case, you know, they get lucky.
They roll the dice.
Eventually, they found more evidence to back up their claim.
But the media does this.
They jump the gun on the story, and boy, have I said it a lot lately, 24 hours later, retraction.
Well, now the New York Times is being slammed because they published a fake discussion.
It's like a fake interview.
Well, maybe interview is the wrong word, but that's the best way I can put it.
It's a fake conversation, an imagined conversation with flyover men.
Flyover Man, to the best of my abilities, would be better described as Straw Man Trump Supporter.
For those that aren't familiar with it, I think most of you know what Straw Man means, but just to be fair, it's basically the New York Times is setting up a man made of straw with a Trump hat, the MAGA hat, and then they go and lightly tap it to knock it over and say, we've won.
This story is ridiculous, but it's indicative of a bigger problem with the media.
They've lost touch with reality.
And I'm gonna go through and break down exactly why I believe that to be the case.
See, the New York Times has been in a really weird place publishing... The Kavanaugh story they did was bunk.
The book didn't sell.
Like, this is crazy.
So you remember that whole controversy where...
The New York Times put out this story saying there's a new accusation against Kavanaugh.
It's just not true.
There's no corroborating evidence.
And it was all to promote this book.
And then the women who wrote the book went on these TV shows.
It's not selling.
Apparently it sold like a couple thousand copies.
Flop.
Hard flop.
See, the media has lost touch with reality.
And in this, as I've mentioned many times before, the Democrats chase after them.
So here's what I'd like to do.
I'd like to go through some stories, and I want to start with just lightly reading into the problems of the New York Times flyover man story, which is now getting flack from everybody.
The criticism being, you know, look, they've run out of things to talk about.
I genuinely believe that.
You know, okay, how many times can I say, how many times can I say it's insane the Democrats proposed giving non-citizens healthcare?
We've said it.
It's been said.
Don't need to say it again.
How many times do I need to say that impeachment is unpopular and is going to backfire?
Even Van Jones now is saying it on CNN.
It's a lose-lose for Democrats, and it's like...
We get it.
We get it.
I mean, I understand not everybody watches every single video and knows every single thing, but at a certain point, you just gotta say, man, let's write a human interest piece about a bakery's new flavor of cookie, right?
Let's talk about something else.
Well, the New York Times decided, we're gonna stick with politics, but we're gonna make it up.
As long as we tell people it's imagined in the first place.
It's just so silly to me.
So let's read this a little bit.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can do it.
You can check that out.
But the best thing you can do, share this video.
And I really do mean that.
I have frequently done tests on whether, you know, when I promote, I ask people to share versus when I don't.
And seriously, YouTube, my second channel's hard deranked.
This channel's actually been doing better.
I don't know what that means, but I do know that when you guys really share, it has a seriously positive impact.
So, I really do appreciate it.
It's the best thing you can do.
Let's read.
The New York Times' David Brooks writes why Trump voters stick with him.
An imagined conversation with flyover men.
And the first thing, the first thing they do is set up this strawman implying that Trump supporters really do think Trump is completely corrupt and that it's okay because at least the corrupt guy is working for them.
It's a strawman.
It's just not the case.
I know because I've talked to Trump supporters.
I talk to them regularly.
And I talk to people who don't like the president fairly regularly.
Urban Guy says, I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president.
Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
This is impeachable.
I don't see how you can deny the facts in front of your face.
Fake point made by fake Urban Guy.
FakeFlyoverMan says, I haven't really had time to look into it.
Are you kidding me?
Is that the first thing you say?
I assure you, Trump supporters are paying attention to this.
First problem, the assumption that Trump supporters don't care and don't pay attention is the opposite of what I have experienced.
Listen, there are people on the right who don't pay attention, 100%.
There are people on the right who just don't believe the report when it comes out.
I get it.
There are people on the left who also do the exact same thing.
It's a silly game.
But in my experience, what I've found is that most people I know who are voting for Bernie or Democrat don't know anything about this.
I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money.
That if you gave me 10 anti-Trump people and 10 Trump people, the 10 Trump people would be closer to accurate than the anti-Trump people.
Not that they would be completely accurate, just slightly closer.
And in that capacity, I mean, if I go to a Trump supporter and say, did you read the transcript?
They'll probably be like, I glanced through it.
If I go to someone who doesn't like Trump, they'll be like, I heard Adam Schiff.
You see what I mean?
There is a genuine gap in the independent individuals sorting through of news, okay?
You look at the narrative from independent commentary, and it's typically balanced between moderate and conservative.
Me being more moderate, and you have more conservative channels, you know, Steven Crowder, etc.
And my commentary is like, usually I'm not a fan of Trump, the Republicans, and a lot of the things he's doing.
You know, I don't need to get into that because the media does a million times per day.
But you look to the mainstream media, CNN, and even to an extent Fox News, and you will see that generic, typically uninformed opinion or mis-framed bias against the president.
I think this is because the media is desperate for money.
So that's kind of the main point, right?
He says, the big picture is we knew this guy was a snake.
Whoa!
Full stop.
I don't know very many Trump supporters who would call Trump a snake.
I've talked to many people who voted for the president who said they don't like his attitude, they don't like his character, but typically the things you hear from Trump supporters is that they don't think Trump is a snake.
They think he's actually fighting on their behalf.
This is creating the fake narrative that Trump's base are uninformed people who think he's corrupt.
But don't care.
Because our kids are in trouble.
I had one shot and I made a deal with the devil.
Well, I'm not going to read through this.
You get the point.
In the end, the New York Times columnist David Brooks is mocked for creating imaginary flyover man Trump supporter.
But it's not just that.
He's getting mocked for urban guy, too, because he created a caricature of both people.
This is the point I'm making.
The New York Times is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
It's an analogy I truly love.
They're scraping so hard the bottom that they're pulling up wood shavings.
There's nothing left.
They've literally made up a conversation.
It is the driest, it is the most, it is absolutely ridiculous.
Well, it's not the most ridiculous thing we've seen.
We've seen free speech is killing us by the New York Times.
Wow!
Bravo, opinion section!
What an excellent statement.
Nobody agrees with?
Well, I shouldn't say nobody, because a lot of people do.
But in this story, they say that the blue chicks of Twitter attacked New York Times columnist David Brooks for his latest column attempting to explain how a Trump voter in middle America views the president's potential impeachment.
We get the point.
Now the New York Times is being dragged across the coals because, yeah, they kind of just made up a fake story.
And one of my favorite criticisms was that the New York Times is paying David Brooks ungodly sums of money to just make things up.
Yeah, congratulations.
But let's get real.
One of the most dangerous things that's happening in this country is a complete fracture from reality.
And this is what I talked about yesterday on my second channel.
You may have not seen it, but I mentioned how we had one story that said we have a record economy, and then you go to Vox and they say it's bad news for the president.
And I say, how do you go from record-breaking economy, 50-year low unemployment, and say it's bad news?
Well, because this month there was 16,000 less jobs created, so it's a slowdown, and the slowdown is bad, therefore, this is bad news for Trump.
And I'm like, dude, that is scraping the bottom of the barrel and pulling up shavings.
Like, come on, you're stretching things.
Now, I don't think I'm perfect.
I think there have been instances where I've probably done something similar.
My analysis has probably been bad.
And many people might assume that when I say something like, Trump is gonna win 2020, that I'm just saying that.
They'll be like, Tim's only saying that to pander to Trump supporters.
I don't care.
I think you'd be nuts to think Trump's gonna lose.
And one of the big reasons is the analogy I gave you at the beginning of this video.
The media has said what can be said.
Think about the Democrats.
Actually, there was a really great tweet.
It said this.
Can anyone name anything from the third debate?
No.
Like, can you repeat any quote?
Was there anything said that was memorable in any way?
No.
Nothing happened and no one cared.
And that was really interesting to me because, yeah, I can't.
I sat there.
I think I was playing on my phone for the most part.
Like, yeah, I just... It's been said.
How many times do we need to hear Bernie say, Medicare for all?
How many times do we need to hear the media repeat the same talking point five billion times?
See, here's what's interesting.
We are in an unprecedented era.
This level of information overload wasn't even... Like, it's escalating, right?
In 2016, we were seeing one of the first times that democratization of politics and speech was going to have an impact on the presidency.
Technically, Obama was.
Obama used Facebook to rally people, but at the time, it was still young.
We are now in the most intense we've ever seen, and it's only going to get more intense.
Information overload.
Here's the thing.
10, 15 years ago, right?
They would say—somebody would go up on stage at a debate and say, I want to do this.
And then the conversation around that could only be broken up over a few months, because you'd have an article written in the paper, it'd appear in the paper, it'd appear on a website, and then a few days later you'd see like an update or rebuttal.
Today, it's instant, nonstop, and it's every second of every day.
Bernie Sanders on stage, when he says, we're going to give health care to non-citizens, you already have 8 million rebuttals instantly on Twitter.
So we've all heard it, it's all been said, the negotiating has stopped.
What more is going to happen?
You're not going to convince anybody.
We're seeing, it's the democratization of information.
The internet has allowed this, allowed channels like mine to exist, my opinions.
And so we're now trying to, we're struggling, how to figure out You know, how do we quantify what someone is?
Left, right, up, down, whatever.
They're slamming Bill Maher right now as a phony liberal.
There's an article, and I think I'll read that later today.
It's around 6 p.m.
But they don't know.
It used to be that everyone had a little bit they shared but disagreed on a lot.
But because of the internet, we can all rally around specific concepts, and thus you end up with very specific sects or sections of various tribes, and it kind of breaks down, and there's some overlap, and it's getting weird.
I'm clearly not a conservative, but I don't like the Democrats, for the most part.
I like Yang and Tulsi.
They're okay.
Marian's pretty much... I think Marian Williamson is kind of a sweetheart, but I don't agree with a lot of her policy ideas.
I think she's nice, and I think it's mean what the media does to her.
But I clearly don't fit in, and so we've called it politically homeless, but the reality is that the people like Rubin or Bridget Phetassi, sorry, I can't pronounce your name, it's probably wrong, and me don't really fit in any place, but we still are kind of moderate centrist liberals, and so, you know, look, the people who believe what we believe, we exist and we form our own space.
So here's what I want to show you in terms of the media, because I'll make a long video, we'll see what happens.
The New York Times knows that they have to play this game.
They have to set up a strawman.
They have to make Trump look bad.
Cancel NYT Trends as Americans slam the New York Times for outing Trump whistleblower as CIA officer.
And the reality is, the New York Times did lose subscribers in the wake of the whistleblower story controversy.
So the New York Times knows that they have a very urban demographic.
Thus, urban guy is the smart one saying, we know Trump did wrong.
And the question arises about this fake story.
Why can't the New York Times just ask a Trump supporter to write an article?
Is it that complicated?
You want to hear about an argument from somebody as to why they defend Trump.
It's great.
I can name several people off the top of my head who are Trump supporters with large followings and would gladly write you an article explaining what they think and why they think it.
Instead, what they do is they take Urban Guy, who clearly knows of the wrongdoing, and they create a strawman of this Trump guy, who knows Trump is also the devil and doing wrong, but is gonna vote for him anyway, and this is literally not the argument.
But the media does this, because they know they'll lose subscribers, in my opinion, if they don't actually...
If they don't play to the audience they've cultivated.
And it's weird how scared they are of Twitter.
It's weird, right?
But, you know, when you cultivate an audience, don't be surprised when you do real journalism and you lose people.
There's a couple other stories that I definitely want to highlight, right?
Following this controversy and the subscriber loss, they quietly revealed that controversial Sarah Jeong is off the editorial board.
The reason this is significant is because it was believed.
She was removed after she stated the New York Times really does take a look at their subscriptions and that impacts whether or not they think they've done wrong.
That's a really interesting point to be made.
Now, I will stress, she was apparently removed from the editorial board or quit.
She's still a contractor there.
I don't believe she was fired.
It's not the case.
She left in August.
But the reason I highlight this is because the point she made as someone at the New York Times, she said straight up, when the New York Times sees subscriber loss, they take action.
What this says to me is exactly what we heard from the creators of South Park.
He said this, right here, I love this.
I feel bad for television critics and cultural critics, he explains.
They may have laughed like hell at Dave Chappelle, and then they went home and they know what they have to write to keep their job.
So when I read TV reviews or cultural reviews, I think of someone in prison writing.
I think about somebody writing a hostage note.
This is not what they think.
This is what they have to do to keep their job in a social media world so I don't hold it against them.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I don't.
I literally don't.
Now, there is a reality that some opinions are more safe than others.
It just so happens that I happen to be a moderate centrist leaning to the left, and so most of my opinions are acceptable in the Overton window.
And there are a lot of people with opinions that are unacceptable and will be purged from YouTube.
But in the end, I can freely express my opinion and tell whoever I want, you know, I can call them For the most part, whatever I want.
I can't swear and stuff.
I've never been a big swearer in the first place.
But I can do that.
I can freely talk about these things.
I can say Joker was a great movie.
And I don't have to worry about woke outrage.
We're now seeing, you know...
In this thread of criticism about why all of these media companies follow this line, the important thing you need to understand is the overlap of the cultural and the political.
We've seen people say that, you know, the personal is political in what you do.
They are really trying to make sure that no matter what happens, everything is about politics.
To an extent, I will always self-reflect and say, I know, I understand, I play this, you know, to an extent too.
I try to be above and beyond, but of course I'm not perfect, right?
But we can see this in how the reviews for Joker have turned.
Many left-wing outlets are criticizing it.
And this was following a statement where Phillips, the director of Joker, said it's because of this outrage.
But he says something important.
And it's not so much about the Joker.
It's when he said, I don't want to offend you.
It's hard to argue with 30 million people on Twitter.
Let's rope this back to the political realm and see the overlap between the cultural and the political.
What happens when Twitter, which is a fringe faction of the fringe left and not the majority of people, will cancel you if you don't toe the line?
The media toes the line, and the politicians follow right after thinking it's popular.
It is not popular.
We know this from polls.
We know that impeachment is not popular.
We know that there was a study put out by the New York Times.
They did a survey, an experimental survey, Where they had a control group that read random information and a control group that read information about how the Democrats are pushing far left, and immediately they lost the moderates.
So what ends up happening is, the Twitter outrage emerges, and you end up with this.
The New York Times trying to cater to this base.
First, we see this story about Urban Guy knowing Trump is bad, and it's framed in this ridiculous way, when the New York Times could have simply hired a Trump supporter.
It's not surprised, I'm sorry, I'm not surprised then, the New York Times would actually publish this.
Free speech is killing us, they say.
It's the most absurd and obnoxious argument I've ever heard.
But think about what happens then with the breakdown, with the cancelling of subscriptions, the loss of revenue.
We can see how the media begins to fail.
Notably, in this story, they hilariously referred to Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is not a thing.
Where are the New York Times fact checkers?
It seems like they really are collapsing.
Like, they're losing what made them a great institution of knowledge and information.
And it may be because dwindling revenues?
I don't know.
I think it might be because they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.
They know that they have to cater to this new audience they've built, and the audience of Twitter which holds them hostage, so they bring on speakers with insane opinions that are not popular.
And this person clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
This story actually refers to a law that does not exist.
A mishmash of random ideas that was just absolutely incorrect.
And I have personal experience with this author, the writer of this piece, doing the same thing to me.
He took two ideas, DMCA, which is something totally different, and the Communications Decency Act, and mashed them together and made a mistake.
How does this article, this ill-informed person, end up writing an insane article that says free speech is killing us?
With his first line being, there has never been a bright line between word and deed.
It's one of the most insane things I've ever heard, but it lines up with Twitter.
The Twitter mob that truly believes we should censor the speech and things like this ends up in the New York Times.
Twitter is dictating all of this, but it is a fringe minority.
Now I love this.
Check this out.
How Fox News twisted the Kavanaugh scandal into a way to attack the New York Times.
It's because the Kavanaugh scandal was the New York Times failing to include a caveat
that the woman who allegedly experienced something at the hands of Kavanaugh says she has no
recollection of that event at all.
And they added the correction later.
All of a sudden now, Vox, playing the same game, know they have to play the trope to defend, you know, the accusations or whatever, claims Fox News called it a correction.
I'm sorry.
In an interview with The Hill, the authors called the update a correction as well.
And we can still see That it's not always bad.
CNN, New York Times botched Kavanaugh's story, the latest in a series of blunders from the opinion section.
So at least you can still see CNN calling out these bigger stories and calling out the New York Times for the problems they make.
Now, we'll start wrapping up, right?
I think I've hit the main points about the New York Times publishing the fake stories.
It's only gonna get worse.
I like the analogy of... I really, really do love scraping wood shavings off the bottom of the barrel, punching a hole in it, and then you don't have a barrel anymore.
There's nothing left.
There's nothing there.
I don't know where we go from here.
I really don't.
I've talked about it three times, you know, two days ago, yesterday, and today, because every day I read the news and I read these stories, I'm just like, dude, I get it, man.
And at a certain point, I feel like, who wants to hear me say the same thing for the 50th time?
You know, some people have said that I get repetitive in videos, and I understand sometimes I'll reiterate things to try and connect points, but I mean, I think it's actually fair when you look at the press as a whole, and I look at my YouTube list and I'm like, I did this video last week!
How am I already here again?
And it's not because I thought of it, it's because I'm reading the news and reading the same recycled nonsense over and over again.
The New York Times Kavanaugh book bombs.
3,120 sold.
Amazon rank 6,795.
My understanding is that the Mollie Hemingway book of The Federalist actually did extremely well.
But I want to tell you why I think this happened.
How many times do we need to hear the same thing?
I think the answer is, not very many.
Twice is enough.
But the Kavanaugh story is a year old.
The story in it was actually old.
And it's the same thing over and over again.
It's like there's nothing original left.
That's why I said, Russiagate 2, Ukrainian Boogaloo.
Do I really want to hear about these hearings?
Do I really want to hear about these subpoenas?
Been there, done that, and I'm over it.
I do not need to say the same thing to you that I said last time.
It's the same thing.
It reminds me of in a video game, right?
I don't know how many of you play video games, but you know how like there'll be one bad guy, and it's like on level one you'll encounter a bad guy, and then on level ten it's the same bad guy, but...
Green?
Ah!
And so this delineates it.
You know that the green version is tougher.
All games do this, right?
You know, playing Mario, you've got the green Koopas and the red Koopas.
Same animation, slightly different colors, slightly different behavior, different stats.
And that's what I feel like we're seeing.
All of these scandals, all of these talking points are just them reintroducing the exact same thing.
But it's interesting.
I don't know how the debates can continue to function.
That's why Trump wins, I think.
One of the reasons Trump wins.
I don't want to act like there's one reason he does.
But you think about what Trump does when he says to Hillary, you know, you'd be in jail.
He's bringing something new and exciting to the stage, something that feels more visceral, something that feels more real.
It's the same for YouTube and why people watch my content.
As many researchers have stated, it's more so a personal connection.
You know that I'll read a lot of your comments.
I can't read all of them because there's thousands.
And you know that it feels more like I'm talking to you directly.
YouTube is a much more personal space relative to the stodgy script reading that is Fox News.
I have no script.
Literally nothing.
This is all off the top of my head.
I never write anything down.
I just pull up the stories, I think about things, and then I rant.
And that has something more visceral, and I think that is the big change.
So when you see a book about Kavanaugh, you're like, I don't care.
I really don't.
Nobody buys it.
In the end, expect to see more of the same.
I'm actually going to do my best to avoid a lot of the stories that are being chased after, because here's... I'll be honest.
You know, as we started entering political season, I thought it would be important to break down the biggest stories of the day.
And that's why a lot of my videos are specifically about Ukraine impeachment in the past several days, and before that, what the Democrats are doing.
Because I kind of felt like, you're going to get the narrative from the left, you're going to get the narrative from the right, and I want to give you my personal take on it.
Which is probably not going to align with a lot of the Democrats, because they've kind of lost it.
But then eventually we get to a point where, as they just don't have anything left to say, I end up repeating myself as well, and after, like, the third time, I was like, I'm done.
I'm done.
I'm not gonna do this.
So I'll leave you with that.
I'll leave you with that, and, uh, The New York Times, in an effort to just make something.
Just made it up, because there's nothing else to say, and I don't know what else to expect.
You know, they're talking about subpoenaing the president, they're talking about the scandals, and I'm just like, dude, I get it.
It's just a repeat of the last several years.
What can I tell you?
No idea.
But I'm gonna do better to try and avoid this mess and this nonsense and actually talk about things that I think are important.
So, I'll leave you there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
I will see you all in the next segment.
A couple days ago, Bernie Sanders was hospitalized, and according to his campaign, it was because of some arterial blockage, and he received a procedure to put in a couple stents.
My personal opinion was that they were downplaying a heart attack.
Many people said that Bernie had a heart attack.
However, Bernie's supporters said it was simply angina.
For those that don't know the difference, first, not a doctor, here's my general understanding from Wikipedia.
Angina is when you get some blocked blood flow, but no tissue damage.
And they can do the same procedure.
And a heart attack is when the blood flow stops and you get tissue damage.
The tissue starts dying because there's no oxygen.
Bernie Sanders had a heart attack.
This is the breaking news.
This is from yesterday at 6 p.m.
And let me just stress my complete disgust with the press and politics.
Bernie had a heart attack, and I feel for him.
I really do.
I wish him the best.
He seems to be in good spirits.
He left the hospital looking better.
I wish no ill will on anybody, and I certainly hope he recovers to the full extent of his abilities.
I believe if Bernie Sanders is to lose this race, it should be because of his ideas, not because of his heart.
That being said, when you get politicians who withhold this information, which is extremely vital to the health of our nation, I am personally offended.
We have a right to know if the person who wants to be the president suffered a heart attack or not.
Now, here's the thing.
They published this story at 6 p.m.
on a Friday.
You know why?
The story's dead.
Here it is.
Saturday morning.
This video will probably not get nearly as many views as a Tuesday video would.
This is a fact.
The press people know this.
So they said, issue a vague statement.
Then Friday night, then we'll publish the truth.
And sure enough, when I tweeted about it, I got like 100 retweets.
And it's, well, the first breaking tweet I think got like 300, and then the follow-up breaking down got like 100.
Both of those are low for a breaking story of this magnitude.
When Bernie Sanders was first hospitalized, and I tweeted about it, it got way more.
Like a thousand or something.
I don't know.
Maybe less.
The point is, they do this on purpose.
This way, no one hears that Bernie Sanders had a heart attack.
So I'll tell you what.
I want to make sure this is clear.
You know, that I want Bernie to be healthy, and I think this doesn't detract from his ideas.
But as I stated, The health of a president is important.
In my video, I said, listen, people care about whether or not the person who's going to be president can hold the office for the amount of time required, which may be eight years.
Bernie Sanders is 78 years old in a heart attack, and they're trying to play this, the PR game.
This offended me.
I know how the PR game works.
They do press releases on Tuesday when they want you to hear about it, and when they don't want anyone to know, they do a Friday night.
And here it is.
The news is now breaking, and the soonest I can get to it is Saturday morning!
Let's read a little bit.
Bernie Sanders' doctors say the Democratic presidential candidate suffered a heart attack on Tuesday.
The 78-year-old's campaign staff revealed the shock news late Friday, at the same time as he was discharged from the hospital after undergoing a successful heart procedure.
Now, I want to stress, if they had the intention of being honest with America, they would have said outright, Senator Sanders has suffered a heart attack.
He's received a procedure.
No.
They said blockage.
I just can't stand- It's all lies.
It's all manipulation.
Okay?
They're not going to tell you the truth.
They're going to do everything in their power to make sure you believe what they want you to believe so that you vote for them.
Bernie Sanders knows.
His campaign knows this is the end.
He's going to lose a lot.
And they are still trying to lie?
I'm disgusted.
I cannot stand politics and politicians and the media.
And they play this game.
So I'll tell you what.
If you like my work, if you support what I do, please consider sharing this.
Look, my... I'm angered at his campaign for playing this game.
Now, we can argue it was his doctors who released the information.
The Sanders campaign never admitted it.
Fine.
Bernie Sanders had a heart attack and didn't tell the American people.
And now he's gonna be on a debate stage.
And I'm sure this will become a big issue.
Hopefully, this news makes the rounds.
Look, I think it's unfortunate that Sanders had a heart attack and it's going to hurt his campaign, but the people have a right to know.
If you want to be president, you should be forthright immediately.
Yes, I am 78 years old, I had a heart attack.
Because that's going to impact how people vote for you.
When they do this, what they're really saying is, it may impact you, but I'm not going to tell you because I want you to vote for me.
They say Sanders was rushed to Desert Springs Hospital in Las Vegas on Tuesday night after complaining of chest discomfort, and the Vermont Senator's staffers initially stated that he had a blocked artery, which was a lie.
Okay, it's technically the truth.
I love, I love, it's the best kind of the truth, technically.
Yes, a heart attack is a blocked artery, and then the tissue dies, and you're rushed to the emergency room, or maybe not the emergency, but you're rushed to the hospital in a medical emergency for an emergency medical procedure to try and save your heart.
The 2020 contender subsequently underwent a medical procedure to have two stents inserted into his chest.
At the same time as his campaign staff updated the public on his medical diagnosis, Sanders left the Las Vegas hospital following a three-night stay.
sense but I don't know what that means. At the same time as his campaign staff
updated the public on his medical diagnosis, Sanders left the Las Vegas
Hospital following a three-night stay. And you know what they did by putting
out this vague and technical information? They sparked a political debate among
people over whether or not he had angina or a heart attack.
It was just chest discomfort.
And he went for a checkup, and it turns out he had some arterial blockage.
No.
He had a very serious heart attack and was rushed to the hospital.
The popular politician was accompanied by his wife, Jane.
And the couple waved to supporters outside the facility.
Appearing in high spirits, Sanders even raised his arm to give a defiant fist pump.
Excuse me.
A clear signal that he is not bowing out of the Democratic primary battle.
Well, you know what?
I'll put it this way.
I don't think he should have, based on the heart attack, but I do think he should have now because he was unwilling to be honest with the American people.
And let me just clarify, because all the Sanders supporters are going to come out and be like, that's not fair, Tim.
Listen.
I know how the PR game works.
A Friday night release of the information is on purpose so you don't know about it.
And at the very least, they could have said Senator Sanders suffered a heart attack.
But they don't want to because they would rather win.
It's more important that they win and they get power than you decide whether or not a 78-year-old man who had a heart attack should be our president.
You see the point?
I don't think.
That should hurt his arguments, but we have to recognize we have a lineup of presidents who are retirees.
I mean no disrespect to older people, but the point is at a certain age, we have to recognize there is a great risk to our nation and well-being by having a bunch of candidates who are in their 70s.
That includes Donald Trump.
However, Trump is the incumbent, so it's kind of like, But you got, you know, Joe Biden?
Bernie Sanders?
No, come on, man.
You know, we've got people who are younger who are running.
Even Elizabeth Warren is a little too old, okay, in my opinion.
I don't know what else you can do.
Tulsi Gabbard's 38.
They say in a statement released to coincide with his discharge from the hospital, Sanders
declared, After two and a half days in the hospital, I feel great.
And after taking a short time off, I look forward to getting back to work.
He will now fly back to his home in Burlington, Vermont for some downtime before getting back
on the campaign trail.
So here's the thing.
When the story came out, some of the doctors on Twitter—whether they're really doctors, I don't know, but people were saying they were doctors—said, when you have angina and you get a stent put in, it's like a through-the-wrist thing, and they place it, and then you could be—one tweet said you could be golfing that same day.
When they said Bernie Sanders is cancelling all events for the foreseeable future and cancelling his ads, I said, no way.
It's a heart attack.
It's a heart attack.
And I bring this up because I don't think he'll be getting back to work anytime soon.
I really don't.
I think that, like, a heart attack, you know, I was reading, it could be a month of downtime.
Warren is 70?!
Come on, man!
You know what?
Something is wrong, okay?
oldest candidate, Vania Taken, Donald Trump in 2020, and is third in the polls behind
Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is 70?
Come on, man.
You know what?
Something is wrong, okay?
Something is wrong, and something is wrong with what, with Gen Xers and millennials.
I get it.
The Democrats do have younger candidates.
You got Tulsi Gabbard.
You got Pete Buttigieg.
You know, even Cory Booker is not that old.
But what is going on now where we're latching on to these people who should be retired?
Look, you don't have to retire if you don't want to.
I mean, no disrespect for people who are older, but seriously.
Bernie Sanders just suffered a heart attack.
This goes for Trump the same as anybody else.
The only real argument I could say in terms of Trump is that he is the incumbent.
He got elected before he was in his 70s.
Now he's in his 70s.
He actually kind of doesn't look like it.
It's kind of weird.
Biden looks like he's in his 80s.
Warren actually doesn't look like she's 70, you know.
I'm actually surprised she is.
But Bernie does look 78.
I would say in terms of Bernie and Biden, I'm sorry, man.
You know, look, I respect you.
You've done a lot of work for this country, and times have changed, opinions have changed, but you've done a lot of work for this country.
You've earned your seat down by the fire.
But at this point, something needs to be said.
I just don't understand it, you know.
In the end, Something is happening where we have, there's just, I don't know, there's just so much going on.
There's a fractured social base.
There's people on the right who don't see the world the same way as the people on the left, and the best the left can come up with is a bunch of senior citizens.
And I'm not saying to be disrespectful, I'm saying the leading moderate candidate, Joe Biden, The next leading candidate behind Biden, or actually who's overtaken Biden, 70-year-old Elizabeth Warren.
And then the third place candidate, 78-year-old Bernie Sanders.
It's incredible.
You know, I feel like people don't actually care about what the president is supposed to be and what the president is supposed to do.
The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the head of the executive branch.
policy ideas, but it's always just so confusing to me why Bernie Sanders running for president
makes sense to anybody.
Look, I get it.
Okay?
I liked Bernie a lot in 2016.
I like a lot of what he's fought for.
But Bernie Sanders is a policy guy, right?
And so is Joe Biden.
It's always interesting to me how there's like different classes.
It's almost like an RPG, right?
You've got Trump who's like a tradesman, a businessman, and that's like grounds for why he should be elected.
Then you've got military personnel, people like Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard.
And then you have lawmakers.
And they each bring their own interesting perspective into what makes the most sense.
Unsurprising that Tulsi Gabbard wants to end regime change wars because she's fought in them.
That's her main goal, her personal experience.
Unsurprising that the policy guys are very big on what laws need to be passed and people like Bernie are talking about domestic, you know, economic and healthcare policy.
And completely unsurprising that a businessman like Donald Trump is talking about trade agreements with these other countries.
It's really, really interesting how this plays out.
I feel like you could almost be like...
You could give someone a class, like it's seriously an RPG, like military, you know, politics.
Anyway, look, I'm gonna wrap it up there, I think you get the point.
Look, I have tremendous respect for Bernie, everything he's fought for, he's lived a long storied life, he's done some incredible things, and like his ideas or hate his ideas, him, as much as any other politician who's fighting for what they believe in, so long as they act in service of their country to the best of their abilities, I can respect that.
Now, you can argue if Bernie truly loves America, fine, whatever the point is, he served.
He served his country as a lawmaker for most of his life.
It's time Biden, Bernie, and yes, even Warren, at this point, I just, I do not believe they should be running for president.
And again, the only reason I would say yes to Trump is he's the incumbent.
Like, the only reason I think Trump's like, okay, I get it, is that he ran before he was in his 70s, at 68, I think.
But he's the incumbent, so it's kind of like, you know, I'm not going to ask, be like, he shouldn't, he should step down or something.
I get that.
But where's the leadership from young people?
Where's the charisma and the energy and the ideas?
Like I mentioned, I know we have Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Buttigieg, I understand all that, but they're not the frontrunners.
So something's happening with young people where they're looking at these older people like, Don't you realize you are inheriting the world, okay?
I don't get it.
We have these millennials who have never grown up, and they're still being like, tell us what to do, Bernie, tell us what to do, Biden.
It's like, no!
You go do it.
You take up the mantle.
These people will not be around for much longer, and I mean that with all due respect, but it's true.
This is the way things work.
At a certain point, you must pick up the weight carried by those who came before you.
Why are the Democrats supporting people who are in their 70s as the frontrunners?
Why?
Find some youthful energy.
But perhaps that's the problem.
I feel like we really do need someone who's like late 30s and youthfully exuberant.
I hope that in the next debate, we can see Yang or Tulsi really show us that energy.
Because you know what?
You know what I really, really hate about the Democrats, and this is what Trump has?
It's exuberance.
When Hillary Clinton says, you know, I can't remember exactly what she said, but Trump says, you'd be in jail.
You know, that off-the-cup, quick-witty snap.
And it was like, reality TV, like, WWE, like, woo!
Everybody's like, whoa!
That showed Trump was quick on his feet, and he made a point.
I can't remember exactly what he said.
You guys will all remember.
It'll be all over the comments about what Hillary said.
But, um, the point is, you look at the Democrats and they're all very stocky and stodgy and, yes, when I am president, we are going to end the Remain in Mexico policy with an executive order.
It's like, okay, Castro, I get it.
You're trying to act like Obama.
Same thing for Beto O'Rourke.
They're all trying to act like Obama.
Can someone get up on the stage and just be a kind of like left-wing Trump?
Can be like a Democrat Trump and be like, Joe, Joe, stop.
No, I don't want to hear it, man.
Joe, I respect your career, I respect what you've done, but please, okay, please, you need to pass the torch down.
And Booker, don't give me that.
You're not Spartacus.
Move on.
Buttigieg, you're reading from a playbook that was like generic Democratic responses, okay?
Even Tulsi, I would like to see actually, you know, I respect Tulsi for being, you know, a major in the National Guard and for being very stoic, and it is rather Stereotypically presidential.
I'm not trying to... I mean that respectfully.
That, you know, everyone's trying to pull that, you know, demeanor and be, you know, very, you know, stand up tall and say, listen, we as a nation need to understand... No, no, no.
I don't want to see that.
I don't care anymore.
I'm just so over this.
The politicking, the posturing, the BS, the... Dude, Bernie had a heart attack, man.
Be honest, okay?
I want to see... I want to see somebody get up on stage and just be honest and say, you know, someone will be like, You know, if someone said to me, Tim, what about that one time you did this?
I'd be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And?
You wanna rag it?
You wanna come at me and say, six years ago, you did this, and you should, yeah, I hear ya, I agree.
You know, I think we need to understand that times change, and we need to do better, and yeah, okay, right on, great.
Well, here's what I wanna do, right?
Let's not talk about what you're upset about someone did in the past.
They're talking about what Biden did in the 80s.
Like, oh please, dude, it's all fake.
It's the fakest, just fake, fake, fake.
I just can't stand it.
I wanna see someone get up on the stage and just be like, Yeah, you know, everybody's losing their minds and, you know, we need some reality.
This is the thing.
Trump has that about him.
Okay?
That's what people think.
You look at Trump and he's not going to say it.
He's just going to say it.
And then you get all these people in the press, even Nate Silver, saying Trump just confesses.
Okay.
The Democrats look like they're full of it.
And this is a perfect example.
Look, I'm sad to hear the news, but I'm glad he's okay.
But this is the problem.
He should have come out right away and said, yep, I've been working as hard as I possibly can.
You know what I would have rather heard?
If Bernie's team said, Bernie's been pushing 16-hour days, traveling over the world, and fighting for you.
And unfortunately, it caught up with him.
But rest assured, he will not back down, and nothing will stand in his way.
On camera, Rashida Tlaib is seen discussing how they could go about arresting White House officials.
I don't think it's the most shocking thing ever, but maybe this is just because we're becoming desensitized.
I mean, is it crazy now to see an acting Democrat in Congress say, we need the DC police, perhaps?
How do we go and arrest them?
Where do we hold them?
And that to me is kind of scary.
But the reason I say it's not super shocking is that the rhetoric from the squad and people like Tlaib has been increasingly off.
Just off, right?
So you see like Ocasio-Cortez does this big tweet where she says the bigger national scandals, they won't impeach Trump.
And then a couple weeks later, she's like, it's so boring.
I am over it.
We've got other things to work on.
And I'm like, do you have a plan?
Do you know what you're doing?
So now we see this.
And I just go, yeah, yeah, yeah, come on.
What else is new?
The squad are crazy.
But maybe it is really serious, and we should take it seriously, because think about what would actually happen if House Democrats tried to order marshals or police to go and arrest Bill Barr.
I mean, the DOJ is not going to do it.
Trump is the head of the executive branch.
It wouldn't happen.
But then you're going to start seeing people on the left say, how do you actually arrest those who run the executive branch if Trump can pardon at a federal level?
Like, how does this work?
So this all goes back to subpoenas.
And here's, like, the bigger problem here, and I think the big root of this, and I'll have a bigger video for you coming up at 4 p.m., is there's literally no truth anymore.
And I know that, I know, in politics, I should say.
You know, I could tell you something like, see that window?
If I throw this rock at the window, the window will break.
And you can say, it likely will.
There's a chance you miss.
There's a chance the glass is strung.
But for the most part, we get it.
Rock through window, broken glass.
But in politics, we have partisan media and failures to fact check.
And we don't know who's right or who's wrong.
And we have framing devices.
So when you look at it from the perspective of the Democrats, they say something like, we subpoenaed Bill Barr and Wilbur Ross.
They did not comply with subpoenas.
Therefore, they are being held in contempt of Congress.
And that's the big issue here.
A story from July at the House held William Barr and Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt.
Criminal contempt of Congress.
Now here's the thing.
Ross and Barr both claimed they complied with the subpoenas and cooperated and submitted tens of thousands of documents.
I'm sorry, who do you believe?
That's it.
There's the breakdown.
What do you do?
Well, the Democrats are insisting something be done.
They're held in contempt.
They must be arrested.
But they're saying, but they completely complied.
Who decides?
A judge?
It doesn't matter.
Because you could actually look at Bill Burr, Bill Barr, sorry, Bill Burr, William Barr submitting thousands of documents and saying, see, he submitted the documents.
And then they'll argue, what about other documents?
And then where's the line?
Who determines?
And I suppose this is why we have checks and balances.
But I'm actually concerned to, you know, I'm worried.
I find it disconcerting.
You know, what happens when we reach that level?
Right now they want to impeach the president.
Man, I am so over that conversation.
But, you know, it'll still be a glazing over a little bit.
It'll get mentioned, right?
What happens if they actually do?
Trump has warned of a civil war.
Not his direct quote, somebody else's, but a civil war.
A civil war-like divide, to be completely clear.
What happens?
What would happen if you actually saw law enforcement personnel take away the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce?
I mean, we're actually talking about now the potential for civil war.
And I'm so sick and tired of this conversation, but I mean, look, you want to talk about the culture war and the fight and the battle over truth and opinion.
I get it.
We can talk about that.
That's kind of a cold civil war.
But right now we're entering the territory of a congresswoman saying, you know, let me read this actually.
This is the first time we've ever had a situation like this, she said.
So they're trying to figure out, no joke, is it the DC police that goes and gets them?
We don't know.
Where do we hold them?
What do you think happens when this Cold Civil War escalates to the point where they're actually arresting White House officials?
Yeah, you're gonna see the left say, good, and you're gonna see the right say, oh my god, this is super corrupt, they've done nothing wrong.
We're at the door right now.
This is the door.
This is the Democrats.
Again, I want to stress when I said that it's not shocking, it's because they always say insane things.
But I think we need to get real, and the shocking things they say will eventually find their way to reality.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sitting on her bed on an Instagram live, talked about concentration camps on the border.
That culminated in a man showing up with firebombs and a ghost AR-15.
And he died.
Like, that happened.
And his rhetoric in his manifesto that he released— I shouldn't say letter.
It wasn't a big manifesto.
It was like a three-page letter or something.
Or maybe it was bigger than that.
So maybe it was a manifesto.
I don't know.
But he parroted her remarks.
He looked to her like a leader.
I'm not blaming Ocasio-Cortez for the actions of a lunatic.
She's entitled to her opinion, she's allowed to broadcast them, and of course we understand that it could lead to this position.
It'll never be her fault, and she will always be allowed to have her opinions.
I want to make sure that's clear.
We have to make sure we draw the line between actions and deeds.
You're allowed to be dumb.
You're not allowed to act on being dumb and going and hurting people.
That's not an excuse.
But what we're seeing now is Rashida Tlaib talking about, you know, the arresting of White House officials.
Imagine if you would.
A door in front of us.
On the other side of that door is actual civil war.
Let me be clear.
The general understanding of a civil war is when two factions fight over control of one government.
Just because we aren't seeing physical conflict doesn't mean we can't technically say we're at the front door, right?
So, we've seen street-level conflict between the opposing culture war factions, but now we're seeing an actual fight over control of this government, and it is not through the electoral process.
This is where I think we're at the door, okay?
What does that turn into?
I don't know.
But I assure you, if she's actually entertaining this, and they do want to arrest Barr and Ross, I assure you, the other side of that door is close.
This is opening that door.
If they actually take action, they will have stepped through it.
And you will now have an actual faction in the Culture War taking direct executive action against the other faction in this Cold Civil War, or whatever that may be.
That is a direct attempt at taking control, or at least hurting...
It's hard to know what is that famous shot heard around the world in any kind of circumstance.
When we look back to the Revolutionary War, there actually isn't one great shot heard around the world.
It's a reference they use to talk about the start of a conflict.
But when you're in the weeds, you don't really know where that conflict starts.
And I've talked about this quite a bit.
That we may look back in 50 years and say it started with Occupy Wall Street.
It started in 2013 or 14 with Gamergate.
We don't know.
We don't know.
It may go back just before, maybe the economic crisis.
We don't know what that great catalyst was, or the true shot heard around the world.
But I would say in terms of falling off the precipice, the point at which we can't turn back, would probably be them going and arresting White House officials.
So the story says, and I know I don't read it, but I'll give you a little bit of context.
Rashida Tlaib told Detroit constituents at her Congress Coffee and Conversation event on Tuesday that lawmakers are focused on how best to take cabinet members into custody.
An American Rising PAC tracker caught Tlaib on video speculating what could happen to Trump administration officials held in contempt of Congress, which they've already done.
The Congresswoman pointed to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr, who were both held in criminal contempt of Congress for defying Congressional subpoenas.
The House voted 230-198.
It was the second time in U.S.
history a sitting Cabinet member was held in criminal contempt of Congress.
The first was former Attorney General Eric Holder, whom the Republican-controlled House held in contempt in 2012 after Holder refused to turn over documents pertaining to the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.
Tlaib said her colleagues are trying to tread carefully in this uncharted territory.
I will tell them they can hold all those people right here in Detroit, she joked.
We'll take care of them and make sure they show up to the committee hearings.
This is a lie.
This is unprecedented.
Never before.
So, again, going back to that shot heard around the world moment.
Maybe it would go back to Eric Holder being held in contempt.
But here's the thing, it's a different scandal, and I love how they try and act like Obama had no scandals.
Oh please, that was massive.
But I don't believe Holder was ever arrested or anything like that.
I genuinely, I have a legitimate fear over what comes next.
And that's always what I've asked when it comes to these conversations about the cultural war, the cold civil war, whatever you want to call it.
What comes next?
Ocasio-Cortez said concentration camps.
And I absolutely hold a negative opinion of her saying that because I do believe you have a responsibility when you have a large audience.
I believe she's allowed to say it.
It's very complicated.
And, you know, in that I understand why there are so many people who claim that we have to get a hold on this speech, right?
They say, we know that speech leads to violence.
And it's like, well, of course it does.
Of course it does.
We know that ideas have to exist and ideas lead to action.
And actions lead to ideas.
It's an inverse.
It's just consequence.
It's just something that happens.
The line for me is that she's allowed to do it.
And I'm not going to blame her because she said something dumb and then someone else went out and took action.
She didn't tell them to do it.
If she did say go do X, I'd hold her personally responsible.
But what comes next?
You say this, please ask yourself this question.
Rashida Tlaib saying this, in my opinion, was also extremely irresponsible.
She's basically just walked all of us to that door where on the other side it's faction versus faction.
If she's talking about the DC police, she's talking about legal executive authority to go after her political rivals.
There was criticism over Trump for talking about Hillary Clinton.
Now here's the thing.
The thing about Hillary Clinton and the emails is that what she did with the emails is undeniably a violation of—my understanding is she broke the law.
I mean, a public official cannot break public record or cannot destroy public record.
And she did that.
After she was subpoenaed, she destroyed them.
In this instance, you have an argument over whether or not they complied fully.
When Trump comes out and says Hillary Clinton should be locked up over the email scandal, I look at that and say, I mean, here's a public official who destroyed public records, smashed phones with hammers.
We had that one guy who was accused of going on Reddit and asking how to remove her name from emails because they were really concerned about it.
I mean, that all sounds like criminal conspiracy.
At the very least, you could argue, destroying public records is a crime.
Maybe she gets 30 days in jail.
I mean, it may be more severe than that.
I believe the law actually states she would no longer be eligible to hold public office.
But that's clear.
She was subpoenaed.
She destroyed records.
No matter what the records are, what they were, or what the point was, she did.
Okay.
No action taken.
You see?
Perhaps it was because there was concern it would lead to a dramatic escalation, even though she broke the law.
And that, I find deplorable.
But in this instance, we see that... Let me see if I can find this quote.
I don't want to...
Here we go.
In a letter to Secretary Pelosi ahead of Wednesday's vote, Barr and Ross decried Democrats' move to hold them in criminal contempt.
We strongly disagree with any suggestion that our departments have obstructed this investigation."
They wrote, adding that the departments have turned over tens of thousands of documents.
It is unfortunate that the House has scheduled a vote to hold two sitting members of the
president's cabinet in contempt of Congress, given the clear record of cooperation.
After the vote, the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, called the move ridiculous and lawless.
House Democrats know they have no legal right to these documents, but their shameful and cynical politics know no bounds.
Whatever.
You can disregard every argument I've made about them.
It doesn't matter.
That's my personal opinion.
In the end, there is a real and serious consequence to arresting members of the Trump cabinet and White House.
And I think that's at least a milestone in whatever we could call the Cultural Civil War, the Cold Civil War.
And Rashida Tlaib is talking about it.
This is not the crossing of the line.
It's her walking us up to the line and saying, we're trying to figure out how to step over this.
That worries me, that they're actually talking about doing it.
But I don't know.
I don't know what's gonna happen.
I just know that everything's falling apart, so here's what I'm gonna do.
Coming up the next video, I want to talk about the collapse of shared reality, the media.
The New York Times published a fake interview with a Trump supporter, and I want to talk about what's going on and how I believe the Democrats are stuck in this cycle with a media that is lying and desperate, and we'll get into that.
So go to youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m.
That's where it'll be.
I will see you all there.
There is a massive political problem when it comes to trans rights issues, and the big problem is that many of the more extreme activists for trans rights have figured out how to weaponize cancel culture and cause career damage to people who work in academia.
This is not an attack or condemnation on the trans community as a whole.
It is a small group of people, and there are many people I actually follow and listen to on this point.
This is not an opinion that I just want to one day come up with.
It's from watching creators and People who are trans who talk about these issues.
Recently, to cite reference, you saw what happened with ContraPoints, who is a left-wing, very popular, very famous YouTuber, who was attacked because of comments about non-binary trans.
So the point is, the activists actually make it much more difficult for everybody to have a conversation about what we should or shouldn't be doing.
And it's a fact that this video and my channel are at risk simply for talking about some of these things.
And I'll give you the big story now, and I'll talk about some of the things arising out of it.
Sky News reports hundreds of young trans people seeking help to return to their original gender.
A woman who detransitioned in 2018 says there are many people who have had gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn't, and the most alarming thing is they tend to be females.
This particular woman who detransitioned says that many of the people she talks to, the most of them, are young women who are same-sex attracted who transitioned and then realized it was incorrect.
This actually lines up a lot with what we've seen from the lesbian community when they've said that Trans rights activism is erasing lesbianism.
Now look, I'm not here to tell you who is right or who is wrong.
I can only read this story and give you my thoughts.
But it is a fact that there's been scientific research on things such as rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which we saw, predominantly targeted young females.
They tend to be autistic as well.
That study was removed due to outrage from activists.
And I want to make sure I make it clear, it's not even trans activists for the most part.
It is the weird fringe left that will latch onto anything.
This cancel culture is causing serious harm to science.
I want to read this story, but I definitely want to highlight something even more alarming from a Guardian reporter.
This is from Oliver Burkman.
He says in a tweet, quote, We sought the views of methodologists and clinical trial statisticians, but few were prepared to speak publicly for fear of reprisal.
The research didn't provide the NHS with any of the annual progress reports it requires researchers to submit.
This has to do with puberty blockers, and we're now learning that it's actually potentially harmful.
And the main point we're seeing from many people is that the people who research this stuff are scared to talk about the potential consequences of taking this medication because of fear of reprisal.
That's terrifying.
Now the reason I highlight that, moving into the story, is that in response to this guy and his story, there's absolutely been a backlash.
Everyone who dares talk about it is being called transphobic.
And they say that you're latching onto the stories of a few fringe individuals to try and discredit the whole movement.
So, simply by talking about it, I assure you, I will face tons of flak and criticism.
And, yeah, well, I get it.
But let's read.
Sky News reports.
Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original genders.
A woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.
Charlie Evans, 28, was born female, but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.
The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high, but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.
Now, one of the things presented in this argument Is that young women are susceptible to peer pressure and societal pressures.
So you take a young woman, who happens to be tomboyish, or same-sex attracted, and you see the willingness of the mainstream society to say, oh you're trans and things like this, and then you end up with confused young people who start to transition.
This is what we're seeing.
Does it mean every trans person is wrong?
No.
Does it mean that children can't be trans?
Absolutely not.
I'm not saying that.
You want to bring up an argument about the age at which a child understands... I say child as in someone under 18, okay?
You can have that argument.
The point is, there are some who are pressured, peer pressure or parental pressure or otherwise, that come to regret their decision, okay?
They say, there is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological gender.
Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year, and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.
I'm in communication with 19 and 20 year olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn't, and their dysphoria hasn't been relieved.
They don't feel better for it, she says.
They don't know what their options are now.
Charlie says she has been contacted by hundreds of people seeking help.
30 people alone in her area of Newcastle.
I think some of the common characteristics are that they tend to be around their mid-twenties, they're mostly female, mostly same-sex attracted, and often autistic as well.
She recalls being approached by a young girl with a beard, who hugged her after giving a public talk, who explained she was a detransitioned woman too.
And now she has a beard for the rest of her life.
There are things you can do, but...
That's what happens.
She said she felt shunned by the LGBT community for being a traitor, so I felt I had something to do.
Charlie is now launching a charity called the Detransition Advocacy Network, with their first meeting set to be held in Manchester at the end of the month.
Sky News went to meet one person who has contacted Charlie's network for help.
She does not want to be identified, so we have changed her name.
Ruby is now 21, but first began identifying as male at 13.
After taking testosterone, her voice got a lot deeper.
She grew facial hair and her body changed.
She had been planning to have surgery to remove her breasts in summer.
However, in May, Ruby voiced the growing doubts she had been harboring and made the decision to come off testosterone and detransition to identify as female.
I didn't think any change was going to be enough in the end, and I thought it was better to work on changing how I felt about myself than changing my body, says Ruby.
I've seen similarities in the way I experience gender dysphoria in the way I experience other body image issues.
This is a very important point.
They're absolutely gender dysphoric people.
They absolutely can be helped by a confirmation surgery, to use the common parlance, and therapies to help them, whether it's hormone therapy, actual mental therapy, to help them figure out how to relieve this dysphoria.
It's also true that people experience general body dysmorphia, and you may have people who Present similar symptoms to gender dysphoria and then get misdiagnosed, I guess.
Look, I don't have all the solutions.
I don't know what we should or shouldn't do.
I do know that if we're experiencing this now, the conversation needs to happen.
And I also know that anybody who wants to talk about it faces a fear of reprisal.
Now, look, I don't work in academia.
I have no boss.
My boss is technically me, which means anybody can slam me and smear me and say whatever they want, fine, whatever.
I don't care.
But it's been brought up before.
Jesse Singleton, in response to that tweet from Berkman, says, remember,
this is totally normal and anyone with any qualms about the diagnostic processes surrounding youth
gender dysphoria treatment, treatment for which we have basically no long-term outcome data,
is a hardened bigot who literally wants trans people dead.
Yeah, you go with that.
See, Jesse has been attacked a lot for bringing up simple points and simple questions.
And that's what we're seeing now, the real ramifications of what happens when you don't talk about this.
We don't have long-term studies on this.
In fact, there are famous anecdotal studies that have proved to backfire much in the same way.
So how do you solve this problem?
I honestly can't tell you, because I don't know.
I don't think I should have the answers, and I absolutely don't, because I'm not the smartest person in the world.
I can't tell you.
When we're seeing this, perhaps we need to calm down, ignore the cancel culture activists, and have a real conversation.
Ruby explains she also had an eating disorder, but she does not feel that issue was explored in the therapy sessions she had when she went to gender identity services.
When I was at my gender clinic to get referred for hormones, we had a session where I went over my mental health issues and I told them about my eating disorder, and they didn't suggest that that could maybe be connected with my gender dysphoria.
For everyone who has gender dysphoria, whether they are trans or not, I want there to be more options for us because I think there is a system of saying, okay, here's your hormones, here's your surgery, off you go.
I don't think that's helpful for anyone.
There's a series of questions I have, and these are legitimate questions.
It's often difficult to ask real questions because any, any questioning is considered blasphemous and transphobic.
But here's my question.
ContraPoints talked about binary trans people.
You know, somebody who was born male and presents male and then wants to present as female.
But then you have non-binary trans folk.
They say that gender is a social construct.
If a biological female can be a woman but dress in a three-piece suit and play sports and be the CEO of a company, traditionally masculine roles, And a biological male can put on a gown and dance around, traditionally female roles.
What is the biological requirement for being male or female?
And if you are trans, can't you just be male presenting female trans?
There are people on Twitter, male individuals, there's one tweet, I believe it might be a parody, but there are other examples of this where someone will be presenting as totally male, say they present male, but they are a trans woman who presents as male, right?
So think about it this way.
A female can wear a suit and be a female and be a woman and be straight.
A male can wear a dress and be a male who's attracted to women and be straight.
They just call it cross-dressing.
But what's the difference then?
If you can have a trans person who isn't on hormones, where is that quantification?
I mean that as a legitimate question.
Because if it's true that gender is a social construct, and that a female can wear whatever she wants and still be female, why is it that trans people Want to get surgery in the first place if women can be biologically male.
I'm genuinely confused by that.
I don't see how that overlaps.
And that's why I think ContraPoint's got a lot of trouble for pointing this out.
The trans people that I've talked to who have transitioned to female talk about how they believe in binary gender and that's why they wanted to transition.
But you do have people who look like I do with a beard and regular clothes and say that they are a trans woman who presents male and is attracted to women.
In which case, I genuinely don't understand.
Now, I will stress.
I gotta get to this final point.
I gotta keep these short.
They say they now have a record number of referrals and see 3,200% more patients than they did 10 years ago, with an increase for girls up 5,337%.
This is for the NHS center, right?
Children, they say, is under 18.
That's the point I was making earlier.
I highlight this because I have a question.
Why is it that there are substantially more women going through this than men?
Is something happening that's telling women, you know, are women more susceptible?
Are females more susceptible?
I genuinely would like to ask.
And I wonder if it's tied to feminism.
Because we're telling women to endorse masculine roles.
That they should be in the workplace, they should be CEOs, traditionally masculine.
I'm not saying it should be, but it is, traditionally.
But we're not seeing a lot in the media telling men to be traditionally feminine, househusbands and not working and things like that.
In which case, I feel like you'll find young women being told to play sports, and then when they do, they're told they're acting like a boy, and then when they do, they're told it's because they're secretly trans.
I think that's a potential outcome of this.
It may be why there are more girls transitioning than boys.
Maybe it's biological, I honestly don't know.
But we are seeing this.
And all I can really say is, if people want to de-transition, we need to have a conversation about it.
Because this is affecting people's lives.
But, you know, hey, it is what it is.
I fully expect to get in trouble on YouTube for even talking about it.
That's the world we live in.
5-4-3-2-1.
Wait for the tweets.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
No men allowed!
Hotel opens in Spain.
I saw this a while ago, and I'm not surprised.
I actually don't think this is news, but I do think it's a great launching off point to talk about gender politics in the Western world.
And I have seen... Look, when you travel around a lot, I've used hostels.
Private room hostels, right?
Me and my friends will share one room with bunk beds.
I do not like using open room hostels with strangers because then you risk getting your stuff stolen, especially if I have to work and edit, but there are circumstances where a hostel can be great.
It is a fact that there are male and female only dorms.
That's not even controversial.
It's normal.
So when I heard about this no men allowed hotel, I thought, who cares?
It's not new.
This is just what they do.
All we're really seeing is they're trying to use this as a marketing ploy.
They found a niche.
They want to launch a business.
They're like, I bet we can do this and push.
But they exist.
They literally exist.
It's actually law in the US that you're allowed to discriminate based on gender when it comes to renting out your property.
Or finding a roommate.
If someone was gonna live with you, to clarify, renting out your property.
You can say, no men allowed.
That's legal.
Women don't have to, by law, live with men.
This is where things start getting really, really interesting, though.
The gender breakdown, okay?
In New York, they recognize 31 genders.
Well, the law doesn't state gender.
It says, you know, based on sex or whatever.
In which case, the new law updates means you officially can't discriminate based on someone's gender.
So think about this.
We'll read the story, but I want to, you know, get into the greater context of what we're going to be talking about, and it's that Let's say you apply for a bedroom on Craigslist and they say, you know, females only.
And then you claim you are.
And then you claim they discriminated against you based on your identity.
That's public accommodation.
I wonder if there's an exemption in terms of telling a trans person they can't room with you.
Or thinking about a hotel like this.
They say no men allowed.
Does that mean no trans men either?
And does it mean yes trans women?
These are questions that I think Need to be answered.
In the U.S., it's admittedly different than it is in Europe.
The laws are not the same in different countries.
I get it.
But culturally, we are very similar, so I wonder where they would stand on allowing biological males who identify as female, whether they present female or not, to stay there.
In which case, going off of the last segment I did, someone like me could say, oh, I present male, but I am trans.
You can't deny me.
I don't know if the law would be in Spain, but let's read the story.
Eshka reports.
Another business has opened up with an anti-male gimmick.
And she nails it.
It's a gimmick.
It's not a new thing.
They've been around for a while.
A hotel on the Spanish island of Majorca opened last week boasting that it is just for women, hoping to, quote, disconnect from the stress of daily life that offers personalized care tailored to their needs.
From Samdham's website.
With bold decoration inspired by feminine features, this modern, functional, and unique hotel in Porto Cristo guarantees a truly relaxing vacation on the seashore surrounded by nature.
At this hotel, you can enjoy the best healthy cuisine made with zero-kilometer products, a wellness area, a pool, free Wi-Fi, comfortable rooms, a bar lounge, and a unique atmosphere designed for women.
A broad range of services and plans designed specifically for a feminine audience that will turn your stay into an unforgettable experience.
This is a Spanish hotel.
The article is in English.
UK and the US have similar trans rights laws.
They said women.
They also said specifically for a feminine audience.
So they're not saying female.
They're saying women and feminine.
That could be a trans woman.
I'm curious then.
I'm not saying they would discriminate.
I'm curious what their position would be.
And then you also have to enter this territory of What if you are a biological female and you hear this?
And to you?
Because the average person would understand it this way.
No males.
No biological maleness.
But to anybody who's savvy to the political, you know, culture war and such, might assume this would include trans individuals.
In which case, you might find a male-presenting trans woman who demands the right to stay there.
In which case, are they really offering anything at all if they can't discriminate?
I think the conversations need to be had if we're going to work through these issues and come to a point in the future where we have resolved them.
It is a fact that we have the Equality Act going through, you know, being pushed by Congress, and if we're going to get that through, then a conversation needs to be had to figure out where everyone lies and what we're all comfortable with as a society.
Of course, whenever you talk about these things, you run the risk of getting in trouble on YouTube, but I have no problem doing that.
That's why I'm doing two videos in a row about it.
Yes, certainly there are all things only women enjoy.
Women aged 14 and older can check into the hotel for about $93 a night.
It features 39 rooms, many of which appear to include a vanity table.
The only hint this hotel is anything other than a regular hotel.
Did you know that you can be wild, healthy, fun, beautiful, relaxed, adventurous, curious, and social all at once, the website asks?
Well, no, actually.
I did not know that, feminist hotel.
Yahoo News reported that Samdam may be the first woman-only hotel in Spain, but others exist in the world.
Okay, so this is literally the point I was making.
Especially when it comes to hostels and certain living arrangements, it is not unusual to see this.
There are other women-only hotels elsewhere in the world, such as Luthan Hotel and Spa in Saudi Arabia.
That's for obvious reasons!
Some travel websites, such as Halal Booking, offers resorts in Turkey and Morocco with women-only pools, the outlet reported.
And this brings me to the next point.
Have you noticed something?
They're highlighting specifically Saudi Arabia and Halal Booking.
What's going on?
Honest question.
It seems like there's an overlap between feminists who want a hotel just for women and fundamental Abrahamic religious folk who also want women-only facilities.
There's also a very obvious overlap between the activists, like Linda Sarsour, who has said positive things about sharia law, and the feminist movement in this country.
I don't quite understand it.
It is an Abrahamic religion.
I grew up on the left.
We were very much mocking the religions of Abraham.
I'm not joking.
They make parody, making fun of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
And now all of a sudden, Christians get berated on social media and insulted, but the left at the same time is embracing another Abrahamic religion.
I get it.
They're not the same, but they share the same root.
Please, I mean no disrespect.
Enlighten me.
Help me understand why this is the case.
Is it a coincidence that halal booking will serve feminists as well as fundamentalist religious folk?
The Mirror reported.
The hotel does employ some men to avoid gender discrimination laws.
Yahoo reported that such discriminatory endeavors have had problems in the past, such as the 2017 Women Only Music Festival in Sweden, which was found guilty of discrimination by the country.
You see, that's an interesting point.
Sweden, they couldn't do it.
Another anti-male business folded earlier this year after falsely claiming women are paid less than men and charging men more than women for the same products.
Handsome Her, a vegan cafe in Brunswick, Melbourne, declared when it opened that it would charge
men 18% more to close the alleged gender wage gap, which doesn't exist.
And it's also really interesting because I did a video about, here we go, we're going
to reignite this issue.
Thirty-year-old women with careers are struggling to find men who make as much money as them.
So let me ask you this.
If there's a gender wage gap and women make less than men for the same job, it's not true, but assuming you think it is, then why do you think it's a problem that women with careers in their 30s can't find men who make more money than them?
I thought all men did.
You see where we're going with this?
Yeah.
Anyway.
The cafe closed earlier this year, though there was no indication the anti-male discrimination played a factor.
Nah, businesses go under.
It's normal.
As faithful readers know, the gender wage gap is caused almost entirely by the different choices men and women make in their careers.
It is not a measure of how much men are paid versus women in the same job, with the same experience, talent, and education.
One also knows that if a hotel were to open boasting that it was for men only, the feminist outrage mob would descend upon it like wolves on sheep.
It would be harangued for its discrimination, rightly so.
But such anger is not being given to the women-only hotel, which instead is being celebrated by media outlets and covered in a positive light.
Meanwhile, modern outrage feminists claim women are oppressed in the civilized world.
So let's end with this one thought, just to give a good kick in the butt to this gender discriminatory hotel.
Women are more likely to go to college and graduate.
Millennial women actually make more money than millennial men, which could be why women in their 30s are not finding men to date.
And at the last point, women in their 30s are not finding men who make more money than them to date.
If we play off your standard tropes, Which I'm not saying is entirely fair, I'm just saying.
Going off the modern expectations and stereotypes of society, women are attracted to men with status confidence.
They say confidence is extremely important.
And men are attracted to attractive women.
Women whose bodies are attractive.
And they say the reason for this is that men want to have babies and women need security.
Well, a problem arises then with modern feminism.
If the majority of college graduates are women, if men aren't earning a lot of money, a man will always, based on these tropes, be attracted to a beautiful woman, but a woman will not always be attracted to a beautiful man.
These are tendencies, not absolutes.
It could be the tendency is 51 to 49.
51% of women like status and 51% of men like beautiful women.
But I don't think that's true.
I think stereotypes emerge as exaggerated patterns.
They're not absolutes.
It's just someone will notice something and then a stereotype emerges in which it's more extreme.
The point is, In the end, I don't want to devolve into a conversation about men and women and, you know, dating and stuff, so I'll just wrap this up by saying, how do we navigate a no-men-allowed hotel?
As Ash mentions, we would be outraged if it was a men-only hotel.
Why the double standard?
Well, certainly it isn't equality to allow one for women but not for men.
That's the opposite of equality.
That's discriminating against women by assuming they're weaker than men, right?
Framing in perspective.
There's no right way to answer this question.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
I thought it was fun.
Whatever.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I think Bill Maher's great.
I used to watch a lot of Bill Maher maybe like 13 years ago.
I can't remember how long.
I think I was like 18.
The show's been on for a long time.
And I find Bill Maher to be imperfect, but I agree with a lot of what he says.
I always have to mention the criticism about the recession claims because that is just absurd elitism, Bill, to claim that we should welcome a recession to get rid of Trump.
I'm sorry.
People kill themselves.
Lives are destroyed.
But for the most part, I agree.
I find that many of the segments I've done, he does similar segments.
In fact, he even cited the same study as me about how white liberals have an out-group preference.
The only group in the study.
Everyone prefers their own family and people and community, except for white liberals who hate white liberals.
And white conservatives, too, for sure.
Here's the point.
Bill Maher is a relatively reasonable individual.
He sometimes has bad opinions.
That's okay, though.
He's willing to bring on people like Milo Yiannopoulos onto his show and have the conversation.
Now they're coming for him.
Here's Fair.
Fair in accuracy in reporting the phony liberalism of Bill Maher.
Oh, heavens!
We knew it was only a matter of time before Bill Maher was called alt-right or whatever.
Now he's being called a phony liberal.
So it's step one.
We are at the door, which is now being opened, Bill, in which you will be called conservative.
Despite everything he does and says, media still call HBO host a liberal.
Why?
Yes, because he supports liberals.
Most liberal positions.
He is an atheist.
He pushes back on religion.
But something changed, and I don't know what or when.
But it was solidified with the election of Donald Trump, and now the past left and right is fractured.
And elements of the left and the right have merged on both sides, and it's weird.
Never Trumpers joining with voting for Hillary Clinton?
Occupy Wall Street activists and former Bernie supporters now voting for Trump?
Don't tell me, but I will tell you this.
Bill Maher, you've landed square on the right.
Just like everybody else who is liberal, who believes in liberal policy positions, but pushes back on the fundamentalist nature, the dogmatic nature of the insane left.
Let's read.
Fair says, Bill Maher rose from being an edgy, opinionated comedian to
becoming one of the most influential and recognizable faces in our media.
His political talk show, Real Time with Bill Maher, has been on HBO since 2003, spanning
17 seasons with over 500 episodes to date.
Real Time continues to be one of the most popular shows on cable, drawing in more than
4 million viewers per episode.
I do not believe that's true.
Maybe with reruns.
Because I know, like, the ratings for The Knight, it's like, he's done like 1.5 to 2.
But typically I've seen 1.5.
I guess with reruns, though.
But hey, hey, I'm happy!
I'm absolutely excited that Bill Maher can get up on his show and call the Democrats crazy.
Thank you.
We need that.
We do.
I think the real issue is not that Bill Maher is a phony liberal.
I think he's an actual liberal.
I think he's an actual liberal.
Well, I should say he's what we used to call liberals in this country.
People like me.
I agree with a ton of what Bill Maher says.
I disagree with the elitist portion of it, right?
And I think he does have TDS, Trump Derangement Center.
That's fine.
But I grew up watching his show.
And so here we are now.
It was only a matter of time.
Now here's what they're going to do.
They can't come out and say Bill Maher is conservative, because Bill Maher has a long and storied history as a liberal.
It just, you can't do that.
His audience would revolt.
What they can do is say, well, I mean, he's a phony liberal.
Now they've entered into your mind that he might not be completely liberal.
This is how things work, okay?
When it comes to social engineering, and I want to stress the definition of social engineering typically has to do with human hacking.
It's not changing society as a whole, it's usually on an individual level.
When you want to change someone's opinion of something, you can't overcome their reasonable boundaries.
So the way I explain this is, if I told somebody to, you know, eat food off the floor, simple example, they would say, no, that's gross.
If I just outright said, it's actually not, it's completely healthy, they would say, you're nuts, because they have a reasonable boundary.
However, you can inch them to the point where they're sitting on the floor and eating food off the floor if you do something like, You know, have you ever tried, you know, eating off the counter after you clean it, right?
Clean your counter, get it spotless, and then eat off it.
Trust me, you might actually convince someone to do something small.
Not a big change.
Instead of using regular plates, use paper plates.
Ah, use a paper towel.
Just use a paper towel for your sandwich.
You don't need a plate.
You can even do this.
Hey, it's bad for the environment to even, you know, non-temporary plates, I guess,
but I don't need to call them ceramic, are bad for the environment.
It's waste.
You should use paper plates, right?
Because they can be recycled.
Then they switch.
Then you say paper plates are too thick.
You should use paper towels.
And then you finally got them eating off the counter.
You see the point I'm trying to make, okay?
I don't want to go too far.
You get it, you get it.
One step at a time.
They can't come out and say Bill Maher is a hardcore conservative.
They can say he's a bit reactionary.
Okay, he may be a liberal, but he's definitely reactionary.
Then they say, well, he's a phony liberal.
A phony liberal.
And they go even further than that.
So first, The title of it is The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher.
Okay.
Now, they haven't told you Bill Maher is conservative.
They haven't told you he's a libertarian or anything like that.
Because if they did, you would then be like, what?
Get out of here, Bill Maher!
I'm not even gonna read it.
So they call him a phony.
That's all they're saying.
He's just a phony.
Now, you read through the article, and it brings us to the next attack on Bill Maher.
Where they say... Where is it at?
Where is it at?
Okay, um... I'm a libertarian.
There it is.
Halfway down the article, indeed when asked, he has been explicit about his ideology.
Quote, I'm a libertarian, he said to Rolling Stone.
I would be a Republican if they would.
Which means that I like the Barry Goldwater Republican Party, even the Reagan Republican Party.
His choice in naming the two figures whose mission was to upend the liberal order, often through appeals to racism and white nationalism, is telling.
And there it is.
They start you off with something light.
Phony liberal.
They bring you to libertarian.
And in the same paragraph!
Call him a racist and white nationalist.
Boom!
There it is.
You see how they've walked you there.
They can't- Imagine if there were an article saying, Bill Maher supports the party of racism and white nationalism.
They would- Nobody would believe it.
They would be like, you are nuts.
This is how it's done.
Quote, I want a mean old man to watch my money, he added, because government is a sieve that takes as much money as it can and gives it away, usually needlessly.
Yet corporate media continue to describe him as a liberal.
This is an excellently crafted argument, in my opinion.
I'm not saying they're wrong.
That's their opinion.
Their opinion can be whatever they want it to be.
But I think this is crafted perfectly to bring in people who are fans of Bill Maher and walk them through the filtration system that leaves them thinking Bill Maher is a white nationalist.
I am not exaggerating.
They say that.
Appealing to white nationalism is in the article.
Bill Maher is alt-right.
That's where they're walking you through.
And they're doing a really, really, really good job of it.
Let me explain another thing to you.
I often talk about how you change people's opinions, and there's three steps in the basic principles of social engineering on opinion.
It is the rapport, the extreme, and the turn.
Those are the three parent umbrellas.
It can be very complicated, but the rapport would be...
If you want to change someone's mind, and this is the truth, you can't approach them as enemies.
You have to have a rapport with them.
So in the manipulative strategy, what you do is you agree.
You agree with them.
So let's say you meet somebody and they say, I don't like chocolate, they say, I love chocolate ice cream.
You agree with them.
You high-five them and say, chocolate is the best.
It is absolutely the best, right?
Nothing can beat chocolate.
You've now told them, I'm just like you.
This lowers their barriers.
The next step is the extreme.
The extreme is something they cannot agree with.
The extreme would be something like, I think chocolate is so good, I would literally eat chocolate ice cream if you stuffed dirt and human waste in it.
That's how good chocolate is.
They're gonna be like, oh, what?
No way!
And then you say, okay, I guess not every chocolate ice cream is good.
It's that simple.
They still leave that conversation liking chocolate ice cream.
But what you've done is, you've basically incepted them into the idea that chocolate is not perfect.
You've made it their idea that there is a limit to what chocolate could be.
Think about it in terms of politics.
Barack Obama.
Someone says, I love Obama.
The first thing you do is you high five and say, me too.
I love Obama too.
Now that they think you're the same, you present them with an extreme.
You say something like, you know the best thing Obama's ever done?
And then cite something horrifying, which I won't do.
But I'll give you an example, like when he drone-striked a family, a small village of 23 women and children, killing the children.
You praise that extensively.
I love how Obama did all this.
Man, it was so amazing.
Dropping those bombs.
Body parts flying.
It was amazing!
You say it's so extreme and intense, the person's gonna be like, that's disgusting and horrifying.
