Leftists ACTUALLY Argue Trump Works For Russia But Is Starting World War Three With Them??
Leftists ACTUALLY Argue Trump Works For Russia But Is Starting World War Three With Them?? Over the past several years we have been inundated with claims that Donald Trump was secretly working with or colluding with Russia and Vladimir Putin. it culminated with a years long investigation ending in absolutely nothing.No collusion, no obstruction.Now here we are in the midst of an impeachment where nancy pelosi actually says "all roads lead to Putin"But then came major escalations in Iraq and Trump taking decisive action against an iranian general. People began to decry Trump's actions as sparking World War Three. One activist site Truthout claims Trump is literally trying to start world war three.But wait, I thought Trump worked for Putin and Russia? They condemned Trump's actions and are a key ally of Iran.And now we have leftists quite literally arguing that Trump both simultaneously works for Russia but also targeted Iran a key ally of Russia to start world war three. It makes absolutely no sense.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I believe I have stumbled upon the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known.
Why?
After watching CNN and the New York Times, reading some activist websites like Common Dreams and Truthout, I have come to one absolute conclusion.
That Donald Trump both simultaneously works for Russia and at Vladimir Putin's orders targeted one of their allies to trigger a war with Russia.
Because apparently Putin wants America to attack Russia, I guess?
Listen, man, if you've been following the news over the past several months, you know that the main propaganda, like, narrative against Trump has been that he works for Vladimir Putin.
While it was just a few days ago, about a week ago, actually, maybe longer, some, like, private plane from Russia Apparently landed in Florida and everybody was screeching that Donald Trump was bringing in the oligarchs, that he was taking his orders from Putin.
He got on the phone call with Vladimir Putin and they said, what is he talking about?
But then something else happened.
The American embassy in Baghdad was attacked.
It was brutal.
They tried to burn the place down.
Trump came in with Marines, rejected it, and retaliated against one of the top generals of Iran, sparking the next wave of anti-Trump propaganda that Donald Trump is starting World War III.
So here's what I have for you today.
I'm going to walk you through a series of stories that slowly morph into Donald Trump works for Putin, Okay, and then into Trump is trying to start World War 3, and my favorite is the story that actually combines both!
I don't understand how he can live in a world where this kind of insanity exists, where the media is trying to claim that he's both for and against Russia at the exact same time.
I got the stories for you, apparently.
But I will tell you this.
Before we get into this, I'll just be fair.
I think the reality is Trump is not working for Russia.
I think Trump is trying to appease certain countries to de-escalate tensions and actually, you know, bring about peace.
I'm not saying he's doing a good job of it or he's doing it right.
I mean, he's certainly escalating tensions in the Middle East.
But when it comes to Trump's attitude towards Russia, we can look back at 2016 and see Trump's vision of what we should be doing.
So we should be bringing them in and becoming allies with them.
So I think what we've seen from Trump is an attempt to de-escalate tensions between Russia.
What I find particularly funny is that right now conservatives are particularly angry with Obama over Obama's attempts to appease Iran.
So nobody's perfect.
I don't know what the right path to world peace and diplomacy is, but I will at least say this.
For one, I've been very clear that I think Trump made a dramatic escalation that probably shouldn't have been done with the strike in Baghdad.
I am not the smartest person in the world, so I'm not here to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe.
I just happen to lean against escalation and foreign war.
And I think a lot of this stems from our involvement in the Middle East, which it shouldn't be there in the first place.
So every escalation is worse than the next.
I'm sorry, worse than the last.
But I will also add, many people on the left are omitting important context that what happened in Baghdad was not us, you know, the United States willy-nilly being like, we're going to do it.
No, it was like the embassy was attacked because we retaliated because they, you know, some Iranian militias attacked U.S.
soldiers and, you know, it was It's been a long, complicated escalation.
I don't want to get too much into that.
The point of this video is to basically say, I think we can see now definitively that the left-wing narrative of Trump and Russia, even though I know it was debunked in the Mueller report, it's just beyond absurd.
So I'll tell you this.
Before we get started, I do want to walk you through some of these stories.
Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
And here's why.
I know most people aren't going to bother watching a video like this, but I want you to look at this.
These people are claiming two paradoxical things at once.
The only conclusion that when you see left-wing personalities claim Trump is working for Russia and he received orders to attack these Iranians, your argument is that Putin wants us to declare war against him.
I mean, yeah, maybe, but it's an absurd conspiracy to think that Trump is both simultaneously working for and against Russia at the exact same time.
I think this shows us the sheer absurdity of the anti-Trump, pro-Putin message.
And I'm going to show you these stories.
Let's get started.
The first story I have for you, going back to December 19th, you know, and I will say too, I initially wanted to do like an actually full produced with music conspiracy video, but I thought like facetiously, but YouTube would probably strike it down.
Let's be real.
I wanted to be like December 19th.
Quartz reports.
What Trump really wants is to join the Axis of Evil.
That was the narrative.
And then I was gonna, like, walk you through the timeline where it eventually comes to, like, Vladimir Putin wanting World War III against him.
No!
It's just ridiculous, okay?
But, but, but, no, but seriously, let's read this.
On January 29, 2002, in a State of the Union address, George W. Bush, the president who fumbled and lurched us into a disastrous war in Iraq, did something that made sense.
He introduced the term, the Axis of Evil.
As we all know, this club was originally comprised of Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.
Since then, nations such as Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba have been assigned to this camp of oppressive military dictatorships.
And more recent additions may include Turkey and the Philippines.
I mean, the Philippines has been getting pretty bad, but that's surprising to me.
What do these so-called acts of evil governments have in common?
A penchant for weapons of mass destruction, for one.
But more importantly, they all stand in firm opposition to the United States.
Despite this qualification, there's good reason to believe that more than anything, the U.S.
President Donald Trump aches to be a part of the Axis of Evil cohort.
The fact that recent hearings just resulted in a 230 to 197 vote in favor of impeaching Trump offers some support to this argument.
But there's an abundance of other proof that Trump wants to be a part of the Axis of Evil.
They say there's a tendency for authoritarian regimes to be run by dictators.
For life, Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, Ayatollah Khomeini, Syria's Bashar al-Assad.
You get the point.
Trump has joked about breaking his two-term limit, and his current campaign manager Brad Parscale has bragged openly that the Trumps will be a dynasty that lasts for decades.
Let me just stop you right there.
Listen, we've had dynasties, okay?
We don't like them.
It's possible the Trumps will be.
I think Trump Jr.
may run.
They're popular among a decent amount of people in this country.
But they're trolling you!
Here's the point.
First, I'm starting light when they say he wants to join the Axis of Evil, because it's not particularly about Russia, but about all of these countries, which includes Iran!
That's the point!
He wants to join the Axis of Evil, which, the first country they list is Iran.
These people are insane, okay?
Trump deserves to be criticized for a lot of reasons, okay?
Even Tucker Carlson criticized the escalation with Iran, the tensions, and what happened in Baghdad.
We understand that.
But what I want to get to is less about the conflict, because I gotta be honest, I'm really, really frustrated when these news cycles start, where literally everyone says the same things, like Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran, Baghdad, Baghdad.
So I am still talking about it, but I'm trying to focus on this.
The current iteration, the current news cycle, cannot coexist with the previous news cycle.
The anti-Trump narrative before makes no sense in the context of what is currently being said by left-wing group and activist groups.
Look at this story from CNN.
December 30th, Trump's latest call with Putin raises more question than it answers.
Heavens!
There was concern that Donald Trump had a secret phone call with Vladimir Putin, and no one knew what had been said.
In fact, it wasn't until Vladimir Putin himself came out and said, I had a good call with Trump, did people start panicking, saying, how do we only know this because of Vladimir Putin?
But the story gets darker.
The conspiracy runs deep.
Because, according to Inquisitor, Kremlin Bank CEO may have flown to Florida six days after Vladimir Putin phoned Donald Trump, records suggest.
A private jet reportedly used by Sabre Bank CEO German Gref landed in Fort Lauderdale at 2.30 in the morning Saturday.
According to FlightAware.com, yes, this story reported just today by Inquisitor.
And I want to point out one very important detail.
I will only be using verified news guard sources.
I often bring up this company.
I think they're pretty good, but they are biased, and I've criticized them heavily in the past.
But for those that aren't familiar, Every single story and citation I use runs the news guard shield.
I have stopped using some websites when they've lost their rating.
It's nothing personal to the news outlets, but I'm doing this for a reason.
I am going to show you a series of sources arguing that there's this weird conspiracy sort of, like they're insinuating this weird nefarious plot between Trump and the Russians, and then other sources simultaneously arguing that Trump is trying to start a war with Russia!
And they're all certified by NewsGuard.
Now, this is not a dig at NewsGuard.
I like them.
I do.
Okay?
And I'm glad to let you know they exist.
It's a dig at the media ecosystem.
This story from Inquisitor about the Kremlin bank CEO flying to Florida six days after Putin phoned Trump.
Why is that relevant?
Okay?
People from different countries fly to different places all the time.
I'll tell you what, Mar-a-Lago is a business and rich people probably want to stay there.
But the insinuation they added six days after Putin phoned Trump OK, so you know what they're implying with this story, which is certified by NewsGuard.
And this is my favorite.
Back in October, Nancy Pelosi calls out Trump.
All roads lead to Putin.
Pelosi questions Trump's loyalty in White House clash.
Why?
Even after it's been like a year, man.
OK, maybe not.
OK, I'm exaggerating.
It's been it's been almost a year.
It's been like most of the year.
The Mueller report came out.
We know Trump is not working with Putin.
It is sheer insanity.
It turns out the phone call between Trump and Putin was that Putin was thanking Trump for providing intelligence to thwart a potential attack.
The Russian president called the American president to thank him for a tip about an attack said to be aimed at St.
Petersburg.
Let me break down for you reality, okay?
Because I don't like bearing the lead.
Trump is trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia.
They've been pretty hot for a while.
Trump is also engaged, the United States is engaged in a Middle Eastern conflict.
Trump is trying not to start a war with Russia while simultaneously retaliating against, you know, due to the escalations happening in Baghdad.
They, listen, Trump doesn't work for Putin.
He just doesn't want to go to war with them.
I guess they're arguing he does both now.
You know, what's funny is both narratives miss the point.
You've got the narrative that Trump is going to start World War III because Russia, you know, Russia condemned what Trump did in Baghdad with the Iranian general, and simultaneously works for Putin, but both are not true.
The reality is Trump is de-escalating tensions with Russia and simultaneously involved in a military escalation with Iran.
He is not trying to start World War III.
He is not going to start World War III.
He is trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, not working for them.
Both narratives are wrong.
OK, so Trump provided intelligence that helped.
Listen, man, the Middle East, we shouldn't be there.
You know what?
I did a really crazy rant the other day, more angry than I've been in a really long time when it comes to content like this.
And it's tough.
You know, I don't like the war hawks in the Democratic Party.
And I see a lot of people cheering on Trump's escalation in Baghdad.
But I do think it's fair to point out We're not at war yet.
Things are escalating as of right now, okay?
And I don't want to get into all of the military stuff, because I think it's being really overplayed.
You look back in time at Obama, okay?
Obama was doing a ton of crazy stuff, too, and it never made the press like this.
And that's why I think we've got to be careful about the narrative.
But let's read up.
I want to get to the point about... I'm just loving this.
Trump working for Russia at the same time.
January 2nd, just a day before, the Washington Post runs this story, how Russia saw Trump a potential asset and an exploitable victim.
So naturally, you know, I've got a lot of sources outlining this.
Here's a tweet from Christopher C. Alberto, former federal prosecutor, going after white-collar crime.
Someone tweeted about Herman Gref, the CEO of Russia's largest bank.
Why did he arrive where the president is located at 2.30 in the morning?
And he said, As America slapped Herman Gref's private jet, close Putin allies since the 1990s, and who hosted Trump to an elaborate dinner party during the 2013 Miss Universe event, landed near Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, where he decided to assassinate Soleimani, and where Trump is located.
Then we have this one.
Someone said people shouldn't overlook the influence of Mar-a-Lago on Trump's decision making.
To which, this is just a random tweet, I know.
There's a big, big list of tweets like this, but I want to show you that it's not just, you know, former prosecutors or journalists, but regular people saying, no offense, but you're way off on this.
Trump talked to Putin a week ago and received his directive then.
It's no more complicated than that.
The reason I highlight this is because I am trying to segue you between the Trump works for Putin and Trump is trying to go to war with Putin and the people in between who are actually arguing both are happening at the same time.
I love it.
This is a bonus from January 1st.
Trump's push for lofty nuclear treaty sparks worry over current deal.
And it's like they say, President Trump and his Russian counterpart have the coming year to deal with an expiring nuclear treaty.
But it's just, you know, once again showing that there's this ongoing narrative of Trump, you know, smiling and shaking hands with Putin.
It's just a bonus.
I just added it for, you know, just to show you that just before what happened with Iran, the arguments were very much so like Trump's cooperation with Russia.
But here's one where it gets really, really great.
Russia's Russian state media blames impeachment for Trump's Iran strike.
For Donald Trump, the annihilation of an Iranian general presents a decent opportunity for a domestic PR campaign, one Kremlin, Kremlin communist said.
This is a story that simultaneously points out Russia is condemning Trump, but then pointing the blame at Democrats for why it happened.
Yes, I love the dual narrative of like Russia trying to start World War Three against itself.
What?!
Look, man.
I mean, it's possible, you know?
There's a lot of crazy conspiracies in this world.
It's possible, but so absurd.
Indy 100 writes, we're now getting into the World War III narrative, where it's about Trump going to war with the Axis of Evil, not wanting to be a part of it.
You see, I did this as sort of a gradient, like starting with Trump loves them, to Trump simultaneously loves and hates them, and now to Trump hates them.
They ask.
Indy 100 says.
This is The Independent.
Over the next few days, we'll likely hear a lot of different opinions on what's going to happen next.
Foreign issues can be unpredictable, particularly when someone like Trump is in the White House.
The former UK ambassador to Lebanon said that the crucial question is what happens next, though he did suggest that Soleimani was a much more powerful figure than Bin Laden or Baghdadi, where at the moment of their own deaths, their power was in decline.
The question is, is World War III really on the horizon?
Now, I'm highlighting this as a neutral piece.
This is actually, you know, it's fine to ask the question.
They're saying, you know, we don't know what's going to happen.
There's a potential for World War III.
While I can be critical of the independents' previous reporting, I think it's fair to point out, as of right now, you know, they're not definitively saying yes or no.
They're not accusing Trump of working for Putin right now.
But I do want to point out another important bit of information.
This was the 27th of December.
China, Russia, and Iran begin joint naval drills.
The four-day exercise in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman comes at a time of heightened tensions between the U.S.
and Iran.
This is Al Jazeera, OK?
And I've been critical of AJ+, and Al Jazeera's not perfect.
But once we start getting into, like, legitimate news and talking about what's really happening, I think the narrative becomes clear.
Yes, Russia and Iran are allies.
Russia has condemned the action that Trump has taken.
Donald Trump is trying to reduce tensions between Russia probably because of the Middle East.
It's so insane to me how you can't see what's really happening, okay?
I understand this is just my speculation, my opinion, but let's put it this way.
Because we have active military bases surrounding Iran, and Iran has been engaging in actions against U.S.
interests, and Trump probably knows there will be an escalation between the U.S.
and Iran, there will be an escalation of tensions, and that he needs to make sure things have simmered down between Russia to a certain degree, that if tensions between Iran light up, and things will start lighting up with Russia, it doesn't breach that point of war.
In the 2016 debate, Trump said we don't want to go to war with Russia.
I believe that's the case.
I believe Trump is trying to work with Russia to the best of his abilities because we're escalating tensions in Iran.
I do not like any of it!
Okay?
Let's be clear.
I'm not praising any of it.
I'm making the point that it appears Trump is not trying to join the axis of evil.
He's trying to simmer down tensions.
Because they're likely to escalate in the Middle East.
Let's put it simply.
The acts of evil included, you know, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
The tensions between Iran were probable.
They've been going on for a long time.
Trump was about to fly planes to a strike in Iran and he cancelled it.
And one of the reasons may be tensions with these other countries are too hot.
So Trump tries talking with Putin.
Calm down, we'll work with you here, we'll do these things, because he knows what's coming in the Middle East, and it's an attempt to... I'm sorry.
It's an attempt to avoid World War III.
I am not praising his actions.
I am just speculating based on everything we have.
So to put it simply, no, he's not working for Putin, and no, he's not starting World War III.
The U.S.
is not going to have a ground invasion of Iran.
It's going to be constant Middle Eastern tensions like it always will be.
So now we have, quite honestly, my favorite story.
I was gonna save it for the last, but I can't do it because I know a lot of people are probably tuning out after, you know, so far into these videos.
CNN's obsession with Trump's ice cream intake resumes with lampooned dessert report.
I kid you not.
CNN apparently ran a story about Donald Trump eating ice cream as the escalation was occurring in Baghdad, to put it simply.
CNN was panned for once writing about how Donald Trump got two scoops of ice cream when everyone else got one.
And CNN jumps the shark again by talking about Trump's ice cream.
Now, I'm gonna end on a more serious note.
I threw this in here because I thought it was funny and hopefully you laughed at it.
But the next stories we have are the more activist-y stories.
So first, this is McClatchy.
It's legit journalism.
They say, is the U.S.
headed for World War III?
Here's what experts say.
Once again, I'm showing this as kind of a counterbalance, because I'm going to show you some activist narratives coming up in a second.
But McClatchy's is OK.
They've got some false reporting on Russiagate.
They apparently never correct it.
That's what I read in a previous segment.
And they're asking the question.
Here's what people on Twitter are saying.
You know, I'm sorry.
Here's what experts are saying.
Twitter fear is the worst.
But let me bring you to Common Dreams.
World War Three trends as hawks rejoice at Trump decision to assassinate an Iranian military leader.
Hawks are celebrating Soleimani's assassination, yada yada.
So basically, this one is still kind of a bit fair, but they're pushing this insinuation of World War Three.
We are now totally outside of the realm of Trump and Russia.
We are now in the territory of Trump and the Warhawks are cheering and dancing for World War Three.
They're not talking about Trump and Putin anymore.
And lastly, we have Truthout.
Trump celebrates new decade by trying to start World War III.
And this ends my gradient from crazy to crazy.
We started with Trump trying to join the Axis of Evil, and we end with Trump trying to destroy the Axis of Evil?
You know what, man?
I read the news every single day.
And I'll tell you this.
It's very clear the narratives are insane.
Trump is not trying to start World War 3.
Trump is not working for Vladimir Putin.
Y'all are nuts.
It's just insanity.
But here's the thing, okay?
I'll tell you this.
They're both left-wing narratives.
It's left-wing activists arguing that Trump is trying to start World War 3.
It's left-wing experts and pundits arguing that Trump is working for Putin.
What are y'all doing?
Conservatives don't believe any of this, and both can't be true!
I love it.
This is 2020.
We have a media arguing, and my favorite, I gotta say, is the ones in the middle that are simultaneously arguing both, that Putin, the CEO of this bank, flies to six days out.
Okay.
Trump gets a phone call from Putin.
Here's the conspiracy.
Apparently telling him that an oligarch is going to meet him in Florida.
The oligarch flies to Florida and then instructs Trump to target an ally of theirs to trigger a war with them.
You would have to believe one of the most insane and absurd conspiracy theories ever.
I'll tell you this.
When you look at some of the crazy conspiracy theories of the past about, like, false flags the United States engages in, some of them are true.
I'll admit that.
You know, like Gulf of Tonkin and stuff.
But they're arguing that the government is trying to benefit itself.
They say the U.S.
government engages in these conspiracies to gain power and to trigger wars.
This conspiracy would have to be that Donald Trump is taking orders from Putin because Putin wants a war against himself.
Don't ask me why.
It's like a double conspiracy.
It's like Vladimir Putin isn't trying to convince his people.
He's trying to instruct the president of a foreign country, the most powerful nation on the planet, who he has control over, to declare war on him.
So he can win, maybe?
Maybe it'll be bad for the U.S.?
I mean, look, fine.
I guess if Trump worked for Putin, then Putin could tell Trump where and how to engage in the conflict or something.
I don't know, man.
I think everyone's insane.
And we have this story from Truthout where they're saying Trump is trying to start World War III.
That's their opinion.
And it starts with the opinion of Trump is trying to join Russia.
So I don't know what to tell you, man.
Are oligarchs flying to Florida to give Trump secret instructions to take out their own allies?
That's psychotic.
Okay?
The reality is the world is chaotic, man.
Okay?
Sometimes rich people fly to golf resorts.
That's it.
Donald Trump is the president.
He has phone calls and meetings with countries like Russia.
Nobody screeches when Trump has phone calls and meetings with other countries.
Because Trump is certainly talking to other people.
Nobody screeched when Obama was meeting with Putin.
Nobody screeched when Obama was working with Iran.
Nobody screeched when—and when I say nobody, I mean the media and the press and these narratives, because certainly activists have been.
A lot of left-wing activists were calling out Obama for his drone stuff, too.
I can respect that.
And I think it's still fair to call him out, and to call out Trump for his drone stuff as well.
The issue is, you know what, man?
I was very, very critical of Obama, okay?
And it's partly because I voted for him.
I grew up in Chicago.
Chicago was Democrat, period.
There was no Republican influence in my life growing up, so the lies, the cheating, and the stealing were coming from Democrats pretending to care about what we cared about.
I voted for Obama thinking that there was hope and change.
It wasn't.
He bolstered our troops in the Middle East.
He engaged in some of the most egregious and authoritarian foreign policy.
There was the targeting of American citizens, non-profits, hospitals, etc.
And I screamed about it.
I was angry.
I was betrayed.
Outraged.
This was what Bush was doing!
How dare you, Obama!
So when Trump comes around and he's preaching he's going to do the opposite, I say, well, you know, he's saying that on the debate stage.
Hillary Clinton was pro-war.
I'm not going to support that.
I was betrayed once.
At least she was being honest, but I'm not going to support that.
Trump said he'd do the opposite.
Trump has upped the ante when it comes to drones.
There's been more.
Depending on which reports you read, I know it's contested.
But Trump is certainly escalating things in the Middle East.
I understand why, okay?
It wasn't like Trump just snapped his fingers and decided to start, you know, an escalation.
It was conflict back and forth, and it's been going back and forth for a long time.
And Trump didn't bring us into the Middle East.
So, look, I understand.
But it's about time we left.
Period.
You know?
I look at it now and I say, you know, what I told Crowder when I'm on the Crowder Show is that The office controls you, okay?
There's intelligence, there's a machine at play, and the president isn't as powerful as you think they are.
Trump has done right by the economy, I'll give him that, but he's not doing right foreign policy-wise.
I don't care what you think about escalation.
The point is, we need to go.
I understand the escalation.
I understand why Trump did what he did.
I get it.
I understand the reasoning and justification from people on the right, and there's even some people on the left in media who are agreeing with Trump on this one as well.
Mostly they are the establishment war hawk types.
If we want to stop the escalation, it's time to go.
I'll be fair, okay?
The attack that sparked this was on an American embassy, right?
And I know before that there was the militia.
Anyone anywhere can attack an American embassy.
Even if we weren't putting our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would still have
embassies there.
They're still vulnerable.
So it's important to point that out.
These were particularly brutal attacks on American soil, and Trump retaliated as he
did.
I wish he didn't.
I wish he didn't have to.
I don't know what the right answers are, but I don't believe escalation will solve the problem.
I understand the idea of, you know, not wanting to be weak, but it's about time, regardless of your thoughts, we get out of the Middle East.
You get the point.
I'll leave it there.
I'm not going to turn this into a military rant video, because I do those enough.
But this is basically about the dual propaganda narrative of the left, which literally makes no sense.
So I hope it's been fun for you.
Stick around.
The next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And I will see you all then.
No, you are not going to be drafted.
Calm down.
In response to the hashtag trend of World War III in France, Ferdinand, and the fears of escalation between the U.S.
and other countries, the website for the Selective Service shut down.
It was overloaded.
And they said it was due to the spread of misinformation.
So I want to go through a few things in this segment with you.
First of all, no, you're not going to be drafted.
I'll explain why.
We'll talk a little bit about the history of the draft.
And I also want to explain, in no uncertain terms, No, Donald Trump did not just start World War 3.
Everyone needs to calm down.
This was a serious escalation, but the escalation has been ongoing back and forth for a long time now.
Nobody says anything in the press when Obama drone strikes, you know, thousands of people, okay?
So you need to understand that the media overhypes everything, and right now we are in the era of Orange Man Bed.
Take it with a grain of salt.
It's possible World War 3, whatever, fine, but very unlikely.
This kind of thing has happened before, it will happen again. It is bad. I'm
not excusing what Trump did.
I'm not playing what about ism. But you have to understand when Obama was going through his
foreign policy, there was nothing from the mainstream press.
There were no, there were no, there was no scare tactics or concerns. What we're
really seeing is that an election is coming up and people are using this to go after Trump.
That's really what it's about.
Again, not an excuse for what Trump did.
You know, even Tucker Carlson did a segment saying, what is he thinking?
We need to fix our own country.
But before we get all that, let's talk about what's going on with the draft, because that's the crux of what I'm trying to get to you guys today.
The website was shut down.
People are losing it, scared they will be drafted.
It won't happen.
The Selective Service said, Due to the spread of misinformation, our website is experiencing high traffic volumes at this time.
If you are attempting to register or verify registration, please check back later today, as we are working to resolve the issue.
We appreciate your patience.
You're not going to be drafted.
I'll say it for the millionth time.
And the New York Times has a good story explaining the law where we're currently at.
But I do want to talk about the legality of the Selective Service.
And I want to talk to you about why they don't need to draft anybody right now.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's several different ways you can give.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
To help overcome YouTube's biased algorithms that are attempting to shut down independent news and political commentary.
Seriously, if you guys share it, it's the most powerful way to overcome YouTube restricting content.
And I gotta admit, I've been saying for a while, like, hey, share this video, and I believe if I didn't say that, I'd be completely defunct by now.
I'm not kidding, I'm not kidding.
So we've got some big changes coming up, I'm doing a new show, we'll see what happens.
But let's read.
First, who is eligible for the draft?
The draft ended in 1973 and the military changed to an all-volunteer force.
Currently, all men ages 18 to 25 are required by law to provide basic personal information to the Selective Service System.
Not doing so is illegal.
In fact, it's a felony.
You can get five years in prison.
Yeah, let's talk about that, huh?
The Selective Service System is conducting business as usual.
In the event that a national emergency necessitates a draft, Congress and the President would need to pass official legislation to authorize a draft, which is not going to happen any time soon.
You know what, so maybe that's bad for us in a way, but I guess good for the individual, you know.
I really don't see Congress and Trump, unless, you know, short of like, I don't know, nuclear Armageddon.
It's just, we're not there.
Listen, man, the media is screeching a million screeches because it's election season.
I don't know why.
I think it's a terrible idea what Trump just did.
For a lot of reasons.
Even, you know, like I said, Tucker Carlson.
You get in the left to agree with Tucker Carlson, you know something's going on.
Let's read.
They say in earlier drafts, there were a number of deferments that could have kept someone from being drafted, such as medical conditions or attending college.
Knowing this, individuals appeared to be researching federal student aid, which provides federal student aid to college students from the U.S.
Education Department.
Registering with the Selective Service has been a long-standing requirement to receive federal student aid, a federal job, Federal Student Aid tweeted from their official Twitter.
However, the U.S.
military has been all-volunteer since 1973, and Congress would need to pass a new law to institute a draft.
There is no priority order for selective service based on the FAFSA form.
They use a random lottery number and year of birth.
So, I will say this.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, there's a draft.
Most young people are Democrats, so Republicans probably aren't concerned about losing votes if they say, fine, we'll draft people because Republicans tend to be older.
But think about the House, the Democrats, voting to institute a draft.
Never gonna happen because they would lose all of the youth support.
So, yeah, not likely.
It is complicated, you know, I'll admit it.
I just, look.
Short of a literal, like, nuclear strike, it's just not going to happen.
I want to talk to you guys about war and why the theater of war has changed and why it's just extremely unlikely we face the kind of war that we faced in the past, right?
I'll get to that because I do want to talk about the gender stuff and the Supreme Court rulings because they have this in the CNN article.
They say, women were exempt from the draft.
In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld a congressional decision to exempt women from registering for the Selective Service, deciding that because women were restricted from combat, there would be no need for their services in the event of a draft.
I'm gonna say full stop, that's BS.
Okay?
Even if women can't fire a gun, women can do other things, like manufacturing.
So I think that's absurd, that you wouldn't, you know, require women to be drafted.
It's not like every draft is gonna be combat, is it?
I guess apparently so, all combat roles.
But there's still things they could do, they could change that.
However, Check this out.
In 2015, the Obama administration opened all military occupational specialties to women, including combat jobs.
Since then, women have graduated from the Army Elite Ranger School, served on submarines, and completed Marine Corps artillery officers training.
A federal judge ruled in February 2019 that the all-male draft was unconstitutional.
You're right.
Saying historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination.
Men and women now have many similar roles.
The judge's decision had no immediate effect as it did not block the government's current
policy.
Any appeal by the Selective Service System would go to the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals before it would reach the Supreme Court.
It is uncertain whether it would reach that level.
The Selective Service System has urged U.S.
District Court Judge Grayne Miller to reject the case, largely because the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, appointed by Congress, is now studying the mail-only registration policy.
The commission is supposed to develop a report and recommendations by March 2020.
So I do have another story from the New York Times we'll go through, but I will point out.
According to the Selective Service, the draft is constitutional, and I'm going to say it right now, I think the draft can be a good thing.
You may be shocked to hear that.
Yes, I am a quite liberty-minded individual, but I'm talking about in the case of foreign invaders charging into the US.
Yeah, then it's like, hey man, you gotta fight to defend yourself.
But short of that, I don't believe a draft for a foreign war makes sense.
You know, like, Vietnam was insane.
It's like, oh, we better send our soldiers over to a foreign country.
Nah, sorry.
I know, you're scared of the spread of communism and all that stuff.
Fine.
But unless they're coming here, you got a bad argument.
I'll tell you this, man.
I do not believe the U.S.
could be conquered.
Period.
I believe it is physically impossible.
And that's why I'm like, draft, don't need it.
Okay?
Think about it this way.
If they come and confiscate, you know, let's say they appeal the Second Amendment, or I'm sorry, repeal the Second Amendment.
Sure, yeah, then maybe we could be, but for the time being?
What's that saying, like, behind every blade of grass is a gun?
There's no way!
There's no way!
They could send a million soldiers to the west coast, storming the beaches, and they would have no chance!
Because there's just too many weapons in this country, I'm sorry!
You know, if there's one good thing that comes out of You know, the Second Amendment debate or whatever.
There's one thing that's undeniable, I should say, is that we're unconquerable.
Sorry, we have trouble dealing with some of these issues ourselves, and we're arguing amongst ourselves about mental health versus, you know, the Second Amendment.
But at least nobody is going to be invading us, so we don't need a draft.
We don't need it.
Because on every street corner, you're going to have a dude who's armed to the teeth, and it's just not going to happen.
You think La Résistance in France was powerful?
Wait till literally every single person is walking around armed to the teeth.
It's just... So I don't see a draft as being necessary, but let's read a little bit more from this.
And what I really want to get to is, you know, outside of the laws on the draft and some of this information, war has changed.
It's not going to be the same.
It is not going to be what you think it's going to be.
It's going to be diplomatic, economic, and cyber attacks.
The New York Times asks, is there going to be a draft?
Well, they point out, for one, we have an all-voluntary force with 1.2 million active troops, and Congress would have to pass a new law.
That we know.
They say, what is the draft age?
We get that.
What are the consequences if you don't register?
Well, I don't think they show the specific ones, but there are permanent consequences if you don't register.
Like, you can't get federal grants, but more importantly, it is a felony.
Five years in prison, a $250,000 fine.
I really doubt they'll go after anybody for this.
And you can only register between the ages of 18 and 26.
After that, you can't register.
And then I think you just don't get benefits or something.
I honestly have no idea.
Can women be drafted?
No!
We went over this.
Let's move on.
Are there arguments for reinstating the draft?
And this is what I want to bring you to at the New York Times.
They say, in the 1860s, mobs of mostly foreign-born white workers took to the streets of New York City to protest conscription during the Civil War, burning down buildings and inciting violent attacks against black residents.
A century later, burning draft cards became a symbol of protest against the war in Vietnam.
I think it's fair to say that the draft has never been wildly popular.
But she said there were arguments in favor of a modern-day draft, including the potential to make the military more representative of society.
And there we go!
Off to the races!
That's right, diversity and inclusion!
We need a draft!
Because our military is just too white and male!
You heard it first from the New York Times.
times.
The current all-volunteer force is more likely to recruit people from the working class,
she said, with higher percentages of non-white Americans serving in uniform.
Okay, it's the opposite.
I'm sorry.
I don't know what it means in a democracy that you let some people fight your wars and
everybody is not responsible.
American citizens are not implicated in the consequences, bodily human life, economically, of war, and they should be.
So actually, I guess what they're saying is, there's not enough white males serving in the military.
Whatever, man.
The argument, as they literally put forward in the New York Times, is diversity!
Well, let me tell you about diversity, because I'll tell you something interesting.
According to a report, or citations in Wikipedia, I just pulled this up, they say that the term male in the selective service system refers to your sex observed at birth.
That would mean trans women are required to register and trans men are not.
To me, I gotta say, that seems silly because even, you know, if you want to get into the argument about trans women in sports and all that, I think it's fair to say that trans women do observe Physical disadvantages to cisgender males, right?
We can argue about the sports thing, but that's just true.
And trans men do have testosterone advantages.
I just think the whole thing's silly.
Look, if we're going to have anybody register, everybody should register.
We can find something for you to do in the event that we need you to do it, okay?
So here's the thing.
First, everybody is screeching that we're going to be having World War III, and I do think it's fair to point this story out from the National Review.
Russia warns U.S.
of grave consequences of Soleimani killing.
That's just about it.
I don't need to get into the full details.
But I think, as I pointed out before, I think it's kind of absurd that you can have people on Twitter screeching that Trump is following Putin's orders, he gets off the phone with Putin, does what Putin wants, while simultaneously the news is saying that, you know, Putin is upset by this, and we're entering World War III.
Let me just tell you something.
If it was true, okay, that...
Russia was was leading Putin.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Russia was leading Trump and telling him what to do.
Well, how could there possibly be a World War 3 if Trump works for Russia?
Pick your narrative and stick to it, okay?
The fact is, Trump does not work for Russia.
So yes, unfortunately, there is a slight likelihood we enter into a massive international conflict.
But as I stated earlier, Everybody's screeching about World War 3.
They're doing it because it's election season.
It's powerful fuel against Trump.
It will rile up young people who are scared of the draft.
I swear you're going to have people saying like, Hey man, if you're 18, you better go vote for the Democrat because Trump's going to draft you.
No, it's not going to happen.
Let me explain something about war to you guys.
We are in the digital age.
Too much money is across country lines, okay?
There are powerful, multinational, billion-dollar, trillion-dollar interests that are saying you better not go to war.
Period.
Russia would lose way too much, and so would China.
Take a look at what's going on with the trade war.
I really do think, while it's possible we see military escalation, we see conflict, Conflict is not going to be people marching in the streets.
We're just so far beyond that.
Infrastructure has cyber weaknesses.
Cyber attacks are substantially more likely.
Economic attacks are especially more likely.
Trade war is dramatically more likely.
And there is a possibility that all of these trade lines and international agreements could break down, resulting in a straight conflict.
But what you need to understand is, Russia has a lot of dependencies on the U.S.
and vice versa.
There have been concerns that Russia just built an intranet, meaning an internal internet that is just in their country.
So there are a lot of concerns about this.
There's another report saying that Russia just cut off, I believe it was gas supplies to Belarus because they're trying to pull Belarus into the fold.
There are concerns that there could be a dramatic global conflict.
I get it.
What you are more likely to see is economic crippling.
Let me explain something to you guys.
Let me ask you a question.
What is the purpose of full-on, full-scale military conflict?
To gain control of something.
So when you have a country like Iran who's engaging in extra-militaristic activities with Mr. Soleimani, going into foreign countries and helping lead various militia groups and organizations throughout the Middle East, how do you control those people?
Well, it's very hard to reach them.
You can't change their minds.
They're getting violent because they can't change your minds.
Basically, we're fighting over control of certain resources, certain ideologies, certain territories.
For the most part, when someone wins a conflict, they seize control and implement their rules, and they utilize the resources as they see fit.
We don't need to do that anymore.
Today we're in the era of information warfare and economic warfare.
Sanctions are substantially more powerful at this point.
And so yes, you will see Iran, you know, lash out violently because of the sanctions crippling their country.
And it's true, the sanctions are heavily harming Iran.
But that's about all they can do.
So, right now we have this massive global trade infrastructure.
Trump has, to a certain extent, been, you know, starting trade wars and been, I guess, kind of hostile to a lot of the international agreements we have.
But all I think we'll really see is regional proxy conflict.
Most Americans, if not all, oppose war.
The Trump cheerleaders who are coming out and screeching, they are a small minority.
The fact is, nobody wants this.
Tucker Carlson of Fox News ran a segment saying, what are you doing?
We gotta fix our country.
If there's one thing, ever, that will prevent war, it is trade.
And the fact is, we have certain things other countries need, and if they go to war, it's really, really bad.
Now let me explain some of the actual concerns, though.
Trump has bolstered the economy, meaning we can be substantially more independent, producing natural gas and fossil fuels on our own, allowing us to be self-sustaining during a major international conflict.
Trump has, you know, called out NATO and said they're not paying and tried withholding aid to various countries.
This could theoretically open the door to foreign influence like China and Russia moving into certain territories, sparking more regional conflict, which results in a tit for tat like what we're seeing in Iran, which ignites a greater global conflict.
But I believe it is just First, I will say I believe the odds are against it.
I think you're fine.
There's a reason why they're not going to do the military draft.
I'll come back to this in a second.
But let me just say the odds are absolutely against major militaristic international conflict, okay?
Now, about the draft.
You know what makes the draft, uh, not- First, the draft doesn't work because you're forcing people who don't want to be in war to be in war, and then you're going to get an ineffective and angry army.
It's just not what you need.
What you need is a volunteer force who is enthusiastic about fighting either for honor or for money.
Here's the thing.
The All-Volunteer Force requires incentives.
You tell people, we'll give you benefits, we'll pay for your school, and then you will get a more willing, a more compliant army.
Imagine what would happen if you drafted a bunch of Antifa.
Not a good idea.
Not a good idea at all, right?
And the far left is a growing faction.
Just imagine how brutal it would be if you took all these young people, who are mask-wearing, brick-throwing lunatics, and said, yeah, yeah, we get all that, but we're putting you in a suit with a gun anyway.
Yeah, nah, not a good idea.
I think the best argument against why we probably won't see it is really just political.
As if Congress, the Democrats, are gonna be the ones to actually vote to instate it.
Never gonna happen.
But, in the event the Republicans reclaim the House, it'll be substantially more likely, though still very, very, very unlikely.
But in the end, I think my point is apt, right?
Most younger people are voting Democrat, most of them are for Bernie.
Could you imagine these young, far-left socialist types?
Who like hate America and accuse it of being colonialist, militaristic, US imperial, whatever.
And then them being like, I hear what you're saying.
You hate this country.
You think it's evil.
Here's a uniform and a gun.
Not going to happen.
It's just absurd.
I think what's more likely to happen is following the re-election of Donald Trump, There will be an economic downturn in the event of an actual conflict.
So here's... Let me predict it for you.
The economy is doing really, really well.
However, after Trump took this military action at the Baghdad airport against Soleimani, we saw stock prices fall.
There's fear the economy could be damaged because of war.
I think we're not going to see anything.
It's possible come late this year, Trump is re-elected.
Now that Trump is on his last term, the Republicans take the House and have control, Trump can be a bit more heavy-handed knowing that this is it.
There's no more re-election.
It's time to go full speed ahead.
In the event that there is a major escalation of conflict and the economy gets hurt, you will then see people voluntarily signing up for the military because the economy will be bad.
Economic factors, it's my understanding, typically predict enlistment into the military.
No one is going to force a bunch of angry young people to fight again because it was a really bad idea and it's just not going to work.
In the event that we're invaded, I think, yeah, maybe.
Absolutely.
But not for foreign war.
So let me just wrap it up with a few ideas.
For one, there would have to be a new law passed.
That's not going to happen.
There's no cooperation right now.
Maybe if the Republicans reclaim the House, it's possible, but very unlikely today for political reasons.
The second, the military theater of war is dramatically different today.
We don't need two million people marching in the streets of a foreign country.
We need to control the minds of the people to gain access to their resources.
So we're in information warfare.
And, you know, lastly, economic incentives are always better.
And a military that hates you and hates your country is not someone you want to give a gun and put out in the middle of nowhere.
So, I'll leave it at that.
You're not gonna get drafted!
Calm down!
Um, I don't know.
I think most of the people who watch my content are actually... Oh, like, it's like, I think, you know, like 60% or 75% are 25 to 54.
So, 60% to 65% are 25% to 54%.
So, if you find yourself in that 18% to 25% bracket or whatever, you don't got anything
to worry about.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is my second channel.
Check it out.
Thanks for hanging out.
There have been many instances where I've wondered why it is that Democrats fall for fake news stories or stories with, like, basically no evidence.
One of the most notable instances is probably Brett Kavanaugh.
There was no evidence, the witnesses refuted the claims, yet still the media pushed it.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, for political reasons, it's expedient to believe dubious sources with no evidence.
And I'm not going to try and pretend that Republicans don't also fall for fake news.
I mean, they do, but we kind of have a lot of stories like this kind of too often.
This latest news from Fox News, Maxine Waters' phone call with Greta Thunberg was apparently the work of Russian pranksters.
I listened to this prank phone call, and I was kind of shocked.
It is so obviously absurd to a ridiculous degree, yet Maxine Waters plays along, she goes along with it, they verified nothing, and I'm wondering, how does something like this happen?
So here's what I'm going to do.
I've actually got two stories.
This and an older story.
And then I want to talk to you about the problem of partisanship and fake news.
And yes, I actually have some data to back up that it tends to be the left listening to overt fake news.
For whatever reason, don't ask me why.
But I think what we end up seeing from this is that social media companies, they tend to ban and censor conservative types.
They do go against the anti-war left as well.
But for the most part, it is assumed by many journalists that if the source is left-wing, it's just likely to be true.
Not always.
But you look at many conservative sites, and if it's an opinion site, they'll say it's fake news, and if a liberal outlet, or a left-leaning outlet, I don't want to say liberal, but like BuzzFeed News puts out news, they'll say it's like, okay, BuzzFeed News has written absurdly fake stories, and has put out ridiculously absurd and stupid things, if you were to ask me.
Yet they get certified by NewsGuard, a third-party fact-checking organization, and they say, Oh yeah, they handle the difference between opinion fine.
The problem is, in our media landscape, the mainstream media, which is a left-wing slant, is assumed to be true, and the right-wing media is assumed to be false, even if they're both opinion pieces.
That's the point.
So here's what I want to do.
Let's read this story, because it's quite funny, hopefully this will warm up your day, about how Maxine Waters was tricked by some Russian pranksters, and then I want to talk to you about...
What is the most viewed source for progressives, one of the largest and most influential sources, Occupy Democrats, which is, by many metrics, including even BuzzFeed's own metrics, fake news.
So we'll read the story first.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video if you would like to help me out.
There's algorithms in play, and I'm going to be completely honest.
I am moving the original segment I had here to my second channel because it's basically on the verge of getting banned.
I can't talk about it.
That's YouTube.
I know a lot of people are going to freak out, and they're going to say, Tim, you're giving in to censorship.
Watch the segment at 6pm youtube.com slash timcast.
You'll see it there.
I cannot put it on this channel.
YouTube will take it down.
They already gave me a warning.
I have no choice.
It's either just delete my videos, stop doing work, or do something different.
That being said, share this video if you want to help me out.
I'm going to be launching a new show, but I'm going to tell you this right now, the censorship is bad.
And that's part of the segment I want to talk about.
But first, let's laugh a little bit.
The story from Fox News says Rhett Maxine Waters of California appeared to have been tricked by Russian pranksters into thinking she was speaking on the phone with Greta Thunberg and that the teenage climate activist had dirt on President Trump.
Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stoilyarov, who go by the names Vovin and Lexis on YouTube, released audio of a phone conversation allegedly between Waters and people she believed to be Thunberg and her father.
The audio was accompanied by illustrations poking fun at the conversation.
The conversation began with Thunberg telling Waters that she was calling from a climate strike meeting in North Carolina where they were advocating for the protection of the fictitious, I kid you not, Chongo-Chango Islands.
She asked Waters to make remarks to the meeting attendees where she showered Thunberg with praise.
Thunberg that, well they're putting Thunberg in quotes.
The pranksters then told Waters about a fictitious meeting.
She said she had with President Trump at the United Nations back in September.
It was a really terrible meeting in the UN building in September with him.
And I had nightmares afterwards. It was terrible.
The Thunberg impersonator tells Waters, I saw him in the hallway. He was with security and I
shouted at him, sign the Paris climate agreement again.
He came over, he leaned in towards me and said softly, listen carefully to me, little girl. You will never achieve
your goal.
like the congressional goal trying to accuse me.
Okay, what's funny about this is they're so ready to believe that Donald Trump is
literally a comic book villain that he's going to lean into a little girl and say
you will never achieve your goal.
Maxine Waters says, quote, he said you will never achieve your goal.
Oh my goodness, Water said with shock.
Did you ask him if he could rethink signing the Paris agreement?
Is that your question?
Yes, yes, the impersonator said.
He added that, you know what?
I'll tell you the truth.
I really wanted to push the Ukraine president to put my competitor on trial.
Her supposed father chimes in.
He said to her, you know, little girl, nobody believe you anyway.
I will tell you the truth.
I really pushed on Ukrainian president and you know that you will never achieve your goals like those congressional fools who accuse me.
So nobody will believe you.
You will be on trial like my competitor.
Yes.
Maxine Waters says, oh my God, he mentioned Ukrainian president.
I kid you not.
One of the most absurd stories I've ever heard, Greta Thunberg saying Trump comes up to her, tells her she'll never achieve her goals, and then just blurts out that the whole Ukrainian scandal is true.
And apparently, Maxine Waters does nothing but believe it.
Now, believe it or not, this is not the first time Democrats have fallen for an overt hoax.
Adam Schiff, apparently pranked by Russian radio hosts who promised naked photos of Trump, I kid you not, this is from almost two years ago.
How does stuff like this keep happening?
Well, I'll tell you, but first, let's wrap up this story.
He says, yes, he said that.
And he added, nobody will believe you anyway.
It's like, okay, have you ever heard this joke?
Where people will say things like, the urban legend is Bill Murray came up to me and said, nobody will ever believe you.
The point is nobody will believe you that Bill Murray did this.
How could Maxine Waters on the phone?
They say like, by the way, so they go on and say they have a recording of it and that Trump did all these things.
And she's like, wow.
And he said, nobody will believe you.
And she believes it.
It's, it's, it's, it's ironic.
It's a paradox.
The prankster also alleged that his daughter always records her speeches and had a recording of her exchange with Trump.
Trump.
Are you going to be in Washington anytime soon?
I want you to come meet with me in Washington, Waters said.
The father suggested that Congress continue with the president's impeachment and offered
that the activists can make a speech on Capitol Hill, something Waters expressed interest
This says to me something else.
It's not just about whether they believe it or not.
It's that they don't really stand for anything.
It's just, it's just mindless nonsense.
Come and give your speech for whatever reason.
We're not going to verify.
We're not going to fact check.
It doesn't, we don't care.
So we can argue, you know, Occam's razor, the Democrats are extremely gullible and they'll keep falling for this stuff.
Fine.
But I also think it shows they literally just do not care.
The father suggested that Congress continue the president's impeachment and offered the activists, okay, yeah, so I read that already.
We are working very hard.
We are putting together the facts and we're going after him, Waters told the Thunbergs.
We're going to try everything that we have to impeach him.
Yes.
And if the public knew that he talked to Greta like that, he made her cry and told her she would never achieve, this would go against him too.
Oh, oh, really?
And he added that he pushed on the Ukrainian president.
The prankster father reiterated.
I think he didn't expect that we have a record of that.
Well, you bring it to me.
You tell me what day you can get there.
You know, this is ridiculous.
And again, this goes back, I guess, the same pranksters pranked Adam Schiff.
And this was reported back in February of 2018.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee held an eight-minute phone conversation last year, so this is three years ago, with Russian radio hosts posing as a Ukrainian politician who promised to provide compromising images of President Trump.
The conversation involving Adam Schiff, which took place on April 10th of last year, was first reported by The Atlantic last month.
On Tuesday, the Daily Mail published purported audio of the call.
In the conversation, a caller identified himself as Andriy Parubiy, the Speaker of Ukraine's Parliament.
In fact, Parubiy was two people.
Vladimir Vovin.
So it's the same radio host from before.
They've also pranked Mitch McConnell and John McCain.
So again, I want to say, it's not like they're only pranking Democrats, like only Democrats falling for it.
During the call, Paraby claimed that Trump met Russian model and singer Olga Buzova while in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, and that the two had had a brief affair.
She got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations.
Okay, and what's the nature of the material?
They said, well, there were pictures of naked Trump, the caller said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin was made aware of the images by Ksenia Sobchak, a Russian journalist.
So, Perabee assured Schiff that he could provide records Okay, I'm not going to read through all of this.
The point is, it's not the first time.
There's a lot of fake news that circulates.
And apparently, the point I want to make here is the expedience of why they would just fall for pranks like this.
Because, I mean, in this instance, oh, there's compromising information on Trump.
This proves our narrative, and there we go.
So I want to do this.
I want to move on and talk about why I think beyond this, there's a problem among Democrats with falling for fake news.
As I mentioned, they do point out Republicans have been pranked.
There are many conservatives who fall for fake news.
It is true.
The main story today is Maxine Waters, but I do think this plays into an ongoing narrative.
So forgive me, but look at this.
We've got this story, um, well, it's a file from PolitiFact.
They say, Occupy Democrats File.
Occupy Democrats, founded in 2012, is an advocacy group created to counterbalance the Republican Tea Party and to, quote, give President Obama and other progressive Democrats a Congress that will work with them to grow the economy, create jobs, promote fairness, and fight inequality and get money out of politics.
Occupy Democrats is one of the most prominent outlets that the left engages with on Facebook.
Counter to that is Fox News.
But I want to show you their scorecard real quick, and then I want to read for you even BuzzFeed criticizes PolitiFact.
The scorecard shows that they only have one story that is mostly true.
Four are half true, six are false, four are pants on fire.
And now the reason why I'm showing you Occupy Democrats is because of this.
Let me just read for you the Wikipedia page.
It's Alexa rank is trash, by the way.
They say, Occupy Democrats is a left-wing Facebook page describing itself as a political organization based in the United States founded in 2012 by twin brothers.
I don't care who founded it.
The motto of the organization is to provide a counterbalance to the Tea Party.
They say on social media, Occupy Democrats was named the most influential progressive Facebook page in 2015 and 2017.
According to a report from Newswhip, this is back in 2018, they found that the top engaged sites for the left and the right, the left was Occupy Democrats and the right was Fox News.
Then in terms of, I guess, I don't know how they divided it, but Daily Wire was also one of the most shared news websites.
But if the left is getting their information from a conspiracy meme page, and Republicans and conservatives are getting their information from, well, Fox News, which is just biased, but is credible news, I think we can see the problem here.
They say, in a 2017 feature on partisan news, BuzzFeed News analyzed weekly Facebook segments since the beginning of 2015 and found that Occupy Democrats on the left and Fox News on the right are the top pages in each political category.
This is the same findings as NewsWhip.
The article added that pages consistently generate more total engagement than pages of major media outlets.
The organization received wide attention during the 2016 presidential primaries of the Democratic Party and was credited for having helped build support for Bernie Sanders' candidacy.
In 2017, a survey among U.S.
readers, it was voted the least trusted news source among American readers just below Breitbart and BuzzFeed.
So, for whatever it's worth, BuzzFeed also not very credible.
In their news reporting, they shared a story on Facebook and other social media platforms about Mitch McConnell's polio treatment that was unverified.
In the same year, PolitiFact included Occupy Democrats in its list of fake news.
In 2017, however, PolitiFact removed Occupy Democrats from a list of fake news sites, and according to the Miami New Times, admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place.
In 2018, the English Wikipedia deprecated Occupy Democrats as a source of fact due to its unreliability.
They say CNN mentioned Occupy Democrats in an online article about identifying misleading news, citing it as an example of a website using unverified photographs and videos.
The example purported to show a female being ejected by police from a restroom for not looking like a woman due to a controversial law passed in North Carolina.
But Snopes.com found the footage dated to at least 2015 and provided no context as to where the woman is and why she was ejected.
So let me just make this point, right?
I get it.
You know, we're reading about Maxine Waters and why she falls for this hoax, and I'm not necessarily overlapping.
But this is something I've pointed out time and time again.
We've seen the graph, I've showed it a million times, where the left diverged from the right, and now there's no center because if you're a moderate and you believe in real news, they're just going to call you conservative.
Because as the left and the right diverge, as the left goes off the rails, reading fake nonsense like Occupy Democrats Which is, the top source, according to Buzzfeed and Newswhip, you're gonna believe insane things, and then sane, rational, moderate-type individuals are closer to where the Republicans are, thus, in the mainstream, they call me right-wing.
It's, to me, it's rather mind-numbing.
So I will rehash this old story from Gallup that I showed you in the past, just to show you, for one, trust in the media is not above 50%.
But the scariest thing to me is this.
And I've shown this before.
Trust in mass media by political party.
We can see that among Democrats, it is above 50%.
So I don't know what to tell you, man.
Right now, let me do this.
I'm going to be fully honest with all of you guys and say I am rushing to try and produce a segment because YouTube told me there are certain subjects I can't talk about.
Notably, major current events in which I very passively mention some certain subjects.
In a 25 minute video, I say a couple words and YouTube's literally telling me I cannot upload this video.
I'm sorry this is the case.
I know a lot of people are gonna freak out and accuse me of like, you know, bending over to censorship, but my option is to literally quit or just try and produce something.
Okay?
So, I'll...
I'm just being honest with you guys.
You can still watch the segment.
I think it'll be up at 6.30, youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
The point is, that video talks specifically about how NewsGuard, which is the third-party service I use, simultaneously gives a bunch of different outlets a certified green checkmark while they all contradict each other and say insanely opposite things.
So if you're someone who is trusting the media today, and I know there are some good journalists out there, you are going to be reading contradictory information that makes no sense.
A few days ago, I recorded a segment about changing demographics in America.
One story from the Chicago Tribune said that Illinois had the most exodus from the state.
Another story from thecity.nyc said New York City had the most exodus from their state.
And I'm laughing thinking they're both certified, they're both claiming to be correct, and what am I supposed to do if different news outlets that are supposed to be credible are saying different things?
And it's a very different problem that we face now with social media and censorship.
And so, you know, I hope the Maxine Water story was fun with you, but I am really frustrated.
And so I'll end on this.
The left just believes the media.
Well, the media is contradictory.
The media pushed nonsense for years about Russiagate and other nonsense stories.
And now you have independent commentary like me.
Trying as hard as possible to come out and explain these things, and I am being suppressed because of the fake news.
So welcome to the world you have created.
Whatever the goal is, I have no idea, but it's causing, in my opinion, chaos.
The left is following meme pages that produce fake news that make tons of money doing it.
And I come on YouTube trying to say, here's the sane, rational take, and YouTube says, we are going to delete this video, you cannot publish it.
So what am I supposed to do?
Well, slowly, YouTube is forcing me to stop talking about certain things.
And again, it's really annoying when people comment saying like, why don't you just say it anyway?
What do you mean?
I can't.
I literally can't.
If I upload this video, it will just be deleted.
No one will see it.
What's the point?
And that's the world we're living in right now.
Maxine Waters gets a phone call from some Russian people and she believes it's real!
And then I try talking about certain issues involving, you know, global affairs, which CNN and Fox News are literally talking about right now, and YouTube says, no.
And I've seen this oppression from YouTube.
They literally make it so that no one can see the video.
It's already bad enough.
So seriously, my option is to just quit.
That's what YouTube wants.
This is not the same game as when YouTube changes the algorithm and people get mad the algorithm changed.
That happens all the time.
This is quite literally.
The left is swimming in insane fake news from meme pages.
Conservatives watch Fox News.
It's just biased.
In fact, Tucker Carlson had a great segment talking about things I can't say right now.
Because YouTube will take it down.
But even Tucker Carlson was getting praised by leftists on one of his recent segments about international issues, to say the least.
If I talk about that, YouTube will take me down.
So we're sitting in a world where the left can swallow memes and fake news and hoaxes and stories about, like, Brett Kavanaugh that literally have no evidence, that are refuted by witnesses, and they just believe it.
And that's where we're at.
That's where we're at right now.
They call me conservative and right-wing.
Not always, but some try, simply because the left has gone so far left and believes such insane trash that if you're a moderate who doesn't like the president, they will say, but you're closer to the right, therefore you are right-wing, because there's no center.
There's none.
I actually say as the left goes crazy and far left, the center actually expands.
And there are now actual moderate leftists, and I mean moderates and like people who might like Bernie Sanders, who are probably in the center compared to where the far left really is.
So, look, man, I don't know what the plan is, necessarily, for moving forward.
This was, admittedly, like, I put this together as quickly as possible, like literally 10 minutes before it went up, because I got a notification that the segment I was planning on running about main, major, political, top-trending news had been deleted.
So there's nothing I can do about it.
So this is the best I could muster.
In the future, I'm planning a new show.
This channel will likely stay as it is.
I will probably just, you know, eat the losses on any segment YouTube decides to take down in the future, because my second channel is going to be changing, and it's going to be more of a general podcast where I do interviews, current topics, major news, and I'll tell you this.
It's entirely likely what really ends up happening is that YouTube has made it so that, for one, You can't do this anymore.
And I'll tell you why I think it's particularly targeted, because on my second channel, which YouTube knows about, I'm going to upload this video and it'll be fine.
It will do fine.
YouTube will not suppress it.
On my main channel, if I mention mainstream news, YouTube will shut it down.
I'm not kidding when I say suppress it.
They remove it.
It's shadowbanned, basically.
And so they told me, you're gonna be shadowbanned.
So this is the big problem.
And I guess I'll leave it there, so I don't make this one as long, longer than it needs to be.
But, I don't know, I don't know what else to tell you, man.
You know, I had the story lined up, the Maxine Waters one was gonna go on my second channel as a shorter segment, and I thought I would just lump it in with this story about how the left is eating up fake news, and here we are.
It's entirely possible that in the coming months, you know, my channel and many others just cease to exist.
And I'm not exaggerating when I say this, okay?
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
You will find the segment that YouTube won't allow on this channel at 6.30 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And if you want to be mad about it, be mad about it.
But if you think I shouldn't do it, I'll tell you what, I'll delete my YouTube channels outright because there's no getting around it.
YouTube has said you can't cover the news.
And we are.
I'll see you all at 6 p.m.
in the next segment.
And the censored segment, that'll be at 6.30.
I am not one to produce BuzzFeed cringe compilation type videos.
If you watch my content, I don't normally do this.
A lot of people do, not me.
I normally don't even comment on videos themselves, but I have to do this.
I'm sorry.
This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen come out of BuzzFeed, specifically BuzzFeed News.
And I will also say, I mean this sincerely.
I'm not trying to be directly disrespectful or drag the reporter here, Ryan Broderick, who I've talked to on several occasions on Twitter.
I normally don't like what's called punching down.
I reserve my criticism and commentary typically for higher-tier individuals, public figures, high-profile journalists.
I've made several videos where I've talked about Brian Stelter, for instance.
He's the host of a CNN show.
His face is on billboards.
They get a ton of viewers.
They have a ton of influence.
I say a ton relatively, but he's a high-profile guy, right?
And he has influence.
This dude, not so much.
I'm not trying to be mean.
However, this is some of the worst and cringiest, possibly, as a journalist, the cringiest thing I have ever seen.
First, It is a video published yesterday on a YouTube channel with 800,000 subscribers and it got 5,000 views.
I have no idea whose idea this was, but it was a terrible idea.
It's on the front page of BuzzFeed News right now.
I saw it and I was like, oh no.
I watched it and I laughed a lot.
First of all, The title is, I was pepper sprayed by police reporting on a Boston Straight Pride Parade.
Okay.
That happened, like, four months ago!
Why are you talking about it now?
Sure, I guess the story of being pepper sprayed might seem like it's interesting.
It clearly isn't!
Another thing, too.
Explaining how you got pepper sprayed and showing a photo of your face as a reporter?
I'll tell you what.
This video is an example of a complete desperation from BuzzFeed to produce SOMETHING.
Maybe they were experimenting fine.
But, I'll tell you this.
What this video shows is really just a reporter who has no idea what they're doing.
And again, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's true.
Pepper sprayed?
You know what?
How about I made a video titled, I was pushed up against a wall with a Molotov cocktail held to my face while people screamed at me in a different language?
How about I was detained in a windowless room by secret police in Brazil?
Wait, are you pepper-sprayed?
I'm sorry, I heard this and I laughed.
Because when you go out to a protest in America and you get pepper-sprayed, so what?
Welcome to reporting on these things.
And if you're gonna take a picture of yourself like, oh no, I was pepper-sprayed.
Like, dude, are you kidding me?
You didn't bring goggles with you?
What are you doing?
This is a video about BuzzFeed's complete ineptitude.
And they even go on to compare the Boston Straight Pride event, a regular protest, because I've been to so many.
The dude actually says, this could have been Charlottesville.
My name is Ryan Broderick, and I was pepper-sprayed by police while covering a straight pride parade.
Last August, I was sent to Boston, Massachusetts to report on a pro-Trump, far-right straight pride parade.
And I was there looking at the way that white nationalists and Trump supporters are manipulating smaller cities into falling for elaborate stunts and pranks meant to sow division and rile people up.
So I'll stop here and I'll say, to an extent, yes, right?
They're absolutely right-wing personalities, they're putting on these events, they're somewhat ironic events, and there's an intent of, you know, getting people angry.
I would say that when it comes to the phrase, it's okay to be white, or a straight pride event, they're trying to do something that's, on the surface, innocuous, to rile up a violent response in an ever-increasing manner.
So basically, The idea, kind of, not for everybody, some people might view it differently, but it's basically like this.
If you put on an event that's like a free speech rally, and then people come and protest because there's right-wingers there, he says, far right, we'll contest that in a second, then, you know, people say, oh look, there's fights in the street.
There's a goal, kind of, to create ever more innocuous and ironic events, so eventually people are protesting something that you're like, why are they protesting that?
That's kind of weird.
So at the Straight Pride event, they tried framing it like a positive thing, where they're saying, we're not against anybody.
And they actually had Milo Yiannopoulos, who is gay, as their, like, main dude.
Why BuzzFeed is doing a video about something that happened four months ago, I have no idea, and why is it relevant that you got pepper sprayed, why weren't you wearing goggles, That's Protest 101.
Simply put, the organizers clearly weren't really sure what was going on.
About an hour into the pre-parade organization, Milo Yiannopoulos showed up, the famous far-right influencer.
The counter-protesters were all assembling on the sides of the road.
Things were really tense from the minute it started around 10 a.m.
There were a few other reporters there.
I was largely by myself, and when you're covering an event like that, The main goal is to figure out what's going on, how it's going to progress, and you sort of just have to follow the action and try to stay safe.
unidentified
And I want to understand why the people who showed up for this parade actually were there.
Alright, first, calling Milanopolis far-right, I completely disagree with this.
There's, there's, what you've got to understand about left and right, okay, so there's the cultural left and right and the economic left and right, and they're often conflated.
When people say far-right, they're typically referring to the cultural, meaning you've got people who are very pro-traditional marriage, maybe pro-religion, When people say left, they kind of refer to both.
So it's really weird.
First, Milo Yiannopoulos is not far-right.
Milo Yiannopoulos is in an interracial relationship, and he is gay.
That is not traditional by any stretch of the imagination.
He is also not a laissez-faire capitalist.
He is a conservative, so you could probably call him right-wing, but far-right doesn't apply in any sense of the understanding of what far-right means, other than BuzzFeed's weird colloquial framing of far-right.
Now when we call people like BuzzFeed far-left, it actually makes sense.
Because many people who hold far-left cultural beliefs, that is, opposing tradition, great leap forward kind of ideas where they say no traditional marriage, yes to LGBT rights, very progressive ideas, that is far-left culturally, they also tend to be very socialist and support many of these socialist, you know, individuals.
So far-left does make sense.
I'm not talking about in terms of reference to, like, what America is currently.
I mean, literally on the political compass, you'd put someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, probably center-right libertarian.
Now, of course, that's going to spark a major outrage, because Milo Yiannopoulos is a bit of a provocateur, but you can't claim Milo is traditional in any sense of the imagination, other than he has resisted some of, like, you know, trans issues and stuff like that.
So sure, he's moderately right-wing.
So I would refer to him as such.
Far-left makes more sense.
Clearly, BuzzFeed's perspective, more aligned with the far-left, they see the right-wing as very, very far-right to them, so you can see their bias.
The parade was essentially a far-right rogues gallery of internet nonsense, right?
Like, you had Peppy the Frog cosplayers, you had Proud Boys, you had a Trump 2020 float.
It was a complete circus.
I definitely had this feeling of like, wow, okay, yeah, things are...
We're all going to kick off, and I'm not sure which direction they're going to kick off from, right?
I didn't know if it was going to be the far right that was going to start causing trouble first, or the anti-fascists who might jump the barricade into the parade, or the police who might just start swinging wildly.
And in a moment like that, you're just trying to be as aware of everything as possible as you can, so you don't get surprised in the wrong.
First of all, he's now showing his complete inexperience with these events.
Going back a decade, I can tell you almost every single journalist knows the greater threat is from Antifa.
Now, left-wing and far-left reporters will deny this.
They'll lie about it.
But typically, when you see, like, militiamen and, like, far-right individuals, they try to game the press.
I will give you, like, listen, it's plainly obvious.
We know how this works.
Even they have talked about how, you know, the far-right, like the literal far-right, will try dressing up in suits to play to the cameras, to feign being the victim, but then when it comes to this event, it's like, I don't know who would have started it.
In Berkeley, I watched a dude, he was a white national with a balaclava on, jump the barricade, and clock some antifa person in the face.
You're going to get a lot of contentious debate in this.
Basically what happened in Berkeley was, there was a barricade set up by police, and Antifa pulled it down, jumped over it, and got in the face of some people, dude put on a balaclava, clocked someone.
The first strike came from the far right in that regard.
I do think it's unfair to combine these white nationalist types and regular Trump supporters based on Milo being interracially gay, married, and Jewish.
They clearly don't like guys like that.
So there's not a straight connection.
However, when these people show up at the balaclavas, where were the Trump supporters to be like, GTFO?
And they were holding signs, man.
So listen.
It is a fact.
Antifa is substantially more likely to initiate the conflict.
And Trump supporters have been doing a better job, in my opinion.
We've seen what they've done to the people in Congress.
Like Steve King, he said something dumb.
They're like, GTFO.
They don't do the same for the left.
The right is willing to put their foot down and start calling out people.
You've got that weird, like, Groyper War thing going on, where you've got, you know, Nick Fuentes versus, like, talking Turning Point USA.
So yeah, the right is absolutely willing to go to conflict with people they disagree with, whereas the left, just like, when I was in Boston, there were people waving Soviet flags, and the DSA was there like, we don't support that, but we're not going to do anything about it.
Then criticizing the right for having a guy waving a Confederate flag, and I'm like, dude, you see the problem?
The people on the right in Boston at this rally that I went to, like a year or two ago, They were holding shields, unarmed.
On the other side, you had Antifa with clubs and crowbars, alright?
So, let's be real.
If you go to an event and you're like, I don't know what's gonna start this, it's like, uh, dude, you haven't been to a lot of these, have you?
It's possible the right can start it, for sure.
It's almost entirely coming from Antifa.
Not the regular old progressives, but Antifa, who are tolerated.
I was pepper sprayed by police reporting on a Boston straight pride parade, and then he literally says there was nothing stopping this from becoming Charlottesville?
Are you nuts?
Did you notice the night before Tiki Torch marches?
Charlottesville was extreme, okay?
People lost their lives, man.
You're talking about some fat middle-aged dude walking around with a sign that says straight pride and barely anyone shows up and your standard antifa like we've normally seen.
This is what, you know what, man?
He clearly has no experience covering any of this stuff.
Seriously, okay?
And this is what BuzzFeed is basically making a video about.
First of all, when you put, I was pepper-sprayed, you're basically saying, like, I was at a protest.
Are you kidding?
Like, everybody gets pepper-sprayed.
And they also, like, apparently were completely unprepared.
No malox, no antacid, no goggles, no mask.
What are you doing, man?
Why is BuzzFeed News sending people out here to cover this stuff with zero experience?
This is what really makes me angry about this video.
And then they have the nerve to be like, this could have been Charlottesville.
And it's partly why people put on events like this.
You're right, BuzzFeed.
The problem starts when the police say, time to go home, everybody, and they don't.
So he then goes on to talk about how this common phenomenon happens, where the right shows up, says what they gotta say, Milo dances around, twirls his baton or whatever it is he does, and they leave!
And you know what?
They're allowed to do that.
They are legally allowed to come here, talk, and say things, and then leave.
So long as they're not inciting violence, they can do it.
The protesters then get into a fight with the cops.
They're angry that people are allowed free speech in America and that the police are not there to police the speakers who are there to exercise their First Amendment rights.
They're there to stop you.
You are the people coming to Basically, attack the rights of individuals because you don't like them.
So I think it's really funny when they say things like, when were your rights ever under attack?
When you showed up with a crowbar and bashed skulls?
Man, we're not taught... Because they view everyone through the lens of a collective group.
That's the problem.
Okay?
If ten people show up to say silly things, they're allowed to do it, you know, offensive or otherwise.
And yes, when you come to shut them down, you're targeting their individual rights.
That's how English common law and our constitution and all of it works.
Individual.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
Get it?
When you're an individual person, your rights are inalienable.
So if you want to speak and a large group shows up to beat you, that is quite literally the far left suppressing the rights of the individual.
You're just mad that they said words you didn't agree with.
So I do want to skip ahead a little bit because I'm not super concerned about, you know, some of the stuff he talks about.
I want to get to the point where he's like, and then it happened.
Okay, okay, I'm just, I just can't take this, man.
BuzzFeed should not be allowed to send reporters to events ever again.
Ever again, okay?
Let me tell you something.
I have on my wall, I frequently point it out, it's here, you can't see it.
It's a certification for hostile environment training, yes.
Literally, I was sent by a company, it was very expensive, it was by ABC, to be trained for war.
And they do this for literally everyone who might be engaging in conflict reporting.
This doesn't mean war.
It means, quite literally, a weatherman was at the event because there's potential that you will go out in a dangerous situation.
Literally, a weatherman was getting this training.
I don't see how BuzzFeed can justify sending a person there who's like, it's really difficult, you might get pepper sprayed.
What?
Have you ever... Like, you could be living in New York and go out for a can of pop.
And see the cops going around riling people up when they're protesting.
During Occupy Wall Street, literally a guy in a suit walked out of a bodega with like an orange soda and walked into a kettle, that's what they call it when they wrap everybody up.
Dude got arrested, he was furious!
You don't even gotta be a reporter to experience this stuff.
To go out there and be like, I'm trying to do my job, it's very difficult, and you're completely unprepared, and you quite literally think that a small protest conflict in Boston could be the next Charlottesville Buzzfeed.
Seriously, man.
I want to stress this, okay?
I don't normally like doing Buzzfeed cringe.
I don't normally like criticizing people who, like, you know, are not particularly prominent public figures.
I want to make sure that's clear.
I'm not trying to drag Ryan for, you know, to be mean or disrespectful, to insult him or mock him in any way.
I'm very, very critical of how People in news organizations disrespect security.
They don't take it seriously.
These news organizations, man, I tell you, what really triggers me about this video is I was on the ground in Ferguson, okay?
I grew up on Chicago's South Side.
I've experienced street conflict, so I had a natural leg up on understanding a lot of these things.
And when the gunshots start going off at these riots, I look around and what do I see?
A journalist from ABC News going, Those fireworks?
I've told this before.
I love this story.
I mean that somewhat facetiously when I'm like, dude, do you see anyone carrying fireworks?
Okay, where do you think you are?
A 4th of July party?
Dudes are literally walking around with guns.
You hear pop, pop, pop.
You hit the deck.
And these news organizations send out people who are like, I got pepper sprayed!
Are you nuts?
I was doused with tear gas that was so intense, I ripped my sock off my shoe in Brazil and shoved it in my mouth as everything was pouring on my face and I fell to the ground.
That's how intense it was.
When I was in Turkey, they're firing tear gas so much, you're literally like walking in a ball pit of tear gas canisters.
Now I get it.
Dude's not going to Brazil and Turkey.
I understand that.
The point is, first of all, the event he went to?
Not big, not that big of a deal, okay?
Doesn't need its own segment so you can talk about how you got pepper sprayed, okay?
But more importantly, if you're going to send someone out, you don't send out somebody with no gear, no experience, who doesn't even know where the conflict might begin.
In all of my experience, okay, the left is more likely to target journalists, destroy cameras, smack you.
You can even look at all the videos!
They steal phones, they smash cameras, and they post about it on Reddit.
The saying is, don't smash a camera, it could pay your rent.
That's what they say at these direct action meetings.
If you don't go to these meetings, if you're not there for planning, if you have no idea what's going on, you have no business going down and then being like, I got pepper sprayed!
There's a couple minutes left.
This stuff triggers me, okay?
It's, it's, you know, I'm saying that somewhat jokingly, but it's a combination of, you've got all of these stories of people like, I'm gonna go vacation in, you know, Turkmenistan or something, and then it's like, lo and behold, they've gone missing.
Like these young women, like, I'm gonna go hike through the mountains of Morocco.
Lo and behold, they've gone missing.
You have people who have no business, no understanding, no situational awareness.
They are soft and they are made of cookie dough.
And they are being put out in these situations that aren't really that serious, to be completely honest.
But it's annoying when they're then like, whoa, pepper sprayed, okay.
I don't actually... I haven't used these in a long time.
But back when I was covering protests, like, eight years ago, you at least have some kind of protection from rocks flying at your face, from pepper spray.
These are not ballistic.
I don't believe they're so.
They're meant for motorcycles.
But eventually, very quickly, I did some research.
Like I said, I don't normally do things like this.
It's a very long segment, but I am so frustrated by BuzzFeed's like, Oh, you got pepper sprayed!
Let me tell you something, man.
I have walked through clouds of tear gas in Ferguson.
Yes, it's low-grade CS smoke, not the worst in the world.
Brazil was legit.
That was some of the harshest stuff I've ever seen.
Yes, snot pours out of your nose, but it does not shut you down unless you're an experienced, unless you are an inexperienced wad of cookie dough.
You cannot go down when you get hit with spray.
You can't be in a conflict scenario where you're like, well, I'm shut down, I can't open my eyes.
No, you can open your eyes.
It hurts.
This is frustrating to me, man.
You get pepper spray on you and it burns for a long time, your skin's all red, you get tear gassed, it's hard to open your eyes.
I have walked through clouds of gas and pepper spray with my eyes open, tears pouring out, because the last thing you want to be doing in the event like this is to be shutting down when chaos is all around you.
That's how you get hurt.
You should not be on the ground if you can't handle getting pepper sprayed.
I get it.
A direct blast in the face can shut you down relatively like a lot of people.
But you need to be able to deal with that if you're going to be on the ground.
Now, I will say it again.
I know.
The straight pride parade is like some of the lowest tier protest.
But I'll tell you this.
You should not be entering a conflict between Antifa and right-wing activists, whatever you want to call them, until you've actually gone to regular marches, until you've talked with police, you let them know you're going to be there, BuzzFeed should call them and say, we're going to have a reporter from BuzzFeed, he should be wearing a visibility vest, or he should be wearing some kind of badge.
Maybe he was, I don't know, but he should have been prepared for this, and he wasn't.
And now it's like they're exaggerating about like, you know what this is to me?
BuzzFeed just put out a major publication worth, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars,
or whatever it is they're worth, maybe nothing at this point, put out a video where they're
unidentified
like, we have no idea what we're doing and we do it anyway.
Okay, I will give him absolute credit, he was wearing a security vest.
Personally, I don't wear high-vis vests myself, but I will respect someone with no experience doing that, absolutely.
There's a lot of veteran journalists who will wear a helmet and a high-vis vest for reasons that I don't, and it's for security reasons.
For me, I haven't done it in a long time, particularly because visibility at this point, it's ridiculous, I get too many threats.
So, but previously when I would go out I wouldn't wear high-vis or a helmet.
I would just wear goggles and a gas mask and I would typically use the goggles as like a, just basically on my forehead for the most part unless gas actually started coming out.
But I wouldn't do it because there is another consideration in security and it's how visible do you want to be as a target.
So when you have a lot of far-leftites targeting journalists and you're wearing a high-vis vest, they target you.
So for me, it was be able to quickly move in and out of crowds, be able to blend, and immediately leave the event.
So if you're down at a protest or a conflict of some sort, And you're wearing specific clothes that are labeled, pressed.
You're holding all this expensive gear.
Maybe it makes sense that people know you if you've got expensive gear.
For me, I was using a phone.
And so the goal there is reduce visibility.
Don't stand out.
And when chaos breaks loose, You can literally just immediately turn a corner and be a pedestrian and get out safely, okay?
There's also benefits to having, like, your press identification, which I keep in my wallet, my pocket.
But when it comes to international conflict, there are some circumstances where decreased visibility is the most important.
And one of the stories that I was told by a veteran conflict reporter is over in the Middle East, you know, 20 or 30 years ago, there was a journalist who hired security wore a vest, wore a helmet, press, press, press, press, press, and everything, and they were specifically targeted and shot.
Whereas a separate journalist around the same time just put on local clothing and moved in and out with no problems because they blended in perfectly.
So keep that in mind.
I will say, in this instance, in America, with what he was experiencing, it was right for him to do, so I will give him respect for having done it, wearing the security vest.
So previously, I guess we glossed over it when he gets to that really dramatic point where it's like, and then it happened and they pepper sprayed me.
But the thing about the shampoo is I think an antacid would probably be better.
But when it comes to pepper spray, you want to get the oil off, right?
So water doesn't work.
He points this out.
He said that he had pepper spray all over him and someone poured water on his head and it activates all of the pepper spray and gets it all, you know, it spreads it around.
Not fun.
But even if without the water, it's still sitting on you and it still burns.
Fun science fact.
I once went to a hot sauce store and I bought concentrated capsaicin and it says do not put in contact with your skin.
And my friend put it on his skin and it immediately blisters up.
So this stuff, with or without water, is really, really bad.
I thought he was talking about a high-vis vest- high-visibility vest.
Was he literally wearing a bulletproof vest?
In Boston?
You know what, man?
Whatever at this point.
If you're going to wear body armor, I'm not going to rag you for it, because you could wear body armor anywhere, but you really have no idea what's going on at this point, do you?
Uh, I am, I am, I am offended by this BuzzFeed news.
I am triggered and I am, I am angered by... I mean, listen.
It seems to me that BuzzFeed was probably, like, experimenting with a kind of new format of content.
It's a story about somebody getting pepper-sprayed, in which literally, like, thousands of people are pepper-sprayed all the time, you know, every week, because of how many protests are happening around the country.
Happens all the time, nobody cares, and this event happened months and months ago.
And all you're really saying is, like, imagine if, like, I don't know, someone, like, one of your friends came to you and they were like, Dude, I got a crazy story.
The other day I stubbed my toe.
And you're like, Okay.
Is that the story?
And you're like, yeah, it was nuts.
Let me explain it to you.
I was walking down the street, and you're like, dude, yeah, okay, people stubbed their toes.
You went to an event where protesters were clashing with protesters.
The protesters obviously started a fight with the cops.
You act in the beginning like, I don't know who's gonna start this.
Why are you there if you don't know what's going on?
I'm sorry, man.
You gotta understand what's happening before you go out and do these things.
Now, I get it.
At a certain point, like, people want to start getting involved, and to a certain degree, there will be inexperienced people there.
But you don't make a video about it explaining how you had no idea what was going on, because clearly he goes on to explain, and then the protesters refused to leave, so the police started fighting with them.
And then the police pepper-sprayed, and I got pepper-sprayed.
Dude, seriously, man?
At a certain point, when you see Antifa and the far-left counter-protests, whatever you want to call them, clashing with cops, you pull your goggles down!
We know when the goggles come down.
In fact, there are moments... You know what?
You get the point.
I'm sorry.
You know what?
Maybe this isn't the cringiest video to you, but as somebody who has actually done training, been on the ground, who understands how this works, has actually worked in newsrooms where we plan this stuff, I am just... You know, I do several videos where I talk about how the world isn't safe, and I say, like, these people think they can travel around, do whatever they want.
This video from BuzzFeed is a perfect example of the hubris of BuzzFeed news.
Okay.
Now, I will say this.
Like I said, I think it's like they're experimenting with content.
I call it scraping the bottom of the barrel as hard as possible because this is not relevant in any way.
It's like, oh no!
Someone got pepper sprayed.
Yeah, why don't you interview anyone of the activists who can tell you, I was pepper sprayed 47 times in the past month.
Okay, I'm exaggerating.
But any one of these activists will be like, I get pepper sprayed all the time.
Like, why?
This is why people don't like journalists, partly.
So I think, you know, I don't want to put the blame on Ryan here.
Again, I normally don't like... This would be called punching down, and I'm not a fan of this, okay?
But I want to make sure that I stress my criticism is toward BuzzFeed News.
You should not be having reporters go out to these things if they don't know what's going on, if they're ill-experienced, in-equipped.
Like, listen, man.
Imagine sending someone into a conflict and they're like, we don't know who's fighting who.
It's like, we know there's like some, like, one group and another group.
We don't know who's going to trigger it, whether the military or the left or the right.
Nah.
You should know about the likelihood of which side has been doing what, what their intent is, how many there are going to be.
And based on any basic analysis of Boston, we knew the straight pride parade was going to be overwhelmingly Antifa.
We knew based on the events that happened before, they would refuse to leave.
There would be a conflict between the police and the protesters.
That was a mutual escalation.
I understand people might say it's not the cops' fault.
The cops gotta clear the streets.
They'll use their bikes.
Protesters will eventually, someone will throw a water bottle.
You should know all of this stuff.
You shouldn't be entering saying, I don't know who's doing what!
But I get it.
In the event you have a new reporter and they go out and do this kind of stuff, they're not going to understand all of this.
But please, BuzzFeed, it's not appropriate to make content where the story is literally a typical event that happens at protests, and you just basically explain how you have no idea what's going on.
But I'm going to tell you the main reason I said, you know what, I didn't want to do this, I'm going to do it, it's when he said, this could have been Charlottesville.
You know what?
You almost got me swearing.
I'm not gonna do it.
I mean, he swore, but just seriously, BuzzFeed, how dare you?
Okay, man?
First of all, you have no idea what's going on here.
You're inequipped.
You're ill-prepared.
You don't even know who the groups are.
You can't even define their politics appropriately.
And then you're acting like this is in any way going to be like Charlottesville, where quite literally someone lost their life, a dude crashed a car into people, and other dudes were, you know, torching things, people were fighting, like, brutally with clubs and sticks, and a dude fired a gun at, you know, arguably whatever.
A dude pulled out a gun on the right-wing side, fired it.
You want to act like Boston's like that?
Just get out.
Just delete this video, okay?
I'm gonna get in trouble probably for this for some reason or another.
I don't normally make contact.
Journalists.
Too many of these companies are scraping the bottom of the barrel of talent.
They're hiring people who don't know what they're doing.
They're thinking, yeah, we should go out and cover this.
They have no experience.
I'll tell you what, man.
I'll let you in on a big secret.
I often get a lot of people asking me, like, how can I do what you do?
You know, I used to do a lot of on-the-ground stuff.
As I gained more and more followers and became more notable, it became more and more dangerous.
I started getting death threats and things like that.
And eventually, I'm too recognizable, so I just, I don't do that anymore.
Now we're expanding, I'm hiring other journalists who go out and they go and cover things.
It's a typical trajectory for a lot of journalists.
You'll notice that a lot of the people who are on TV and who are hosting, even pundits, used to be field reporters.
Not all of them, but some of them.
So, I'll tell you this, man.
You know, okay, I'll make the point.
A lot of people ask me, like, how do I do this?
And I'll tell you this, when you go to a company, you go to Vice, okay?
I mean, at least Vice has some experience, but you go to ABC, NBC, they will never send you out, not every company, but a lot of these companies, they will never send you out if you say, I have no experience.
They will not give you training if you say, I have no experience, okay?
Before you're going out for a news organization, you need to know, You need to know how these things work.
BuzzFeed is ridiculously irresponsible for sending out people who have no idea what's going on, who can't even handle pepper spray.
Okay, man?
I've been pepper sprayed more times than I can count.
And I guess the, you know, whatever, the cop shot the wall.
It was a, it was a planter, okay?
It was angled, and he shot it in a way that it sprayed my face with pepper spray and plastic shrapnel.
Maybe shrapnel's a bit too harsh, but bits of the, it spluttered in my face.
I've had people come up to me screaming in a foreign language, holding a Molotov cocktail to my head.
I don't make videos about it.
I don't go, here's the time somebody came up to me and held a Molotov cocktail in my face while screaming a different language, and I just said, no problem, no problem, and I walked away slowly.
I don't make videos every time I get hit by a cop.
BuzzFeed, this is bottom-of-the-barrel trash.
Thanks for watching this 40-minute video.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m., youtube.com slash timcast.
You know what, man?
I did not want to make this video, but BuzzFeed, you get what you deserve.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
Many of you may not be aware, and by many I mean all two of the people who don't know this, that I am actually mixed race.
Yes, you may have been concerned I haven't mentioned it in quite some time, but there admittedly is a reason that I tend to.
The story I want to talk to you about today, for now, is BuzzFeed's safe space to talk about interracial dating.
In my opinion, in my experience, I think BuzzFeed is actually just showing that their audience are racists.
I'm not kidding.
So, they wrote this article that says, We built a safe space to talk about interracial dating in 2020.
Identity politics and race dominate what we talk about on the internet.
How honest can we be about interracial dating to one another?
We built a bot who will listen and share other people's thoughts with their consent.
I found it interesting at first, wondering what people would say about interracial dating.
And lo and behold, almost all of the posts and the premise of the article itself is overtly racist.
First, can I point out, why is it that when they say interracial dating, what they really mean is white people dating literally anyone else who's not white?
Okay, as a mixed race person, am I allowed to be offended by that?
Here's the thing.
First, let me say, it was pointed out by at least one person saying, why are you acting like interracial dating is literally just white people and other people?
I get it.
It's America-centric.
America is mostly white, been mostly white for a long time.
But yes, interracial dating involves like, I don't know, a Filipino person and like, a Mexican person or like, you know, someone from South
America, Native American with like, I don't know, a Chinese person?
Like that thing is real too.
You know, there are people who are black who then have Asian kids.
Like, interracial is not just white people.
So there's this weird kind of like inverted, I mean, I just call it white supremacy.
Let me tell you this, alright?
And we'll read some of these and I'll explain what I mean.
First, there's a reason why I bring up, you know, periodically that I'm mixed.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago, which was a rather, like, mixed race area.
I had friends of all different races, for the most part.
And there was a lot of Spanish on billboards, there was Polish, there was... I mean, Chicago was pretty segregated, so once you crossed 47th Street, that was where, you know, everyone who lived there was black, and south of that, it was kind of white, but pretty Hispanic as well, but still probably mostly white.
Chicago was very segregated.
But we all still, for the most part, hung out with each other, and these questions that people have and the way they view the world was never a thing.
So I think what we're seeing is there are a lot of, like, suburban, urban, progressive types that grow up in, like, racial enclaves and have really racist thoughts.
And they've shared them with BuzzFeed.
But let me tell you, like, why I don't like what BuzzFeed does in their perspective.
It's because it's this kind of, like, leftist white supremacy, right?
So let me tell you a story.
Maybe you've heard it before.
But I went to the North Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
I was out to dinner with some people and to reiterate again I'm explaining left-wing white supremacy and I was talking about my friend was like we should really stay here forever and I said I could only stay here for a couple days because I have to drive from North Carolina to California for a business meeting and that meeting is in like a week so I have to leave here in like three like two or three days and this guy interrupts and he's a white progressive And he says, dude, man, you got to drop that colonial
thinking, man.
And I responded like, what do you mean colonial thinking?
And he was like, dude, like schedules, meetings, you know, Native Americans don't have any of that.
They just like, they do the work when it needs to be done.
They wake up when they wake up.
And I was like, what?
What do you mean by colonial thinking?
How does that have anything to do with colonialism?
So Native Americans just, like, wake up when they need to?
I don't understand what the point you're trying to make is.
And he goes, the concept of, like, scheduling and, like, time, like, meetings?
I mean, that's all from white people.
And I just stopped and I was like, wait, wait, wait, what?
I was like, dude, Asian people understand the concept of time and knew how to schedule things, and the Mayans had a calendar that was, like, very accurate.
I was like, white people didn't invent the concept of schedules or calendars and time.
Like, I'm like, what are you trying to... And so he literally goes on to say, He's like, no, they really did.
He explains it.
And I said, listen, man, I'm starting to get triggered and offended as a mixed race person with Asian heritage.
You're sitting here telling me that, like, first of all, East Asian culture, which has tremendous developments outside of Europe well before Europe even got there.
I mean, gunpowder, for instance, that's the obvious one.
It's like, no, you didn't invent time.
You know, my ancestors back in Southeast Asia had these concepts, too.
White people didn't invent this stuff.
And I kid you not, he says to me, well, but it's because the white people went there and like brought these ideas.
And I'm just like, I'm just like, I am not going to sit here and listen to a white supremacist tell me that white people invented everything and that I should get rid of my culture because you think white people started certain core concepts like time.
I know I was going to read this article, but you got me monologuing.
No, I monologue.
That's what I do.
But in all seriousness, this perspective exists where BuzzFeed literally writes an article telling people that interracial just means white people.
They don't seem to understand, like, Dude, you have this weird kind of white supremacy.
Now, I understand, right?
The legit definition of white supremacy is this belief that you as a white person, you think you're superior to other people.
You're supreme, right?
But there's a different kind of weird cultural white supremacy that exists on the left that I guess I kind of, other people have called it white supremacists with a guilty conscience.
It's how they refer to the left.
There are people who literally believe Europe invented the concept of time.
Okay, sure, maybe there was like a specific scientist who like wrote down time and like Albert Einstein was like space-time and you can credit it that way, but like scheduling meetings is what the core argument was?
I'm like, dude, people understood like the cycles of the moon and they understood like the stars going back to like well before the colonial era and colonial Europe.
It's just insane to me.
You have these conversations, and it's rooted in stuff like this.
So, let me show you this.
They say this, right?
Hello there!
I'm a confession bot.
I've been programmed to hold space for you to process some of the difficult things you might not want to say about love and race.
In recent years, online spaces and popular culture have pushed us to more complex understandings of race in the context of love and desirability.
We've started discussing how Asian men are as sexy as their non-Asian counterparts.
Why would you need to...
I guess progressives have a white supremacy problem?
We talked about the importance of black love as a radical act of resistance.
I personally find that racist.
Because I think, as somebody who grew up in a family that was mixed, these things shouldn't be a factor in who you love.
It's mind-blowing to me, but yes, this is literally the narratives they push.
We looked at the way Pose has confronted how gender, race, and class play into whom we love through compelling three-dimensional trans and queer characters of color.
The emphasis on race and identity and gender and all this stuff is this weird kind of segregationist mentality of how our experiences are only specific to us based on our race and like we don't share anything.
And many of these people who commented, this is the point I want to get to, talk about how they'll never understand.
They're white supremacists with a guilty conscience saying, I could never understand The plight of the Asian, man.
And to me, that's just insane.
Maybe it's because I come from a mixed family and I just can't understand the concept of you literally thinking you're not the same as another person.
To me, that's mind-blowing.
When you have these white professors being like, you know, you're an Asian person, I'll never understand you.
What are you talking about, man?
Like, I grew up in the same place as you.
I grew up in Chicago.
I went to baseball games and ate pizza.
I think we get it.
But I understand that there are differences based on race.
I understand racism exists.
But this idea that you can't understand another person, to me, is shocking and dangerous.
There's that famous Huffington Post clip where the Asian woman tells the white host, like, you won't understand and your opinion doesn't count because you're a white guy, and he's like, I think you're stupid, and he hangs up on her, or something like that.
It's an old, old clip from HuffPost Live.
But this is the kind of mentality that's pervasive to the progressive left that doesn't exist, at least in my opinion, in regular communities.
And here's what happens when I tell these people this.
They say, oh, but you're passing.
Dude, don't tell me that!
You don't know my experience!
They simultaneously say, I will never understand your experience, and then they try and tell me they do when I try and push back saying, you're nuts.
OK, so maybe they won't.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe that's the proof.
They'll never understand my experience when they claim that they do and then don't.
It makes no sense.
OK, how are you going to say that, you know, like they do this chatbot thing where people of color dating white partners.
So, you know, there's actually people here who are talking about how they're Filipino and they're dating a Mexican person, right?
Yeah, but BuzzFeed says it's about white people and dating other people because these progressives view themselves as default.
That's seriously how they see themselves.
So for me, coming from a place where it was a bunch of mixed-race people, there was no default.
We were Americans.
And for me and my family, it was mixed.
It doesn't exist.
So the reason I point this out, why a lot of people jokingly, it's not so much the new meme about me is that I say it's complicated too much, the mixed race thing has kind of gone away, it comes and goes in waves, but I point it out because these leftists will say things like, you know, let me do this, watch, let me search for never understand and see if, okay, so here we go, they said mostly I have never had to put my foot down on this issue because I'm white and I'll never understand what he's feeling.
Okay, let's start with that premise, BuzzFeed.
If that's the case, then I don't want to hear you ever tell me I'm passing and I won't understand because you don't understand.
You see how the paradox works?
When it benefits their politics, they will claim that, oh, you poor minority.
And when it doesn't benefit their politics, they say, oh, well, you're passing and you'll never understand.
Look, I get it.
Sometimes to some people, they think I'm white.
I hear it all the time.
Mostly, people think I'm Hispanic.
Particularly depends on how much tan I get, and it depends on what my facial hair ends up growing out to, and I shave it, because I have a particularly Asian facial hair.
In the summer, when I go skating, and I tan instantly, I don't get sunburned, and my skin, like, is brown, yes, everyone calls me Mexican.
So facial features, whatever.
And I've had white supremacists tell me that I look ridiculous.
I personally find it funny.
If you want to make fun of me and tell me I'm ugly and all that, I'm fine with that.
You can insult me all day and night.
I got crooked teeth, too.
You want to joke about it, go for it.
But what I don't like is the exploitation of political issues for this reason, where they pretend whichever side it wants to go.
If it's for them, if you bend the knee to them, they say you're right whatever you say, and if you reject their premise that interracial dating is about white people dating other people instead of literally other races dating other races, well now all of a sudden you're right-wing, you're a white supremacist, or whatever.
This is the problem I have with these people because, to me, they are a form of left-wing white supremacist.
I know what the definition is, but if you literally think interracial dating is the default of white people and anyone else, then you believe white people are somehow default.
That is racist.
That's why I can't stand about this because if you really want to have like this great cosmopolitan society, you can't be segregating people based on these issues.
So I know I didn't read this because I'm frustrated today for a lot of reasons, but you go through all these things and it's basically people espousing this weird, like, it's kind of sad to me, this narrative they have about how they feel about interracial dating that's built upon intersectionality and this weird left-wing type of white supremacy.
And it's sad because my family didn't, we never talked about it.
It's not like You know, there was never an issue of like, do you question your father or your mother?
And like, never came up.
So I feel like these people, who should be having just normal love, are being manipulated into believing insane things by insane people for insane reasons.
So I'll leave it there, but I will wrap it up with one more point.
This is going to be for the podcast, but you'll hear it now on this segment.
My main channel, YouTube, it's like YouTube's got the banhammer ready.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this.
I did a segment talking about Trump.
I got warned, in no uncertain terms, that basically the video would be suppressed and essentially shadow banned.
So it's going to be going up at 6.30 because it's over 20 minutes long.
For those listening on the podcast, you're going to hear the actual segment first.
And then later, you're going to hear, after that on the podcast, you're going to hear the segment talking about Maxine Waters and Democrats, where I explain what happened.
So I'm just mentioning this because the order, I'm trying to keep the order fluid now.
I'm sorry, not fluid, but static, so that the order in which I produce videos will appear in the podcast.
So I'm going to be changing things, doing a new show.
But I'll tell you this, man, I am not exaggerating when I say that this is probably the end of political YouTube.
That's it.
Stick around, I got two more segments.
The next segment will be something silly, and then we're gonna talk about the Trump video that was essentially censored.
So, I'll see you there.
UBC cancels Andy Ngo talk on Antifa violence due to violent threats from Antifa.
Well, I think you've accomplished the goal of what your event was going to be about, and you didn't even have to do anything.
You see, Andy Ngo is gonna come and talk about how violent Antifa is.
People then prepare to come, they set their schedules, and then the event gets cancelled due to threats of violence.
Congratulations, your point has been made, we can all go home.
Thanks for hanging out, next segment will be coming up in a few minutes.
I'm kidding, I'll stop here.
Okay, let me get serious for a second.
I gotta say this.
I think it's funny, the paradox of this story.
But I do want to say something else.
At this point, I'm kind of more offended by the people who let their events get cancelled than by, you know, the events being cancelled in the first place by Antifa.
Let me explain.
I'll read you the story and we'll talk about it.
Because it is BS that Andy's event got cancelled, but I'll tell you this, man.
You know they're gonna do it!
Come on!
I put on an event last year.
Okay, I say last year, it's funny, but it was like four months ago.
And Antifa threatened to burn down the theater.
We got a backup venue, and we carried on.
Now, we did face setbacks.
We lost half of our seats, and we had to issue a bunch of refunds, so we would have sold more, there would have been more people.
But the event went off, we had a really great venue, we did it at this casino in Philly, it was awesome.
The theater backed down, and they're pathetic for it, and, you know, whatever.
Fine.
The point is, if you're gonna put an event, period, okay, in the political space, challenging Antifa, you gotta have a contingency plan.
So, look, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, right?
If you're going to do the event, you better have a plan, because at a certain point, I'm gonna blame you for it.
They don't like Andy Ngo because he calls them out with evidence.
And that's a threat to their activism, so they really don't like him.
But come on, guys.
Get a backup plan going.
At least you do get the paradoxical point being made.
This headline is glorious, by the way.
Andy Ngo talk on Antifa violence cancelled due to violent threats from Antifa.
Bravo, good sirs.
You've created, like, some... It's a great headline.
And they didn't make it up.
It's actually what happened.
But let me read and we'll talk a little bit about this.
They say, Headed into 2020, the University of British Columbia is still struggling to balance free speech with safety concerns posed by Antifa-linked groups who threaten violent protests against speakers they object to on ideological grounds.
The post-millennial editor-at-large, Andy Ngo, had his speaking event cancelled at UBC after safety concerns due to potential violent protests from Antifa groups.
No's scheduled presentation, ironically titled, Understanding Antifa Violence, was scheduled to take place on January 29th at UBC's Robson Square in downtown Vancouver.
Conservative Legal Advocacy Group and Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has issued a press release and legal demand letter on behalf of student group, The Free Speech Club, demanding that UBC reinstate the event.
So we'll see if it happens.
I guess that's at least some kind of backup plan.
According to the letter, the Free Speech Club received a phone call on December 20th from Ron Holton, Chief Risk Officer at UBC, stating, The JCCF points out that no specific concern was mentioned.
about the safety and security of our campus community.
The JCCF points out that no specific concern was mentioned.
The press release states, The Free Speech Club and UBC confirmed the Andy Noh event
booking with a contract on November 25, 2019, and had paid the campus booking fee.
I'll stop you right there.
We did our event.
We booked it, confirmed in March, and were assured protests would not be an issue.
They said, oh, we've had protests here before, and Coulter spoke at the same event.
Yeah, they got one serious threat and all of a sudden they were like, get out.
Okay?
They had Ann Coulter!
It's like, you can't, but a bunch of like, moderates and liberals and centrists have a conversation?
Apparently not.
But we had our contract for months!
So I'll tell you this right now, guys, if you're putting on an event, make it explicit in the contract they cannot cancel for any reason.
Okay?
The only, there should be like, limited exemption.
So I say any reason, but let me clarify.
It should be like, in the event the building is incapacitated, you know, the building is shut down due to fire, due to collapse or something, do not let, like, explicitly outline, they will not back down due to threats from protesters, okay?
And then you deal with the security issue, you say, we will fund security, you cannot cancel this in the event of protests.
Or, you know, veiled threats online or anything like that.
That is something they should be acceptable.
Because I'll tell you this, when we did the event, we were assured by the people, don't worry, we've had protests before, it's not a big deal.
We said, great, that's why we chose the venue, and it wasn't in the contract.
So we learned our lesson, okay?
The contract actually protected us, and we went through it, and it was clear, but they're still refusing.
So I can't get into too much because of, you know, legal stuff in the background, but I will say that, okay?
In the legal letter, the JCCF says that cancelling the event signals automatic acquiescence to the heckler's veto, which will embolden threats from those who oppose the very notion of free expression.
Citing UBC's own Statement of Academic Freedom, the letter addressed to UBC President Santa Ono threatens legal action against the university if the event is not reinstated by January 10, 2020.
Normally when a speaker's presence has caused concerns for safety for either the speaker or attendees, event hosts are asked for an additional security fee.
The amount is assessed by the university.
The groups organizing protests have never, to public knowledge, been asked to pay security fees.
In this case, the event was cancelled with no contingency.
Another event at UBC featuring feminism critic and professor of literature Janice Fiamengo was cancelled then rescheduled due to concerns of violence and policing issues.
Let me tell you something, man.
It's what we all know.
I'm tired of talking about it.
It's getting quite frustrating.
It's Antifa who are the ones who are shutting down events, threatening people on a regular basis, not the far right.
There are weird sporadic instances of extreme violence from fringe actors that people call far-right.
I'm saying people call because their ideologies tend to be rather different, okay?
Not because I'm trying to deny they're not far-right.
I'm saying they're different people for different reasons that are called far-right.
Yet, for some reason, this happens all the time, and I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you why it's so simple.
CNN's not going to run a story about this.
The local news in Philly ran stories about what had happened with our event getting cancelled, but CNN won't.
In the event of a high-profile fringe lunatic doing something nuts, CNN and every outlet screeches about it all day and night, and that's because it's a high-profile incident.
The severity of the incident caused it to become very high profile.
So you have very, very few of these far-right, you know, lone wolf, whatever you want to call it, instances.
And you have consistent and regular harassment and violence from Antifa.
But I'll put it this way.
If Antifa whacks someone over the head with a club, it doesn't make national news.
When Andy Ngo got attacked, it did because of the severity, but also because he's a journalist and the media couldn't ignore it.
So Brian Seltzer of CNN gave it a blurb.
It's not like they dedicated a large segment to it.
This sparked a larger national conversation that Antifa absolutely hated, and so they've taken it out on Andy Ngo ever since then.
He's getting it way worse than I ever got, and I rag on Antifa all the time.
So what you end up seeing is a consistent and low-grade hum.
People tolerate the hum, right?
I'm talking about, like, the fringe far-right element instances are screeches, really loud spikes, where people are like, ah, you know, and it's like it shocks you and makes you angry.
And then everyone talks about, what was that noise?
What was that?
Oh, we heard that.
And then with Antifa, it's this low-grade hum where people are just used to it.
It's like, oh, that hum's always been there.
Nobody talks about it.
It's not breaking national news when Antifa goes around, you know, 800 times in one year bashing skulls because each individual moment isn't enough for anyone to care about.
But one, every other year or a couple in a year or, you know, we had that far-left guy and the far-right guy back-to-back.
In that one week?
Those things make the press.
But then I'll tell you this, for whatever reason, you tell me, when that dude in Ohio did his, you know, committed this tragedy, he was a lefty, he was a socialist.
Because it all falls into, like, what are we gonna do about the Second Amendment?
So I think the issue is, as I explained, Antifa does this all the time, and because the media doesn't cover it when it happens, people don't care when it happens.
There's no fear that UBC will be punished in any way, because no one's going to talk about it.
And that brings me to the next bit.
Do you think UBC is concerned about Andy Ngo showing up with a horde of black-clad individuals with crowbars and Molotov cocktails?
Of course they're not!
He was denouncing it.
So who do you think they're going to side with?
Not the guy who's being peaceful and trying to have a conversation.
The people who are threatening to smash out their windows.
They're going to say, hey, you know, we're going to side with the violent ones because we're scared of them.
And welcome to the real world.
South Park had this really great episode where they talked about how terror works.
And Comedy Central censors the whole thing just a long beep, like just nonstop.
And it's hilarious that they did that.
And apparently you can find the full speech online, but they say, like, you know how South Park does that, like, today I learned something, or they used to?
It's like, I learned something today.
That, you know, threats of fear and violence actually work.
And then Chef is like, that's right, kids.
Terror works.
And here it is.
So they're right when they say that the heckler's veto encourages more.
Because guess what?
It's worked every single time for Antifa.
Antifa has had no problem doing this.
When I was putting on my event out here in Philly, people were calling local businesses who didn't even know what the event was.
And I got to listen in on some of the phone calls.
It was quite hilarious.
People saying things like, I heard you're having a far-right event.
It's like, we're not.
Well, I heard on the internet that's We're not.
I'm sorry.
I'm not sure who you're referring to.
Well, I don't know who's there, but someone said it.
Where do you live, sir?
I live in San Francisco.
Why are you calling Philadelphia?
You don't live here.
My favorite was one guy who called a local business and said, if you don't cancel this, I will never come to your place of business again.
And the store owner was like, Where do you live?
And they were like, California.
It's like, dude, you've never been here.
You'll never be here.
I don't care what you think.
Have a nice day.
Yet this is what you get.
Some random person from Russia could be calling and they would fall for it.
So, uh, I'll keep this one short.
It's been a really mind-numbing and frustrating day because YouTube censorship has gotten to the point where I can barely work.
Maybe I'll quit!
I don't care!
I'm sick and tired of this.
You know what I mean?
Like I've said a million times, I'll get in my van and just take off.
I'll make a- I'll make a show about skateboarding or something.
What's the point?
You know?
I- I- I'm trying to do the best that I can.
That's why- There's a reason why I have two channels.
Because YouTube is literally suppressing my main channel.
Free speech!
How about that?
So whatever.
I'll- I'll- I'll- I'll end with this.
Okay?
Andy.
Do another event.
Have a plan B. Book two venues.
Okay, list your address, and then at the last minute, send an email to everybody.
Or don't post the address.
Like, Mike Cernovich did that.
He said, you will know what the address is the day of the event.
You know why?
Because then they can't call in threats.
What they do is the 11th hour tactic.
What they did to us was we had the event public because we really didn't think it would happen.
And at the last minute, like a week before, they started bombarding the theater with threats.
So don't release the address until the day of.
Tell people which town to come to, but don't tell them where the event is.
That way no one can call in threats.
And then on the day of, if they do, it's too late.
Can't do anything about it.
Stick around.
The censored segment from Tim Pool's coming up next at 6.30 on youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
