Leaked Audio Of ABC News Sparks Cry Of Epstein COVER UP, Story Implicates MORE Journalists
Leaked Audio Of ABC News Sparks Cry Of Epstein COVER UP, Story Implicates MORE Journalists. James O'keefe and Project Veritas has released audio of ABC News reporter Amy Robach complaining that her story on Jeffrey Epstein was shut down by the network and she doesn't know why.She says she had "everything" mentions Clinton and goes on to say that "the palace" got wind of the story and the network was scared they would not get to interview Will And Kate.This story is a candid behind the scene view of how these reporters really feel. ABC News issued a statement that flies in the face of their previous reporting. They claimed like many others that they just couldn't corroborate the story.But then how does this explain the Covington story, Kavanaugh reporting, or fake news from Kentucky they recently retracted?It seems that their standards are only high when dealing with powerful people like Epstein, prince Andrew, or Bill Clinton.The story of Epstein is one that could bring together far left, democrats, conservatives, and others. No one believes the official story not even ABC News reporter. But will the media call her fake news for not believing the official story?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have just released hot mic footage of an ABC News anchor talking about how the Epstein story, they had it!
They had everything!
They had Clinton!
For some reason, the story was shut down by the network and she doesn't know why it was taken off the air.
Now, Many of you may have seen this footage already, but there's a lot of other news.
See, back in August, I believe it was, NPR covered why so many outlets failed to report this news about Epstein.
For the sake of doing this video on YouTube and making sure it gets the biggest possible reach, I have to be very, very, very careful about how I word everything we're walking into.
I think Project Veritas is extremely brave For producing this news, Luke Rudkowski, if we are changed, going to the island, all of this stuff is extremely dangerous.
And I'll show you.
There is a great concern that by showing you all of this in context, this video might get deranked, demonetized, shut down.
Keep that in mind.
What we're learning now from this exposé is extremely important.
ABC News is essentially denying it.
But this is wrong, okay?
They're lying.
They are lying across the board.
I will tell you this.
We have definitive reporting from NPR that at least in one instance, one of these journalists appeared to be in on the take.
And they're saying there's tax filings showing a money transfer.
Okay, so maybe I got to be very careful here, you guys.
These journalists have partied with Epstein, have received money from him, so to this ABC News reporter wondering why her story was shut down, we might actually know.
Now, the important thing here is, what NPR reported back in August about how all of these networks, they got Vanity Fair, ABC, and the New York Times shutting down the reporting within, like, years ago, it seems like there's Corruption.
Powerful people who don't want to be put at risk, who are protecting other really, really awful people.
Now, I can't tell you the specifics about what Epstein was accused of, because if I say it, YouTube will shut this down.
I do not want to give them any reason for deranking this content, so I will tell you this.
We're gonna read the gist of what Project Veritas has uncovered.
The outright denial.
The lie.
I will call it a lie.
Outright.
In my opinion.
I gotta say it.
I gotta be careful.
ABC News is lying about this story.
They're claiming it didn't meet their standards or whatever.
BS.
Okay?
ABC News has covered a ton of stuff without evidence.
This had evidence.
But I gotta be careful, so I'll tell you this.
If you like the work that I'm doing, please consider sharing this video.
It is very likely YouTube will strike this video down hard.
They've done in the past.
I have to be very, very careful.
But if you share this, and you share the original leaked audio from Veritas, which I'm sure many of you already have, you can help get this story out.
What I want to add to the Veritas leaked video is the NPR reporting The statement from ABC, bring it all together in one piece and show you the connection these journalists have and why the story won't get out.
See, somebody was complaining.
Why did it have to be James O'Keefe and Veritas who released the audio?
It's really simple, and James mentions it.
Because nobody else would do it.
And let me show you the connections these journalists had to Epstein.
Here's the video, alright?
I'm gonna do my best to make sure I am walking on eggshells here.
You know, I did a couple videos about Hillary Clinton, and they got deranked and demonetized.
I have no idea why.
Because YouTube, whatever the reason.
Leaked insider recording from ABC News reveals network executives killed bombshell story implicating Jeffrey Epstein.
Quote, I've had this story for three years.
ABC would not put it on the air, says Good Morning America breaking news anchor and 2020 co-anchor Amy Robach.
It was unbelievable.
We had Clinton.
We had everything.
She said we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew.
I got a little concerned about why I couldn't get on.
Amy Roback describes how she interviewed a woman who had the courage to come forward years ago about Epstein.
She had pictures.
She had everything.
She had pictures!
That's a quote.
She was in hiding for 12 years.
We convinced her to come out.
We convinced her to talk to us.
Rowback details ABC's initial response to her.
Who's Jeffrey Epstein?
No one knows who that is.
This is a stupid story.
Lies.
Now it's all coming out.
I freaking had all of it.
And she said more.
She says, basically, that they were scared they wouldn't be able to interview Will and Kate once the palace found out.
That's right.
Prince Andrew was implicated in photographs.
And those photos have come out.
That's hard evidence.
Well, I show you now, ABC News, their response, in my opinion, is an outright lie.
They're lying.
They're covering this up.
And I think my reasoning is sound.
ABC News statement.
At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air.
But we have never stopped investigating the story.
Ever since, we've had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it.
That work has led to a two-hour documentary and six-part podcast that will air in the new year.
After the story was broken.
After the arrests were made.
That's when they said, okay, now we're safe.
No, now we have no choice.
They also said, Amy Roback Statement As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration.
I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC's editorial standards about her allegations.
My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had been seen with Bill Clinton on Epstein's private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in the interview in 2015.
I was referencing her allegations, not what ABC News had verified through our reporting.
The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn't air, didn't meet our standards.
In the years since, no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.
The Daily Caller made a very funny statement in response to this.
They said, it's ABC News trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Yeah, you can't really do it, but you can try.
No, Amy's private statements speak for themselves.
Now, I will mention, in this moment, you have to trust, you have to figure out what you think is more likely to be true.
In one instance, you have Amy Roback in a passionate moment saying, we had this.
We had everything.
We had photos.
We had Clinton.
And she's saying that to the people around her.
Now she's issuing a public statement.
I wonder why.
In my personal opinion, her candid, private moment is more likely to be true.
That they had evidence.
You know why?
Because we've seen the photos of this woman with Prince Andrew.
That's corroborating evidence.
And we also know that these outlets, they reported on Covington off of what?
An out-of-context clip?
ABC News recently ran footage of a show in Kentucky claiming it was war footage.
We know all about that.
They had to retract that.
We know all about Kavanaugh and how the media and these companies published all of these allegations without any corroborating evidence.
But for this story, oh no!
We couldn't prove it.
You had a photograph.
You had an interview.
You had witnesses.
You had the lawyers.
You had it on record.
And you said, I don't know why the story was not aired.
And now, caught with the footage going public, you have no choice.
It just didn't meet our standards, please.
What standards?
How many mistakes have you made?
Well, there's still a lot to go through, and I'm going to show you now NPR's reporting.
See, NPR talked about why ABC did not—they talked about how ABC didn't air the story they had, and they talked about how no one knew why ABC refused to talk about their editorial procedures.
The New York Times.
New York Times had a conflict of interest.
Apparently their reporter, I want to make sure I'm careful on this one, may have taken money after being invited to the island.
We have a story from page six going back to 2010.
A bunch of high-profile journalists partying with Epstein.
Is it possible?
Some of these companies are in on the take?
Or is it more simply, like Chris Hayes said about Weinstein and Ronan Farrow, the path of least resistance?
And Epstein had what, nearly $600 million?
Maybe these news companies are just pathetic, shaking in their boots, soaked in urine, unable to actually do real news?
Or perhaps it's because some of their highest profile personalities and these journalists were connected in some capacity, and it was too dangerous for them to do the story.
Well, somebody asks, why couldn't literally anyone else have found the ABC hot mic moment on Epstein?
And O'Keefe said, we've been told by all our insiders they don't trust other news outlets.
This is self-evident by A. Roback's own comments about our network not reporting news.
So the insiders come to Veritas.
Think about this for a second.
On a hot mic, in a private moment, This ABC News anchor says we had everything.
We had Clinton.
Do you know Clinton?
There's logs showing him flying to the island, what, 27 times?
And she says we had it, and we don't know why it didn't air.
That hot mic moment is the proof as to why people aren't going to these networks with this news.
And it also shows us why Veritas is so important.
Now look.
I think Veritas is biased, but I don't think they're wrong.
I don't think they're trying to mislead you.
I think they just have their own framing.
And I'll give you an example of this, because I think it's fair to point out.
When they exposed Pinterest, They showed this list of websites, and the website they chose was LiveAction, a pro-life organization.
They didn't highlight in their exposé anti-media, which was an anti-war left-wing publication also being censored.
And I think that's because they have a bias.
But I also think they were telling the truth in what they were saying.
It's okay if you have a bias.
You're presenting factual information.
I was able to take that and say, here, check this out.
In this instance, what we see from Veritas is a willingness Man, let me just say, James O'Keefe is a brave individual.
I'll say that.
And you also had Luke Rutkowski who went to the island.
I'll tell you what, man, there are people who are taking great risks to themselves and their careers by doing this news.
And as we saw, what we're learning from James O'Keefe with this hot mic leak It's two things.
That the story was shut down by ABC News.
We heard this before from NPR.
But now we can hear it in their own words.
To me, that was an honest moment where they thought they were in private and they were safe.
And while I do sort of lament the breach of privacy to an extent, we need to hear this.
We need to hear the reality.
But we learned something else from this.
These their own high-profile anchors don't understand why their stories are being shut down.
These news companies are not in the interest of telling you the truth and speaking truth to power.
Their interest is protecting their bottom line and even their own personalities are shocked by this.
You know, I will say this.
The Epstein story, it really does bring left and right together.
They disagree on why it's happening.
The left is blaming Barr and the right's blaming Clinton.
I don't care.
Everyone agrees something fishy is afoot.
And that's all that we need.
Because I think at the end of the day, you could take Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks and Steven Crowder and they would both probably say, we agree to investigate this.
Okay.
I could be wrong, I don't know what Cenk's position is, but I'd be willing to bet.
You can find the most ardent Bernie Sanders supporter and Trump supporter, Hillary supporter, whatever, and they would say, investigate it.
Ignore your theories, ignore who you think's responsible, investigate it.
Something's wrong, right?
That's what we need to know.
Why are these journalists shutting this story down?
Check this out.
James O'Keefe has set up Expose ABC News.
Signed the petition.
I believe this is from them.
I could be wrong.
But they say we must demand answers.
Maybe this isn't from James O'Keefe.
I don't want to ascribe this to him if it's not from him.
So, if it is... But they're demanding answers and there's a website for this.
It's on the Project Veritas website, I think James tweeted about it.
But now let's get into the...
Into the NPR story.
I have to be really careful.
So I've set this up in a specific way because I know that if I show you one wrong word, YouTube will shut this video down in two seconds.
Let me just stress, I have a couple videos I made about Hillary Clinton recently, where there was news about her having to do with Tulsi Gabbard and a potential run.
For some reason, those videos got demonetized.
And I have hard manual reviews.
I have people, like, so they review all of my videos now.
Like, they're watching me like a hawk.
And I can't figure out why these videos were taken.
All I was doing was talking about mainstream polling and news, mainstream commentary.
These stories are on NPR, CNN, Fox News, but these two stories on Clinton.
Very strange.
I can talk about a bunch of other things, no problem, but those stories.
So I can't tell you why it is.
I don't know.
I just know that I gotta make sure, when talking about sensitive issues, I do everything in my power to make sure.
That I have stepped on no eggshells.
You know, I've broken no rules.
That being said, I will stress this again.
Normally I do the TimCast Donate Callout.
Share this video if you think this story is important.
Because I firmly believe from, you know, uh... Look, man.
When the story first broke from Project Veritas, this is what I got.
Their website.
504 Air.
Probably because it's called The Hug of Death.
The story was so viral.
But I don't know.
I also know that my initial tweet, Twitter didn't load the metadata.
It didn't do an auto-preview.
I don't know why that is.
I know that one video I did recently, where I showed Project Veritize's website, was hard deranked.
Viewership crashed.
And I had to change the title to YouTube is suppressing this.
I don't know why they're suppressing it.
I don't know why.
No conspiracies here.
It just happened.
You can speculate as to why it happened.
But that's why I'm saying, look, It's possible that we're covering dangerous stories.
Veritas, me, WeAreChange, Lukakowski.
And it could mean the end of our channels, our careers.
But when we all stand up and talk about this, well, they can't do anything about it.
So share this.
Share Veritas.
Let's read.
Vanity Fair.
In a statement, Carter says Vanity Fair takes its legal obligations seriously, especially when the subject is a private person rigorously protected under libel laws.
Carter previously told The Hollywood Reporter that Ward did not have three sources on record, which he said he considered necessary for the story.
This week, Carter amended that.
He says Ward did not have three sources that met the magazine's legal threshold.
For the first time in comments to NPR, Maria and Annie Farmer are publicly confirming they gave interviews to Ward.
They said they both spoke about their abuse on record, by name.
In 2002, their mother, Janice Farmer, tells NPR she did too, and she says they were crestfallen Vanity Fair didn't report the allegations.
Vanity Fair, to give you the context, because I can't show you the rest of the story, These are victims.
On the record, the story went nowhere.
You know what's really crazy?
There's one story circulating where apparently one of these journalists opened their apartment door to see a bullet on the ground in front of their door.
And also the story vanished.
But there's more.
The next up we have NPR's reporting on ABC News.
They say, in 2015, the ABC News team of Amy Roback and Jim Hill secured an interview with
a grief, I'm sorry, I can't pronounce that name, grief, grief.
In a sequence of events confirmed by the network, producers paid for Gaffrey and her family
to fly from Colorado, where they live, to New York City and put them up at the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel on Central Park South.
Roback and her news crews interviewed her on tape for more than an hour about Epstein.
I really wanted a spotlight shown on him and the others who acted with him and enabled his vile and shameless conduct against young girls and young women.
I viewed the ABC interview as a potential game changer.
The story never aired.
And she said she never was told why.
ABC News would not detail its editorial sources.
One ABC News staffer with knowledge of the events of the network received a call from one of Epstein's top lawyers, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, and Guillauferi and her lawyers placed great significance on that call.
We also learned, like I mentioned early on, in the leaked audio we can hear Roback say that once the palace found out, all of a sudden they were worried they weren't going to get interviews with Will and Kate.
Prince Andrew is implicated in this.
Did the royal family, the British royal family, pressure ABC News?
Alan Dershowitz, according to the story, pressured ABC News.
And now we get to the more serious.
You see, apparently, NPR found tax records that reflect a $30,000 donation in 2017 to a Montessori preschool called O'Gorman Garden in Harlem from a foundation based in the U.S.
Virgin Islands that had previously been controlled by Epstein.
The story is that one of the reporters for The Times, I gotta be really careful, because if I scroll too far up, there's a lot of things in these stories, and I'm sorry it has to be this way.
But I'm doing my best to make sure this context can get out.
So I apologize for this, but this is the game we're playing.
Thomas flagged a problem.
He told his editors Epstein had been a great source for years and become something of a friend.
How close?
Thomas had solicited a $30,000 contribution from Epstein for a Harlem cultural center.
Thomas suggested Epstein was just a source of information, not someone he would report on or investigate.
His editors were aghast.
They rejected the distinction he was trying to make.
And his editors benched him instantly from any professional contact with Epstein.
Soliciting a donation to a personal charity is a clear violation of the policy that governs Time journalists' relationship with their sources, said Time's co-chief spokesperson, Eileen Murphy.
As soon as editors became aware of it, they took action.
They go on to say that a 2008 profile, Thomas had traveled to Epstein's private isle in the U.S.
Virgin Islands the piece ran just before Epstein submitted to authorities in Florida's incarceration.
However, they view the story, according to NPR, as kind of deflecting the more serious allegations.
Surprise, surprise.
He solicited money from Epstein.
The New York Times, aghast, pulls him from the story.
Now listen, what we're seeing here is actually some good news.
There are editors and there are journalists at these companies who are angry.
They were shocked this guy took money.
They were angered by it.
Even the higher-ups.
Amy Roback.
That's her name, right?
From ABC News.
Shocked her story didn't make it.
But I take you now back to a story from PageSix.com.
I'm not familiar with what PageSix is.
But this is a story from 2010 that's been circulating now.
Prince Andrew talks of royal joy over Prince William's wedding.
They say, Prince Andrew regaled a bevy of media heavyweights at billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's Upper East Side townhouse the other night when he was told of the royal family's joy over Prince William's upcoming wedding to Kate Middleton.
Andrew was quizzed by his guests, Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Charlie Rose, Woody Allen, and Chelsea Handler, at a dinner thrown by Epstein.
The swamp runs deep.
I don't know who or why.
I don't want to get into any conspiracies, but NPR's reporting makes it sound like at least one of these journalists, at least some of them, are in on the take.
Now, I can't speak to the corporate overlords at ABC News and Vanity Fair or otherwise, but it's certainly not Amy Roback.
She was shocked and angered.
But I will make one point.
If you have this story, why wouldn't you publish?
That's crazy to me.
You know, I can respect the frustration from Amy over having all of this, saying we had Clinton, we had everything.
But the Royal Family, and you stayed at ABC, and you didn't raise a stink, and you didn't leak, and you didn't get this information out.
It's frustrating to me because it shows us how far gone journalism really is.
Look at these personalities, these news anchors, going to a dinner with Epstein, and then the story doesn't make it.
Stephanopoulos works for ABC News, right?
I think so.
If you get a story of this magnitude, and for some reason you can't do the story, give the story to somebody else.
But you know what, I guess the issue is, as James pointed out earlier, these other outlets, they won't publish it either.
Vanity Fair, New York Times, ABC News, none of them ran it.
So I don't know what to tell you, man, but I will say this.
You can criticize Veritas, you can be upset with them over certain coverage, but they're certainly one of the last organizations doing real investigative work.
I was talking to a journalist friend of mine recently.
I said, what happened to those big stories that were journalists were putting their life on the line to expose major malfeasance in the government and the corporations?
Why is it that journalism today is orange man bad?
Why is it that we turn on CNN and what do we get?
Trump's typos, his misspelling errors.
I kid you not, they said misspelling errors.
What do you mean?
Does that mean he's spelling correctly?
No, his spelling errors.
That's what we get.
Trump got two scoops of ice cream.
I know that story was a bit in jest.
But when we want to talk about real corruption, Veritas may not be perfect, okay?
They may have their point of view, their perspective.
You may think they're biased, but they're doing the work.
And you know what, man?
For everything you might criticize them over, they actually just published this.
ABC News did not.
ABC News.
Amy Robert could have come out and said, I am angry my story was shut down.
She didn't.
But to her friends, she did.
She didn't tell you the truth.
Now I can respect, to a certain degree, there are a lot of things I can't talk about either, because we gotta make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, and to make sure we can survive and live to see another day.
But this is a man who was accused of all sorts of awful things, and he was free.
And she had the power to say, this is what this guy has done.
We have photographic evidence.
What do we have today?
Brett Kavanaugh.
Okay.
You want to claim you didn't have the rigorous legal standards?
I don't buy it.
Because they ran Kavanaugh over the coals.
Over what?
Some fake nonsense that was recanted later?
Not Mozzie Ford, but the other people who apologized that they made it up?
That was breaking news.
No evidence!
No evidence needed.
What about the whistleblower?
And Donald Trump?
Everybody's covering that story, and what do we have?
Nothing.
Secondhand, hearsay information.
That's enough for you?
And this is what I can't stand about news media.
They act like they've got a smoking gun on Trump.
No, you don't!
We've got a smoking gun on Kavanaugh.
No, you don't.
In this case, you had photographs, corroborating witness statement, a previous track record, all of these outlets.
They refuse to do it.
So you know what?
If the best we have right now is Veritas, well then that's what you have.
They're the best we have.
They're at least publishing this, exposing the media, who refuses to tell us what's really going on.
All of these journalists telling everyone to calm down about the Epstein story.
Yeah.
They won't cover it.
Who will?
So I'll tell you what, man.
You know, for the most part, I'm doing commentary.
I know.
I hope this context was relevant.
This is NPR reporting this, okay?
That these news organizations shut the story down.
Why?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm not familiar with Page Six.
They're considered credible by NewsGuard.
And they're telling us right now, these high-profile news personalities are hanging out with Epstein.
You take it from there.
You tell me what you think.
I don't know what to tell you.
Because I can tell you what I think, and they will try and shut me down in two seconds.
I'm willing to bet this video is gonna get deranked, demonetized, all that bad stuff.
So, it is what it is.
But I will not stop talking about what needs to be talked about.
So, James O'Keefe and Veritas, they're doing incredible work.
You can criticize them all day and night, don't care.
They published this footage.
They have set a major news cycle trend right now.
This news needed to get out.
We needed to hear from these people who refuse to speak up and tell us what's going on.
You know what I hate almost more than anything?
I don't want to say more than anything because it's strong, but everything is fake.
Every PR statement, every politician, Trump included, when they come out and they say something, you know they're not telling you the truth.
You know there's other things happening behind the scenes, and I can respect to a degree.
That some of this needs to be kept a secret for a reason.
That you can't just blurt out a story you think you know.
You've got to get the facts.
You've got to protect yourself.
You've got to do it right.
But what I'm really, really upset about is, when a disaster strikes, when a news story breaks, ABC News says, it wasn't up to our standards.
You're lying!
We know how you covered Kavanaugh.
We know how you covered Trump.
You're lying.
I don't trust you.
I believe, in my opinion, you're liars.
I don't want to get sued.
The New York Times.
A staff member actually soliciting funds from this guy.
There you go.
I don't know if journalism will ever come back, but it's been gone for a long time.
Because it's easier and cheaper and faster to call the orange man bad than to actually speak truth to power.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Check out the Veritas video, it's at their website, projectveritas.com.
I'll have several more videos coming up for you on other issues at 6pm, youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you there.
Donald Trump has just called for war against the Mexican drug cartels after a particularly gruesome story broke this morning.
So I'm going to give you that warning right now.
Okay, I'm going to be reading this news.
It's some serious, deep stuff.
It's kind of sad.
But Trump tweeted, This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage war on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth.
We merely await a call from your great new president.
There's a couple other statements Trump made.
This is coming from an NBC breaking story.
At least nine Americans killed in Mexican highway ambush.
The dead included eight month old twins, said Kendra Lee Miller, who was related to many of the victims.
There were at least eight survivors.
There's video of the aftermath of this car burned out by the cartels.
They killed eight month old babies.
This is... These groups, the stories around them, I'm not surprised by what we're hearing.
And now, Trump, maybe it was an emotional reaction to hearing about this family being gunned down in cold blood, is finally said enough.
So there's an interesting conundrum in the concept of war and what we should do, but I want to give you the story, I want to show you the statements from Trump first, and then we can talk about how this could, should, or would play out.
NBC reports, The dead include eight-month-old twins.
We read that part.
Miller added that the victims lived in Lemora, which is about 75 miles south of the U.S.
border.
Miller named the victims.
I'm not going to read through their names.
Earlier, another relative of one of the victims, Willie Jessup, told NBC News on the phone from Utah that a number of people were traveling in a motorcade consisting of several families when they came under the attack.
Jessup said three of the cars were shot at and one of them was set on fire based on the information he was receiving from other family members at the scene.
He added that they had been trying to mobilize Mexican federal officials and have been in contact with the FBI.
Everyone is in so much shock, he said.
It's just unbelievable and there is no way to comprehend it.
Miller also recounted dramatic details from the survivors, some of whom sustained serious injuries, including a nine-month-old child who was shot in the chest and a four-year-old shot in the back.
Devon Langford, 13, she added, was not injured but walked around 14 miles to Lemora for help after hiding his injured siblings in bushes and covering them with branches.
A bullet grazed Mackenzie Langford, nine, in the arm.
These are children!
But she also went to find help after Devin did not come back.
Miller said Mackenzie got lost and walked for hours in the dark before she was found by search parties.
Mexico has been hit by a wave of attacks in recent weeks, shocking even for a country used to more than a decade of intense drug war violence.
The most notable incident was a military-style cartel assault that forced the government to release a leader of the Sinaloa cartel in October.
El Universal, one of Mexico's largest newspapers, quoted other relatives as saying that members of a Mormon family were killed in what appeared to be an organized crime ambush.
There was no immediate indication of who was behind the attack.
El Universal reported that a large group of family members were traveling to Lemora in the municipality of Bevispe from another part of the municipality when they were ambushed.
Mexico's National Civil Defense Agency confirmed that elements of the National Guard, the Army, and the State Police were conducting a search operation in Bevispe on Monday night in response to the reports.
They provided no other information.
The U.S.
Ambassador to Mexico, Christopher Landau, said in a tweet in Spanish, that the safety of our fellow citizens is our top priority.
I am closely following the situation in the mountains between Sonora and Chihuahua.
Landau, who earlier in the day said he was on his way to Sonora for my first visit to the northeast of Mexico, did not share details of the incident.
The U.S.
State Department also said it was aware of the reports but had no further comment.
Claudia Pavlovich Orellano, the governor of Sonora, said on Twitter late Monday that as a mother she was filled with deep pain by the cowardly acts in the mountains between Sonora and Chihuahua.
I don't know what kind of monsters dare to hurt women and children.
Senator for Sonora, Lili Tellez, said on Twitter, the massacre in Sonora cannot go unpunished.
Manuel Añorve Baños, another Mexican senator, called what happened a despicable, merciless, and savage act in a tweet adding, we demand justice.
Well, Donald Trump has tweeted.
He said, a wonderful family and friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels
who were shooting at each other, with the result being many great American people killed,
including young children and some missing. If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out
these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing, and able to get involved and do the job
quickly and effectively.
The great new President of Mexico has made this a big issue, but the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army.
And that's basically what NBC is quoting.
I think I might have, uh... Yeah, so that's the story we have.
So let me talk about a few things.
I'm not entirely sure Mexico will do anything about this.
Why?
You probably already know.
Mexico's bought and paid for.
Like, there's so many officials that are corrupt, nobody wants to bend to the cartels, people are even scared to talk about the cartels.
So I don't know, you know, there are horror stories going back for a really long time.
But this is big breaking news now, and this may have been a red line.
Look, there have been terrifying horror stories about the cartels for a long time, like I mentioned.
Mayors who challenge them go missing, get killed, get publicly executed.
But the cartels now ambushed a family and they killed babies.
I think the red line has been crossed.
And now Donald Trump, I... Listen, man.
For all of Donald Trump's faults and everything they say about him, I think most people agree the dude is kind of a shoot first, ask questions later kind of character.
For the most part.
Maybe not entirely.
Maybe that's not fair.
But what I mean to say is, Trump will not hesitate to put out a tweet, and in my opinion, if Mexico called him up right now and says, we need to do something about this, I do not believe Trump would hesitate.
I believe Trump would straight away be like, make it happen.
I mean, he deployed troops to the southern border already.
So, will it happen?
You know, I gotta admit, I kinda feel like it won't.
It won't simply because the Mexican government is not gonna make those calls, because they're in on the take.
You know, there was a story about a 26-year-old woman who got elected to a mayor of a small town and said she was going to challenge the cartels?
So there's a lot of things I want to mention here when dealing with cartels.
For one, you know there are a lot of personalities who just won't talk about it.
There was one guy I remember, I don't want to say too much about it, but one guy, a journalist, directly challenging them, and he had to back down real quick.
Because you need to realize these cartels operate in the U.S.
as well.
They're more violent and active in Mexico, but there's a ton of members of these organizations in and out of the United States, because that's trafficking.
So first, should we do this?
Should we go to war?
And I gotta admit, my qualms about war are typically in that Tulsi Gabbard vein of regime change.
It's the United States that wants to go into a foreign country to depose their leader because we want more favorable trade terms and we want to have cultural dominance so that other countries can't, you know, interfere with our interests.
It's complicated.
But why we would go all the way to the Middle East, to me, makes no sense.
Now hold on.
Mexico's our southern neighbor.
This violence just killed Americans.
Babies, okay?
That's a red line.
Americans demand justice for this.
But here's the other more important issue.
Trump is asking for permission.
He said if they call, and with their permission, he will come and the United States can help the Mexicans.
Absolutely.
We're not talking about an illegal foreign war where, you know, there's a declaration without... Well, we'll see if Congress gets involved as well.
We're not talking about an invasion.
We're talking about the army doing something that I think the army literally should do.
Okay?
If a foreign government, our neighbor particularly, says, The president of, you know, your citizens were killed.
We request your assistance in seeking justice.
It's now a joint effort for a mutually beneficial outcome, and it's justice for both parties involved.
To me, this is exactly what the U.S.
has an armed forces for.
American citizens were attacked and killed, you know, below the southern border in another country.
And now, you know, what is it called?
Mark and reprisals on a governmental agency?
So, but I'll admit it's complicated.
The big issue here is while if it was just the U.S.
arbitrarily saying, hey, we want to wipe out the cartels or something, I'd be like, look, man, Mexico's got Mexican problems.
We should secure our border.
But this is an instance of Americans being killed.
So I always want to make sure I stress that I'm a milquetoast fence sitter for a reason.
I don't have all the answers.
I don't know everything.
But I lean towards if the Mexican government requests it from Trump and we have permission and mutual justice, you know, seeking.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Absolutely.
I mean, there's a point where we know we need to secure our borders because of the problems of drug smugglers and the cartels, right?
And to a certain extent, we can say, we'll mind our own business, secure our borders, that's Mexico's problem.
Well, now American citizens are dead, and now we have... I don't necessarily know if this incident warrants, you know, an actual military incursion.
I lean towards yes, though, for that reason.
We need to weed out the problem, okay?
So, like, I often talk about how a lot of people on the left will propose a solution that doesn't get to the root of the problem, and while, to a certain degree, based on not wanting international conflict, I don't think it would make sense to go into this foreign country.
We're now at a point where the problem needs to be rooted out.
So there's a couple things that need to happen.
This is an immediate hammer of justice response that might be able to do some good.
However, we do need to think about the underlying causes for what allows the cartels to thrive, and it's the illegal drug trade, which means securing the U.S.
border is extremely, extremely important, if not one of the most important things we can do, because if we can prevent the smugglers from coming in, at least a large portion of them, I know it's not the only way, they'll come through boats, they'll come through planes, but if we can prevent those illegal border crossings in the South that allow the traffickers to bring that money in, and people, they work with people, they traffic people too, We can cut down that business.
And that will substantially weaken them.
But also, I'll get a little libertarian on ya.
With the advent of recreational marijuana laws, it did cause severe weakening of the cartels because we don't need your illicit drugs anymore.
We can make our own.
So we need to make sure that when it comes to contraband in this country, we don't empower dangerous people.
And typically, when it comes to banning something, you create a black market that is outside of the law.
It's complicated.
It's a challenge, right?
You look at Portugal and they legalized drugs and drug use went down.
Think about what would happen if we said all drugs are legal with a but.
They can only be used in specific facilities.
They can only be administered by licensed professionals.
All of a sudden, you're going to have a big change in how that infrastructure works.
Now, it's true.
We don't have nationwide recreational marijuana.
It's still federally illegal, so the cartels can still operate in some capacity.
But, I kind of think...
You know, you ban these drugs and what ends up happening is you get really, really crappy versions of them.
You get overdoses, you get tainted drugs, you get people getting diseases, you know, sharing needles, all this really, really bad stuff.
And so perhaps what we need to do is control it instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.
I'm not, I think it's important to talk, like, you know, when people who are typically on the libertarian side of things, I don't mean Big L, I mean the more freedom types, be it left or right, You know, people often assume that legalization of drugs is this world where you're advocating for literally everyone going around, like, kids buying drugs.
No, no, no, no, no.
Drugs are bad.
Drugs are really, really bad.
I don't do drugs.
I don't even drink.
Okay?
But I think control is more powerful than prohibition.
Because when you prohibit, all you do is create a black market.
I mean, look at what goes on with those red flag laws.
These guys, the cops show up to this old guy's house, older guys, and they end up getting killed.
Because they were trying... It's just, you create that violence when everything breaks down.
And so, even in that capacity, that was an attempt at, you know, confiscation.
Not necessarily prohibition.
But in terms of what these cartels sell and how they operate, I think if we took control of how these things were sold and used and regulated, we could cut down on diseases, we could cut down on overdoses, we could wean people off of these drugs, and we could shut down the cartels without having to go to war.
My problem with the war we do overseas is that we're providing weapons and machinery to a war in Yemen we have nothing to do with, okay?
We're providing troops to Saudi Arabia for a conflict that is on the other side of the planet from us.
I understand American interests.
I understand that there's a big net benefit for the oil market and all these things.
I know how it works.
But I'm, but I think, to an extent it's kind of like, I don't know, borderline abusive power for us to send troops into a country to declare war on them and do all these things, like, come on, man.
Iraq had no WMDs, okay?
It's BS.
This is different.
Okay?
You kill, you kill our babies?
America is, is... America is pretty powerful, to say the least.
So, you actually want to kill a family that was, that, and shoot children?
Okay.
You got me on board.
Let's figure out the best way to go about this.
Let's see what comes of it.
I kind of think nothing will happen.
But I want to make sure I stress, I'm never an adamant 100% gung-ho, screaming and charging in full speed.
I would just say, as per usual, I lean towards my gut reaction.
Make it happen.
Mexico, get on the phone.
It's time for this to stop.
However, I always want to make sure I recognize I don't know everything.
So it's very possible someone says, Tim, you didn't consider this, and then I'm like, oh, whoa, we gotta stop, right?
So that's why I'm very careful about saying we absolutely should or shouldn't do something.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I feel, I'm pretty sure everybody feels similarly when you hear about eight-month-old babies being shot and killed and a nine-month-old being shot in the chest, okay?
So to see Trump tweet about this?
You know what?
Maybe it was an emotional gut reaction of American citizens and children being gunned down in cold blood.
But you know what?
I don't know.
It's warranted, right?
We'll see what happens, though.
Yeah, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
There's big breaking news coming up from Veritas later, and I will see you all next time.
A couple years ago, Republicans pounced on the story of Sweden and its escalating crime.
I actually planned on going to Sweden because of comments made by Donald Trump where he said, last night in Sweden, and he was referring to a documentary short put out by Fox News from Ami Horowitz.
We then had a statement by Paul Joseph Watson where he said, any journalist who wants to stay the weekend in Malmo, he'd pay for it.
And I believe it was partly unjust, but I decided to go.
The news we have now.
Sweden bomb attacks reach unprecedented levels as gangs feud.
Police say lack of fatalities incredibly lucky after 30 bomb squad callouts in two months.
Apparently, this is some of the highest per capita grenade and bomb attacks in the world outside of a war zone, mind you.
So I bring up the first part because I want to give you the news, but I want to give you some of the context based on my personal experience having been to Sweden.
The most important thing I think you need to understand, that people get wrong when they talk about crime and murder.
The right will focus on the bomb attacks, right?
And say, wow, things are extremely bad.
The left will focus on general crime rates and say you're completely wrong, crime is fine.
And the left is kind of missing the point, and I think the right would do better to present that nuance, that crime is relatively low compared to say Chicago or Baltimore or other Western nations, but Which would you rather have?
A guy who mugs you or 30 bomb squad callouts in two months?
The issue here is that Sweden is experiencing an extremely, I would define it as like an acute problem.
Whereas you can have antifa-style low-tier blunt attacks, right, versus the more extremist explosions.
I'd almost rather be mugged than deal with the city blowing up all the time.
So the issue is, yes, when you live in Sweden, you are less likely to experience typical crime.
However, you are substantially more likely to experience bomb attacks than basically anywhere in the world outside of a war zone.
And as much as people don't want to admit it, Sweden's policies have a lot to do with this.
But let me read the story and then we'll talk about the nitty gritty, because the first thing you gotta do is you gotta know what's happening.
from The Guardian.
That's right, left-wing The Guardian.
Sweden's national bomb squad has been called out to 30 blasts in the past two months and 100 so far this year.
Wow!
More than twice the number in the same period in 2018 as concern grows about rising levels of violence by criminal gangs.
Police arrested three people over the weekend following an explosion in an apartment block
in the southern city of Malmo early on Friday that blew out the building's main door,
shattered windows and substantially damaged the entrance level.
The blast was the first of three in the space of 24 hours.
Three blasts in one day.
Sweden, you got problems, man. Local media reported.
With others destroying cars and damaging property in, I can't pronounce that, Växjö, 127 miles northeast of Malmö, and Landvetter outside Gothenburg, I'm trying to pronounce them right, on the country's west coast.
There are 10 million people in Sweden, and I have not found the equivalent of this level of explosions in any industrialized country, Ilva Erlin, an analyst with the Bomb Squad, told the public broadcaster SVT.
The number of recent explosions was unacceptably high and obviously undesirable, she told news agency TT.
It's very serious, a social problem.
We not only must find the explosives and tools, but uncover the cause.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, Tim, why are you talking about Sweden when the Epstein news is breaking in Project Veritas?
That's going to be at 4pm.
I want to make sure you guys know, it's a ridiculously huge story and there's a lot to cover.
I want to make sure the dust settles a little bit, get some statements.
But there is a reason I reference this now.
When it comes to Sweden, when it comes to Japan, these nations are proud and cannot admit they were wrong in how they implemented a lot of policies.
When I went to Sweden and I covered this accurately and fairly, so say the left-wing outlets.
They loved that I was like, crime is low.
But they didn't like that I pointed out there were social and cultural tensions and grenade attacks.
Why, it was only a few months prior to my arrival that an eight-year-old kid, I think, died.
I could be wrong.
It's been a long time.
But someone threw a grenade on a balcony.
So, yeah.
You might not have the same level of muggings, but you do have way more bomb attacks.
They didn't like it when I started calling them out and saying, you know, there are real problems here.
They're really messed up.
We spoke with a former police officer who told us, yes, When they bring in all of these refugees from other parts of the world with a different culture, they do bad things.
Not all of them.
A small, small fraction.
But what they do is particularly egregious.
Things that are so egregious, I can't talk about.
Let me just say that young men will surround young men and women and do horrifying things to them.
Things that I can't talk about on YouTube.
There's a police officer telling us this.
These things exist.
And so what you need to understand is, even when they, he said, you know, essentially, it's been a long time, 99% of these people come in and they want to figure out how to live here.
One of the biggest problems Sweden has though, they want to sweep it all under the rug.
Instead of admitting their faults, admitting their problems, they pretend like everything is fine.
And it's not.
Is it the worst in the world?
No!
That's the big important takeaway.
This might be... This is... There was a story... It was a while ago I talked about...
That the grenade attacks are more than any other non-warfare region.
Like, for any country, there's more here than ever.
So it's basically you have very low crime but these massive spikes of really terrifying instances.
That's war.
Like, you really gotta take that seriously.
And they don't like that.
You know, the people on the left, for some reason, I don't know why, why does anybody have allegiance to Sweden?
I'm sorry, lethal violence is down across the board everywhere because of cell phones.
Because in the past, if someone was seriously injured, the time it would take to get medical assistance was longer.
Now we have cell phones, we can call immediately.
But even still, Sweden is going down lower than any other country in Europe.
But it's not just about that.
I have no problem saying Sweden's beautiful, it's really nice.
Everybody, the poor area I went to was beautiful, especially relative to the slums that I've lived in and experienced in the United States.
Like, that's the important point.
Don't let someone point out the standard of living in Sweden to ignore the escalating problem.
Is Sweden more violent or worse than, say, Baltimore?
No.
By no stretch of the imagination.
Except the escalating explosives coming from gang violence.
They try and pretend everything's fine because they're looking at blanket stats.
But this is still horrifying and it's a problem that needs to be solved and it won't be solved if they keep lying about it.
Most of the blasts have occurred in big cities, authorities say.
Almost a third have taken place in Malmo, a scene of a string of increasingly violent gun and bomb attacks that right-wing politicians have linked to the large flows of immigrants who arrived in Sweden during the 2015 migration crisis.
But it's much, much more than that.
A lot of the gang violence stems from refugees going back 20 or 30 years, when Sweden failed to integrate people in their culture.
This is where the rights view of multiculturalism makes sense.
You can't take a group of people from Somalia and just place them randomly in Sweden because they can't work.
They can't speak the language.
They can't get jobs.
What do you expect to happen?
Poverty, ghettos, crime.
Okay?
But real multiculturalism would have been bringing them in and having them placed strategically so they can integrate, and then you would have You know, they would follow the laws and the rules of Sweden, operate within Swedish culture.
That's not what they did, though.
Now, Sweden's doing that now.
At least when I left, they said the new plan for bringing refugees is to place them strategically in various cities instead of just bringing them in and putting them all in one place.
So here's what happens.
And this is why I'm such a proponent of controlled immigration.
And it's funny because I get smeared, in a sense, in saying that I agree with conservatives on immigration.
It's like, no, no, no, I don't care who has what stance.
The point is simple.
If you open your border and say, everyone come, go wherever you want, people form enclaves.
Enclaves that can't communicate with the outside culture, that don't work together, and view each other as an other, don't respect the rule of law or anything like that.
When people come to the border, and you say, thoughtless form, now we know who you are, here's where we can place you, you allow people to integrate properly.
So I am all for immigration for everybody.
You know what?
Everybody in the world, they want to come to the United States?
Fine.
We do it through a legal immigration system.
Now, honestly, what that means is not everybody can come.
There's an upper limit to where we can place people and how we can sustain the system.
The problem with the left, though, for one, like I said, they ignore the escalating crisis of gang violence and explosions, and they blame, oh, but it's just gangs, it's just gangs.
Listen.
The gangs aren't typically Swedish people.
They are the children of these immigrants when Sweden failed to integrate.
It's not a race issue, and this is the important thing.
The left is so scared of acknowledging the errors, they accuse everybody who brings up of being racist.
And they don't tell you the race of the individuals because they're scared people will be racist.
Let me tell you something simple.
When you take a bunch of people fleeing war, And you put them in an enclave.
You put them all in one neighborhood where they can't speak the language.
Nobody wants to give them work.
Their kids grow up with no cultural identity.
They call the children of these immigrants, migrants, even though they're Swedish.
They were born in Sweden.
And when they go and visit their families back in their home country, they're called Swedish.
They have no home.
Then you expect them to work with your system and your government?
No!
That's where the gangs partly come from.
At least that's what I learned.
The problem is that the left is scared of being called racist or acknowledging they made huge mistakes 20 years ago.
Just say it, dude.
Just say it.
The gangs are typically of a certain background, but it is not because of their race.
It is because you failed them.
It's because you opened your borders with no plan and you put these people in dangerous situations.
You did not help them.
Okay?
This is what frustrates me to no end.
You have a war-torn area.
We need to save these people, okay?
Their country's collapsing, there's fighting going on.
Many people who can't fight, women and children, some young men.
Get them out of that and figure out how we can place them in a way that helps them.
But what they don't realize, and this is so common with a lot of left-wing arguments, that culture doesn't know what you know.
Take a look at how they say Latinx.
Like, no Latino says that!
98% in a recent poll don't say it.
What does that mean?
You assume you know what they're thinking and what they want and you don't.
And so when these people are asking for help, you don't properly take care of them.
The planning that needs to go into taking care of refugees, well, there's a lot of it.
You can't just open the door and say, go wherever you want.
And now Sweden's paying that price.
They're getting these grenades from, I guess it was like leftovers of the Balkan wars and
stuff like that.
So now, look at this.
19 bombs have been exploded in Stockholm so far this year.
13 in Gothenburg.
39 nationwide in 2018.
The squad have also defused 76 suspected bombs that were spotted before they could be detonated.
You've got a serious problem if that's the case.
I don't care.
They say the murder rate has fallen since the 90s.
Absolutely.
And part of that is due to cell phones.
You need to understand this.
Murder, you get charged with murder, you killed somebody.
Today, you get into a fight, you severely injure them, someone has a phone, they call an ambulance, the person doesn't die, you don't get charged with murder.
The crime rate is not, it's not so easy to parse and figure out exactly what's what, but I'll tell you what, bombs going off repeatedly, you got serious problems.
Problems that other countries don't seem to have.
Check this out.
The government has announced a 34-point plan to combat the violence, including measures making it easier for police to search homes and read encrypted phone messages.
Denmark, however, is alarmed enough to have reintroduced border controls following two blasts in Copenhagen linked to Swedish gangs.
Malmo and Copenhagen are like, it's a straight train ride.
It's super close.
Right across, I think, like there's a straight or something.
A body of water.
I don't know exactly which one.
The sea, maybe?
Copenhagen's beautiful, but they're a bit more strict, and these problems are now spilling over.
And I'll admit, man, I've been to Copenhagen several times.
One of my favorite places.
And now they are saying, we need to reintroduce border controls.
Listen, the problem we have is typically that the... I was told by leftists, journalists I knew, don't go to Sweden, don't cover this.
And I said, what?
Why?
And they were like, Trump's lying.
I was like, so?
I'll prove him wrong, right?
What's your problem with journalism?
I will go there.
And it turned out the picture painted was nuanced.
And you know what's funny?
Infowars and conservatives were willing to accept that crime wasn't really that bad, but there were some extreme acts of violence coming from these circumstances.
And that was one of the weirdest things to me.
These people claiming to be journalists who worked for Vice and other companies, begging me not to do this.
Don't do it, man.
And they actually told me to break the law.
I swear to God.
I had people telling me to take the money donated and then turn around and, in their faces, give it to non-profit organizations, which is a crime.
And I was shocked.
I couldn't believe people I knew and worked with were saying, don't do journalism.
The craziest thing to me is that when I worked for Vice, we went all over the place for stories like this all the time.
And now, all of a sudden, this is around the time Vice fell apart.
But you know what?
Whatever.
I'm done.
You get the point.
It's been a couple years.
I'm not an expert on the country.
I'm just telling you, man, For the right, this is what I always tell people.
Chill.
If you have this big story, don't come out and scream, the end is nigh, and don't, you know, shake a sign and bang it on the ground.
I say the same thing to the climate change people.
But the left is acting like nothing is happening.
Well, at least now the Guardian is reporting this, so.
Anyway, the next video coming up at 4pm on my main channel is gonna break down the Veritas expose.
If you're listening to the podcast, it's in reverse order, so you already heard it.
But anyway, stick around.
I will see you at youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m.
I've done several segments about mainstream comedians saying enough and pushing the envelope, being offensive, and actually triggering the woke outrage on purpose.
Yesterday I talked about Michael Shan SNL.
The woke outrage came for him because he referred to Caitlyn Jenner as a fella.
And then goes on to say, he's gonna push it further, they told me not to say these jokes on TV.
NBC didn't want them, and he says them anyway.
Either they really didn't want them to, or it was part of the bit to actually push buttons and pretend like you're pushing the envelope.
Well, now we have Louis C.K.
doubles down on the value of saying the wrong thing.
Do you know what Louis has done?
He is weaponizing the outrage against him into jokes.
This is the most, you know, I read this article and I was laughing out loud when I heard what he said.
This to me, even the New York Times writer said they were laughing at his jokes.
And there it is.
And he's actually weaponizing the outrage as subject matter to mock.
And he got a standing ovation.
This to me, even the New York Times writer said they were laughing at his jokes.
And there it is.
Man, I tell you what, the woke outrage is not working like it used to.
People are finally saying enough, and this is the next step.
Louis C.K.
saying, oh yeah, how about that time?
Wait for the joke.
I'll read it.
He's actually saying he does these things.
Incredible.
Let's read the story.
They say, on his first tour since admitting misconduct, the comedian's theme was the cathartic release of transgression as he delivered bits about his mother's death and religion.
On Saturday, under a candy-colored proscenium arch, Louis C.K.
told a story about the day he learned all the bad words.
He was seven when an elderly stranger with one dark tooth approached him and listed obscenities like a fairytale version of George Carlin.
Louis described vibrating with excitement.
Then he went to school and put this information to work.
Cursing at his teacher, she cried and the students laughed.
I liked both, he said, with a half-embarrassed shrug.
In the context of The Return of C.K., this anecdote has the feel of a twisted origin story.
And this defiantly perverse new set, whose jokes come with so much baggage, they threaten to obscure the performer, will inspire heated, divisive reactions.
They go on to say that, you know, it's been a couple years since the allegations against him.
He said he would step back and listen, then return to the clubs nine months later, performing intermittently.
Last week, he began a new phase in his comeback, a theater tour starting with two shows in Richmond on Saturday and taking him across the world.
Returning to his old uniform of blue jeans and black shirt, he began both shows with oblique jokes about his pariah status.
He didn't so much play the sad sack as the guy strenuously trying to put a happy face on what a sad sack he is.
It's good to start over at 52, he said with a strained smile.
So much energy.
Good joke.
Those looking for any apologetic notes or reckoning with the damage he's done will be disappointed.
He is not aiming for redemption on stage.
If anything, he's doubling down on the comedic value of saying the wrong thing.
And there it is.
You know what he realized?
Everything that happened to him and everything you've done can be a joke.
He is making you a joke.
You are the punchline.
You are funny.
And he's now profiting off of it.
That's the point of this, he said, motioning to himself on stage.
He didn't repeat the now-cliche comedian complaints about generational sensitivities or snowflakes, but the central theme of the night was the cathartic release of transgression.
His subjects— I can't read these on YouTube!
I can't— His subjects made the case.
He turned his new reputation in the Me Too era into a springboard for jokes.
Quote, wait until they find those pictures of me in blackface, he said.
The audience, which gave him a standing ovation, roared.
Then he pushed further, saying he has done Blackface for years.
He said, I didn't do it to be funny.
I liked it.
Felt good.
I'd do it before bedtime.
He is pushing the buttons.
This is incredible.
This guy's a legend.
Comedy criticism is never objective, but there is nothing more subjective than how funny you find Louis C.K.
And being transparent about my point of view necessary.
Over the past decade, no comic had a greater impact on me than Louis C.K.
While my relationship with his old work has changed, I can't laugh at abuse jokes anymore, and the storylines on his FX show that touched on assault now seem like obscene rationalizations.
I still regularly think about Louis C.K.
punchlines and chuckle.
His jokes about technology and parenting are so lodged in my subconscious that no amount of cultural shame can remove them.
And while I agree with the critics who have rejected the idea that we must separate the art from the artists, I have a high tolerance for enjoying art from morally suspect places.
Listen to this line, okay?
Bear's repeating.
I cannot, he says, it's so lodged in my subconscious, no amount of cultural shame can remove them.
Take that one with you to the bank.
You can shame these people all day and night, but I tell you what, man, these people at home are laughing.
Bill Maher talks about that.
You know in private we make off-color jokes and we laugh about it.
We know it's funny.
We know why it's funny.
And we're not trying to destroy or harm people.
They're jokes.
They're meant to present various forms of humor.
But it creates this, you know, it makes us think.
And we laugh at absurdities, and the truth sometimes is stranger than fiction.
It doesn't mean we hate people.
And even this writer for the New York Times has to admit, Louis C.K.
made him laugh, embracing the most offensive subjects that I can't say on this YouTube channel.
Although you could see it.
Given that Louis's new show made me laugh very hard, it's also uncomfortable in ways he seems in control of and ways he does not.
It has a few characteristically ingenious riffs, particularly about religion.
One imagining if God gave a quick explanatory news conference, and another picturing the god of jihadis on his way to gather the 72 virgins for a suicide bomber.
I can't read these things!
Rubbing his head in confusion as how he got here.
And Louis C.K.
remains exceptionally skilled at body horror comedy, likening his chest to the ceiling of a cave, and herky-jerky pivots that blend the adult and the profane.
I'll put it that way.
In the most jarring part of the show, he discussed the death of his mother in June, a remarkably unsentimental aside.
Interrupting a mundane story about visiting a cemetery with his French girlfriend, he detoured into the details of his mother's cremation.
She was a practical woman who didn't care about the pageantry of death, he said, before describing her body being taken away in a grey van, a half-filled Gatorade bottle rattling around with her.
In the past, Louis has questioned the value of life, mocking its sanctity and downplaying its importance, but the grim image goes just as far in undercutting the solemnity of death.
Listen, man, do I think Louis C.K.
Has no value for life?
Of course not!
That's why they're funny!
A lot of humor is saying things you know can't be said because you know it's absurd.
When he jokes about his mom in a van with a Gatorade bottle, that's the joke!
It's a joke!
It's not real!
Of course he was upset when his mom died!
The people who are angry by this think it's all real life!
They can't tell the difference!
And so you take a look at This phenomenon works so well with the Trump era.
Trump will say something like Baghdadi was whimpering and crying.
Do I literally think the guy's huddled in the corner crying?
No.
Trump was being hyperbolic, talking about the fear in the man and trying to tear down his character.
But the people in media think everything is completely literal all the time.
And so when Trump says it, they fact check it and like, wait a minute, that dog wasn't really getting the... I kid you not.
The Daily Wire made a photo of Trump giving a, what is it, Purple Heart or Medal of Honor to a dog.
And journalists fact-checked it!
They hear this joke from Louis C.K.
and they're like, I can't believe he would actually do that to his mother.
Of course he didn't!
A Gatorade bottle rattling around in the can.
Come on, dude.
They say, last December, one of his early post-Return Club sets leaked online and several of the jokes, including a particularly nasty one about the Parkland students, earned widespread condemnation.
And he didn't care!
He's still going!
He's going harder and stronger!
Bless this man.
He has cut that joke and a few other controversial ones, though he has a dopey new punchline comparing vegans to gay people that seems intended to bait.
I'm gonna go ahead and bet he didn't cut the jokes because they were controversial, I'm gonna bet that he cut the jokes because they didn't land properly or segue properly.
I see this.
What he's doing?
Genius.
There's a reason why he was rich and famous and successful as a comedian.
The dude has something.
He sees something.
And when all of this stuff started happening, it sounds like he noticed.
A lot of comedians turn it into a bit.
Like, man, college students are so angry and upset at me all the time.
A lot of comedians complained about it.
I can't go to college.
What did he do?
He took that idea and flipped it on its head and made them the joke.
That's what comedians do.
When angry authoritarian bullies come at you, you make them losers.
You make them the butt of the joke.
Now he's just being offensive.
He's not saying, oh no, they're going to get mad at me.
He's quite literally like, hey, check this one out.
I can't even repeat some of the jokes he made.
After hearing that rough draft of a set, many concluded that Louis C.K.
has rebranded himself as a cranky right-wing comic.
No!
He's always been offensive.
Yeah, he's changed some of his materials, he's adapted, but that's not right-wing.
George Carlin was not right-wing when he used the N-word.
These people don't get it.
And there was and is a new edge to his comedy that bristles at a fence taken easily.
There's a lame joke about cultural appropriation, but the truth is that the comedy of Louis C.K.
hasn't changed as much as the context surrounding it.
So that's... I'm not gonna... I don't need to read you everything.
You get the point, and I do want to keep these short.
They say, toward the end of each show on Saturday, he returned to the subject of his mother, and he wondered about her...
Romantic life!
Concluding, you never really know your mom.
You get the distinct sense he was jealous of her on that count.
That's Louis C.K.
His brand of comedy is brash, it's irresponsible, it's offensive.
He is trying to say things you know that people would never say in public.
He is tearing down that anxiety we feel.
When we don't know if we made someone angry.
You know you're out at work, you gotta be careful about what you say, you're walking on eggshells.
You go to a Louis C.K.
show and he breaks all those barriers down.
And it's not that he actually hates people, or hates his mom, or wants to mock people.
It's that he wants you to feel like you don't have to worry right now.
All of those pretenses, all of that social anxiety, washes away when the guy on stage is saying things you know he's not supposed to say.
And you know it's not real!
That's the point of going out to a show.
Movies aren't real, okay?
TV shows.
Jokes are jokes.
They say every joke has its truth.
Yes, because the point of comedy is that Louis C.K.
is taking these kind of things that we view as annoying, and he's exaggerating them and making them ridiculous.
He's breaking the rules in an absurd way.
That's why it's funny!
You know, I'll say this, you know.
Whatever the divide is of the left and the right, when I was growing up, it was the Republicans who couldn't take a joke.
And now it's the liberals who can't take a joke.
And I think that's really all it boils down to for me.
It's like, will you laugh at something and be an adult?
And right now, the left is so angry at everybody, and Louis C.K., they're calling him right-wing for making a joke.
Sorry.
They call Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher, you know, Louis C.K., Rogan.
Yeah, you know what, man?
They're comedians.
The jokes are not reflective of who they are and who they vote for.
They're jokes.
They represent their talent, and their ability to break down ideas, and make us think, and make us laugh at absurdity.
There's a lot of reasons we laugh.
I don't know if laughter is completely understood, but I can see what Louis C.K.
is doing, and he's, you know, people have anxieties about cancel culture right now.
Well, he just told you, it's okay, and we're happy, and we're relaxed now.
This guy, Louis Cage, great.
You know, I'm not gonna speak to the things he was accused of doing.
I'm gonna say, when it comes to comedy, he knows what he's doing.
Bless these comedians for breaking the barriers and saying, we can all relax a little bit, don't worry.
The comedians are the soldiers of the front line, challenging the woke outrage and cancel culture.
Saying, bring it on, cancel us.
And once they push that boundary, we can all laugh.
Good.
Shut the bullies down.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you shortly.
If I didn't know better, I would say that the woke far left is purposefully sabotaging the Democrats.
And the best way to explain it is the word Latinx.
It sounds like Kleenex.
And guess what?
Hispanics and Latinos don't know what that means.
And when you say it, they get confused.
But think about it.
Latinos are a large portion of voters.
They typically vote Democrat.
Not all of them.
Many of them are very conservative and religious.
But what do you think happens when you get Elizabeth Warren, who is up on stage and says Latinx?
All of a sudden, you have these people watching the debate who are Latino, Hispanic, saying, what did she just say?
Like, what is that?
What are you calling me?
That's not even a word I know!
It's confusing.
It doesn't speak to them.
And so, you must then think about, why did Elizabeth Warren say Latinx?
She's signaling to the woke left, not to Latinos.
Here's the problem.
The woke left is not the majority of the electorate.
They are a small, fringe faction.
In order to win the Democratic nomination, they pander to the activist base, while normally that's probably okay.
You know, back in the day, they would say, oh, all of these beautiful things, and then walk it back towards the Senate and try and capture those moderates.
In today's day and age, the left has gone so far off the rails with things that make no sense, like Latinx, you now have Elizabeth Warren talking to mostly white progressives about others, and she calls them a word they don't get.
How do you think that will feel now to the regular people when it comes time to run in the general?
And Elizabeth Warren says, I don't refer to you by what you are, I call you a weird word we use for others.
With regular Latinos, like, I couldn't imagine if she made up a word for mixed race people and started saying it, I'd be like, who are you talking to?
Like, nobody calls each other this.
Because of the woke left's demands.
And because they pander to a fringe minority, a minority, a minority of a minority.
How are they going to walk this back?
You know, it reminds me of what Bill Maher said on his show recently.
He said, I believe it was Warren, maybe Kamala Harris, I think it was Warren, promising gender reassignment surgery for prison inmates.
And Bill Maher was like, are you worried that the transgender prison population vote might go to Trump?
Do you know how many people, there's 472 people, and you're worried you're going to lose that vote?
Who are you pandering to?
You don't have to worry about these people not voting for you.
Look, you know what, I'll tell you this though.
The progressives?
Yeah, the far left?
They're probably not going to support Warren.
I mean, I know a lot of these people.
I've known them since Occupy.
And they're calling her... They basically... Look.
Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
That's the way people describe her.
Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
She is not Bernie Sanders.
And Bernie supporters, for the most part, don't like her.
A lot of them do.
Let's read the story.
Liberalism's Latinx problem.
It's pronounced Latinx, but I'm saying that because that's what Warren said.
Why is Elizabeth Warren describing Latinos with a term that few would use themselves?
Everyone remembers the image that demonstrated Donald Trump's cluelessness about Hispanic voters.
The picture from May showed him grinning like a fool over a tortilla bowl.
With the immortal tweet, Happy Cinco de Mayo, the best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill.
I love Hispanics.
Bravo, Trump.
It was a great tweet.
But here's the thing about Trump's tweet with taco bowls.
It was, like, doofishly silly.
You know what I mean?
Like, it wasn't mean-spirited.
It was Trump just being kind of...
Uh, doofy!
You know, like, it's like, it's like very, like, dad-jokey almost, you know?
Elizabeth Warren is very, very serious when she says Latinx.
That's what, like, they call her out for that.
The Trump tweet received, uh, uh, the Trump tweet received entirely deserved scorn from particularly everyone in my profession.
Yeah, because journalists are biased.
Nobody else cared.
I thought it was silly and I didn't.
Whatever, man.
Trump tweets all the time.
On the other hand, nobody save a few carping conservatives found anything unusual when Elizabeth Warren, possible Democratic front-runner, began conducting her outreach to Hispanic voters using the term Latinx.
But if Warren's linguistic moves seem normal to journalists in our world, the phrase Latinx is increasingly commonplace, it's still a curious one for a politician doing outreach.
There's very little evidence that Latinx is a thing that many Hispanics or Latinos call themselves, at least in the kind of numbers that normally determine how political candidates talk.
98% of Latinos prefer other terms to describe their ethnicity.
Only 2% of our respondents said the label accurately describes them, making it the least popular ethnic label among Latinos.
Who are you talking to?
Mind-blowing.
You want to make fun of Trump?
Here's the important point, okay?
What I was bringing up in the beginning is that she's pandering to the white progressives, but she's literally now doing outreach to Latinos, calling them a word they never heard before.
Wow.
They say, uh, what is it?
It's a recent, um... Latinx is becoming common in social media and in academic writing.
A recent Merriam-Webster, quote, words-we-are-watching entry noted, it is unclear whether it will catch on in mainstream use.
No, it won't!
Because it doesn't make sense!
Have you ever spoken Spanish?
Do you know, do you know how Spanish works?
Some words end in O, and some words end in A. And that typically denotes masculine and feminine, but not all the time.
Okay?
Todos Basically, in my understanding, I could be wrong, I don't speak Spanish very well, it means everyone.
And todas is all of the females.
What are you gonna say, todex?
It doesn't make sense!
You can say todos, uh, todos, um, niñexes.
Okay, okay, like niños, niñex, like, you can't put the X at the end of every word.
The people who are pushing this stuff don't understand the purpose of language, and they don't understand culture at all.
Let's keep reading, though.
Beyond its novelty, there are obvious reasons for that stark unpopularity.
When spoken, Latinx sounds like neither normal English nor conventional Spanish.
And it looks like what it is.
A word designed for ideological purposes rather than for felicity in speech.
Not only that, Latinx is clearly an anglicized take on the word Latino.
Because if someone who spoke Spanish was trying to make a non-gendered version of a word, they wouldn't use an X. In fact, they'd probably just use an O for everything.
Wait a minute.
It's literally what they do.
If you use the O at the end, it's not necessarily meaning men, it means men and women.
Like niños could mean children, whereas niña means little girl.
Where todos means everybody, and todas means all of the women.
You don't need to do anything.
You can just use the O, and it actually is gender neutral.
Heavens, but because they have words with an A at the end of them, that now means there can't be gender neutrality.
So a bunch of white people put an X at the end of it.
Congratulations!
That is a Germanic syntax, I guess, that is being attached to a romantic language.
It's just so stupid.
I'm not a linguist, I could be wrong.
I'm probably speaking gibberish, but the point I'm trying to make is the only reason they're using an X instead of literally anything else is because it's a bunch of white English speakers changing a Spanish word.
They say, uh, if you, if you are deep inside progressive discourse, you will immediately understand the purpose.
Dismantling the default masculine of romance languages.
If you are outside that discourse, politicians who use it will sound like they don't know how to say Latino, or they're talking to an audience that doesn't really include you.
Yes.
Which, for a politician, seems like a bit of a problem.
One of the common defenses of political correctness is that it's just a synonym for politeness.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
And that's the point.
Okay?
What if I told you I wanted to be called the racial slur for Koreans?
I wish I could say it.
I'm not allowed to, even though I am Korean.
But what if I told this to my friend?
From now on, my pronoun is the G-word.
It's a slur for Koreans.
It's a G-word.
Would you say it?
And she said, no way.
Because someone else might hear it and get offended.
I don't care.
I'm offended.
You won't say it.
So who do you want to offend more?
A person you don't know or your friend?
Therein lies the problem.
Okay?
Who are you really talking to?
And if you want to be polite and I tell you to say a word and you don't say it, are you not being polite anymore?
When does it end?
What if you have two people and one says you must say Latino and the other says you must say Latinx?
What do you do?
It's ridiculous.
They say, uh, it burdens... Oh, yeah, so they bring it up.
One of the common defenses is that it's politeness for calling people what they themselves want to be called and showing sensitivity to minority experiences and burdens that men or white people don't share.
Which is sometimes true.
The example of white people whining that they don't get to say the N-word.
Who's whining they don't get to say the N-word?
Anybody who's complaining about the N-word is complaining about the double standard in, like, someone getting yelled at for singing rap lyrics.
Or for other races using racial slurs and no one calling them out for it.
But just as often, the language of PC has more to do with imposing elite norms of discourse on a wider population that neither necessarily wants them, nor fully understands their purpose.
This is a particular issue, as highly educated white liberals become more progressive on racial issues than many African Americans and Hispanics.
Yes.
And this wraps it all up, because I do try to keep these short.
Let me just give you the point.
I'm not Hispanic.
I can't tell you how they feel, but I can tell you that as somebody who has dealt with actual oppression, you know, like my family has dealt with bigotry and things like that because of my ancestry, I get really annoyed at these woke, privileged white liberals who complain that poor white people are the problem because they have white privilege, but we're special because we self-flagellate.
No.
You are elites.
Okay, these journalists, right, he talks about how all the journalists know the word, right?
Think about it.
Who can afford to take a low-paying, entry-level job in New York City?
Not somebody who has to pay $2,000 a month in rent.
Somebody who maybe wants to sleep on a couch, you know, for a while, perhaps.
That's what I did.
Or maybe it's actually simple.
It's people whose parents pay their rent.
So they can afford to work for $30,000, $40,000 a year in a city that has a standard, you know, a median standard of living, which is like $130,000, $140,000 a year.
So you're making not nearly enough to pay your rent.
Okay, but your parents will pay it for you.
What does that say about you?
You're probably a privileged, college-educated individual making more than $100,000 a year, imposing your weird ideology on other people and being shocked that the actual Latinos in this country have no idea what you're talking about.
And that's why I can't stand it.
Because I'm from a lower-class family on the south side of Chicago.
We've experienced bigotry and all these bad, bad things.
Parents got divorced.
Got to experience homelessness.
And I've done really, really well for myself.
The last thing I want to hear is, oh, you poor baby, you must be so underprivileged or oppressed.
And you know what happens when I say, no, I'm not?
They say, well, it's because you're white and you're passing.
All right.
I've had enough of you people.
Anyway, the main point I want to make about this is, what do you think is going to happen when these privileged elites say these weird words that no one understands, like Wemex and Latinx?
I kid you not.
And these politicians then say it.
I'll tell you what, man.
Regular Latinos in this country are probably listening to them speak and looking at each other like, what was that?
Did she just say Latinx?
What is a Latinx?
I don't even know what she's talking about.
Well, you're not speaking to them, so they don't know who you're talking to.
If she comes out and says, we need to do more to support the Latinx community, they're probably going like, oh, that's really great, I wonder who they are.
They don't know.
So, no.
People are probably going to be confused and say, I don't know, you know, Trump just said Hispanics!
That people can understand and relate to.
Anyway, in the end, as I've said a million times, the woke far left is sabotaging the Democrats.
Case in point.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
Vice published a story written by a trans man who doesn't understand why whenever they're dating a female and mention they're trans, they get ghosted.
The story, in my opinion, is actually quite sad.
Now, I've got to make a few important statements for this video.
For one, YouTube is very quick to delete any conversation about these issues.
I want to say first and foremost, I personally have no problem using someone's preferred pronouns.
I think, as I've mentioned many times, Ben Shapiro made a really good point that it is simpler when just talking about someone to just use their pronoun, but he said in writing he wouldn't.
For me, I wanna be fair, and I wanna be reasonable, so I think, I know, it's gonna offend people no matter what, I'm gonna use they-them.
I understand it's still controversial, but please, I'm trying to have a real conversation about this story without, for one, getting banned by YouTube, but triggering a wave of anger from either side.
I understand there'll be people on the right saying they them is not appropriately singular.
You can't do it.
Use the correct pronouns she her.
Then you have people on the left saying trans men are men.
I'm not trying to get into an argument or fight with you.
I'm trying to address the context of the article and the issues at hand, relationships, family, and why this individual who is trans is getting ghosted.
I mean this as no disrespect to the individual.
I fully respect them, and I would like to legitimately answer their question about why biological females will ghost them, at least from a cis-heteronormative perspective, I guess.
I want to make sure I make this clear, because I know I'm going to get a barrage of hate from everybody no matter what I do.
I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation about this so we can figure this out, work out these problems, and figure out what's best for everybody.
And it's impossible.
I'll admit it.
But let's try our best, okay?
The crux of the story is that this trans individual wrote on rslashdatingadvice on Reddit about how as soon as they reveal they're trans, these females immediately say, let's just be friends, and then ghost them entirely.
I want to read you the story, and I'm going to be critical.
I know YouTube doesn't allow criticism, and they'll probably just come at me anyway, but hey, it is what it is.
Let's read the story, and then I'll tell you what's up.
Lee writes, Internet dating when I was a lesbian was infinitely easier than how it is now as a trans man.
Granted, that was years ago, when only sados partook, and the rest of the world hadn't joined in to ruin it for us.
Ghosting wasn't even a word back then, let alone a tolerated behavior.
Now, dating online is like rifling through the bargain bin in your local supermarket.
You scan the aisles quickly for something that catches your eye, with little attention paid to anything else.
Swipe, swipe, swipe.
But dating as a lesbian was more understood, too.
People know what that means.
As a trans guy, the majority don't seem to know what to make of me, so they run away.
I've played around with the big reveal, and I know the two are linked.
It's hard not to see a connection when you arrange a second date, drop the T-bomb, and then she cancels in the next breath.
Here's the thing I see.
The first thing I want to point out, and we'll read more.
I believe that you are being lied to, Lee.
I believe you're being lied to by a community that wants to encourage you to be yourself, and I can find that to an extent respectable, but I think they're lying to you about how people actually feel.
At least cis people.
I think, I'll just use a... I don't know the actual numbers on lesbian and gay.
I think it's actually decently high, maybe like 5%.
Trans is a bit lower between, I think, like 0.08 and like 0.17.
So let's just say 95%.
93, okay?
I'll give a big number.
93% of people are cis, straight, heteronormative, meaning biological male wants a biological female.
Now here's the thing.
First, It is a fact.
There was a survey done.
They asked people how they defined personal success.
And the answer was, family.
They want to have kids.
That's a big issue.
If you are a trans man, but biologically female, regardless of any surgeries or anything you've done, you are not going to be able to create a progeny with your own genetic material.
I understand a lot of people talk about adopting or other, in vitro and surrogates and things like that, but you gotta understand, you know, I'll give you my perspective as your typical, straight, cis, heteronormative, but mixed-race individual.
So I'm not completely privileged.
I would like a natural progeny, you know, a conventional progeny, a child born of my and my partner's DNA.
I'm not really interested in anything else.
And that's actually a pretty common point of view.
And I'm not interested in a relationship with someone that doesn't bring about family.
There's another trope that you should understand.
There are individuals who get divorces when it turns out one or the other is infertile or sterile, can't have kids.
There are many, many stories of women being divorced by their husbands when it turns out the woman can't have children.
There are stories about women who leave the man when it turns out the man can't have children.
It's devastating for a lot of people, but that is a part of life.
For billions of years, we have coupled and reproduced.
While I understand there are many people who are child-free, that's what they call it, You have to understand that, first, for me as an individual dating, it's already ridiculously hard.
Not only is there an ample supply of females who are looking for males, but we don't find each other attractive for various reasons.
Don't like my line of work, don't like my politics, think I look weird, don't like my glasses, my hat, my hair, or lack thereof.
Right?
There you go.
So right off the bat, it's already difficult to find a regular cis relationship, right?
Now add the fact that everybody wants a family.
Okay.
This is where things start breaking down.
It's not just about wanting to hang out with someone and be friends.
It's about, am I going to spend my life with this person and create children?
So when you add all of these factors, like dating is already difficult, and then put on top of it, you are now incapable of having biological children with them.
Don't be surprised when they leave you.
But I want to make another point, too, before we read a little bit more.
You've played around with the big reveal.
I personally find that very, very offensive, and I'm sure many people do as well.
And I understand you might say, oh, you're being bigoted.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
If somebody had a disease, if somebody couldn't have kids, if somebody had some other ailment, I would absolutely expect them to tell me immediately before we date.
On your profile.
If, cause listen.
Online dating is this whole strange thing.
We now learn about someone before we meet them.
Back in the day, you'd meet someone, talk to them, learn about those things, and then be like, oh, yeah, I'm not interested.
If I saw a profile for a woman, and she was interested in dating, and she was incapable of having a family, I would take that, I would be offended by that.
Absolutely.
There are a lot of people on their profiles, they put whether they want kids or not.
It is a major, major factor in dating profiles.
Wants kids.
Every single dating site has that as your basic, they say, age, 30 years old, male, 5 foot 10, wants kids.
Female, 5'7", you know, wants kids, and your religion as well.
And now Okcupid's doing politics.
So imagine, you don't put whether you want kids or not, or you say you do want kids, and people assume you can have kids with them.
That's one of the big problems.
It is already hard enough to date, but now you are reaching into a dating pool that is so absolutely small compared to what people are looking for.
So I feel bad.
I certainly believe people are deserving of love, but you, unfortunately, are in a difficult position.
The problem I see with this article is that it actually blames society.
It is mind-blowing to me.
The writer, Lee, blames society.
So I did the most obvious thing to do, try to understand what was going on.
I asked randoms on Reddit, why do women vanish when I tell them I'm a trans guy?
I posted on Our Dating Advice, a forum with 1.1 million readers.
That might sound like a recipe for disaster, and yes, I was prepared for nasty replies.
They did come, but not in the volume I expected.
I actually looked up the post.
There was one.
It was deleted, and everyone blasted this person as being awful.
And you know what?
Don't be awful.
But be honest.
You can be honest without being mean.
And I think if I'm gonna be honest, if you don't understand why biological females don't want to be in a relationship with a biological female, I think you were lied to.
I think the woke progressives are telling you trans men are men, And therefore people are going to openly just date you and it's not the case.
First of all, people have racial preferences.
You want to call it racist?
You can, but it's a fact.
People do.
There are racial fetishes too, but no, people have preferences for race.
What are you going to do about it?
People love who they love.
But more importantly, what's really shocking to me about this is that you didn't realize That people view this as homosexual.
I'm not trying to be mean.
Please, I'm having a real conversation.
I know people are going to freak out.
This is a very difficult conversation to have because I'm not trying to disparage anybody.
But sexuality is, for the most part, binary, with a small intersex deviation that goes up to, I think, estimates say about 1.7%.
But gametes are binary.
Most people are discernibly male or female.
When it comes to how someone presents their gender expression, how it comes out is bimodal, meaning there are individuals who are male on the far end of the spectrum who are more feminine than the average biological female.
That I understand.
That comes from, I look at like Heather Hine and Brett Weinstein and other intellectual dark web types who talk about biology.
But when it comes to your reproductive organs and who you are and your genetics, you have asexuality.
Homosexual is a reference to same-sex attraction.
That means you as a trans man are still sexually female, even though you have transitioned.
And I understand people will say trans men are men, trans women are women, but those are social concepts, not biological ones.
You cannot expect a biological individual with a sexuality that they were born with, that is not what they choose, to change.
And this is where things get absolutely insane to me.
How could you expect a biological female to be attracted to a biological female?
I don't understand how you changed that.
Do you expect them to go through conversion therapy to now be accepting of this?
I don't think that's appropriate.
Lee writes, At the start of my dating adventure, following the end of a three-year relationship, I had profiles on three different dating apps, but only stated I was trans in one.
I racked up the likes on Tinder and Bumble, nothing exceptional, but enough to know I wasn't repulsive.
Things were significantly slower on OkCupid where I stated that I was trans.
I'm gonna say this too.
I am greatly offended by the fact that OkCupid does not separate trans from male and female.
OkCupid has different gender options.
I don't want trans individuals to pop up on my profile, not because I'm transphobic or have anything against them, but because I want to have a family.
Okay?
I am looking for a For the most part, cis female.
I mean, if she's bi or queer or whatever, I guess it's fine too, but having a family is a serious prerequisite for me.
OkCupid doesn't give me the option to say, no disrespect, not my preference.
They allow me to choose racial preference.
Yeah, OkCupid allows you to choose racial preference.
It allows you to choose sexual preference, but not trans preference.
Okay, listen.
It has nothing... Choosing a certain race or a height or a weight is not disrespectful to someone else.
It is more complimentary to that group you like.
I think people should be free to do what they want, have their own rights, but I'm under no obligation to be attracted to you or anyone else, nor is anyone else.
But yes, on OkCupid, there are two big problems.
One, all of the Southeast Asians who are trying to move to America... Look, man, I get it.
You want to come to America and you want to find a husband.
I can't turn that off.
And also, people who are trans saying that, like, I don't know how you deal with it, but there are tons of people who are trans on OkCupid who don't say they are, and, you know, in the end, if there's an overly masculine woman, I'm probably gonna swipe left anyway.
It is not an insult.
It just means I don't, I'm not interested.
You know, I can think about, like, acting, right?
If you don't get the job, it's not because they're discriminating against you, it's because you didn't fit the role.
This is where things get really, really complicated.
Why is it considered transphobic to say you wouldn't date a trans person?
There are a lot of people I wouldn't date.
I wouldn't date... I wouldn't date a social justice, you know, ideologue, identitarian.
I actually have.
Actually, all of my girlfriends have been, for the most part.
But, I mean, they've gotten substantially worse.
I'm more interested in, like, a regular, like, um... I say regular politically, not, you know, physically.
But why is it that we're allowed to have preferences up until it comes to this issue?
It makes no sense.
I personally would not date a trans woman.
I am not attracted to that body type.
I have no problem with you, your life, your existence.
I respect you and congratulations, do your thing.
But I don't think it's fair that you would go on a date with somebody and not tell them that.
Because it's kind of, you know, misleading.
There are women who talk about how men lying about their careers and their income and how that's assault because you can't consent if you don't know.
Well, look, man.
I'll wrap this up, because I understand it's a very, very difficult issue.
But in the end, Lee writes that it's... The overriding sense I got from the replies was one of ignorance about trans people.
And while most of the offensive and ridiculous replies are now gone, there was some hope in others that remained.
I keep clashing with people because of this, but I honestly don't think that trans people are obligated to put their transsexuality as a disclaimer in front of each and every potentially romantic interaction, one woman wrote.
Well, for me, it's not about necessarily trans, for the most part.
I think it's about, can I have a family with you?
And are you attractive?
And there are some things I'm into and some things I'm not.
So, I think it's unfair to not be up front with people.
I know I'd be uncomfortable as hell if I had to disclose what my genitalia looked like or what my fertility status was to complete strangers.
No, you do.
On OkCupid, they ask you if you want to have kids.
And you can put, I do want kids, and some of the first conversations will be, can you have kids?
And if you're infertile, that's a really important thing to tell a potential partner.
Man, that would be devastating, spending all this time with someone saying, yeah, yeah, we'll have kids, we'll have kids, and then months go by and they're like, oh, but by the way, I can't.
We hold trans people to a higher standard than anyone else when it comes to dating.
We don't.
We require of them more than we ask of others, all while constantly sending the message that trans people are somehow less than.
The reality is being trans is a magic sorting hat.
As tough as it is to have people vanish when you tell them who you are, it does me a favor.
By telling them that one thing about me, their reaction tells me everything I need to know about them.
I should probably message them to say thanks.
This article reeks of bitterness.
I could be wrong.
But to me, you know, for one, this conversation is very, very difficult today.
And I feel like it stems from lies.
Look at the data.
Overwhelmingly, people say success is having a family.
And I'll just be honest with you.
That's what I want.
I would not want to be with someone who is incapable of having a family.
And if you're infertile and you're offended by that, well, I'm sorry.
That's just reality.
Reality can be offensive.
And you are not entitled to my body.
You are not entitled to my love.
You are not entitled to my respect.
Those things are earned.
And that's what I'm sick of.
A lot of what we see from this woke progressive left is a demand that you accept and love and give yourself to someone else.
No.
Okay?
You have a right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
And I will defend to the death your right to your civil rights.
I will do that as well, regardless of who you are.
But I will not.
I will never claim it as your right to have anyone else's body.
If these people don't want to be with you and you are not honest with them, you are not entitled to their body.
Period.
That's it.
Everybody's different.
And everybody has to respect each other.
But it's not society's fault.
It's just, you know, we're not always dealt a good hand.
And dating is difficult already.
I'll leave it there.
I expect this one to get shut down by YouTube and striked and whatever, but you know what?
It is what it is.
I don't care.
I'm not afraid to speak my opinion.
I try my best to be respectful and honor people and give them the benefit of the doubt.
But I will tell you this.
You are not entitled to me.
That's it.
Nor is the government.
Nor is anyone else.
Nor is anyone entitled to you.
We all have preference.
We all make choices.
That's it.
We should be honest with each other about everything.
And if you know there's something about you that is off-putting, that you think people might say, I don't want to be involved in that, you should probably tell them.
That's unfair to drag someone.
It's called leading them on.
I'll leave it there.
See you guys tomorrow at 10am on the main channel.
