The New Migrant Caravan Just RUSHED The Mexican Border And Failed, Trump's Policies Are Working
The New Migrant Caravan Just RUSHED The Mexican Border And Failed, Trump's Policies Are Working. A new migrant caravan had been making its way to the United States from Honduras.The latest reporting is that they tried to rush the Southern Mexican border and were stopped by Mexican law enforcement. Now we are learning of a tense stand off as many of the migrants try to enter Mexico without proper documentation.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The latest migrant caravan just tried rushing the Mexican border and failed.
In response to this, it seems like a new migrant caravan is forming.
That's at least the reporting we have for now.
So this may be two different migrant caravans.
And this news is kind of coming back, but here's the big difference.
Back when we saw all of the migrant caravan news a year or two ago, there was serious concern about their safety as well as what would happen once they got to the U.S.
border.
Donald Trump implemented a ton of policy changes, notably the Migrant Protection Protocols or Remain in Mexico policy.
Many of the migrants that had to return to Mexico after they applied for asylum, many actually left.
People then started joking that Mexico was the wall, as the Mexican government announced they were going to start deterring these migrant caravans.
And now we're seeing it.
We may now have, I think, according to this New York Times reporter, two new caravans forming in 2020.
And the Mexican government seems to have stopped it dead in their tracks.
Some people are accepting asylum, my understanding, in Mexico, but we'll read through the story, see what's going on.
And Donald Trump is now escalating his rules, targeting birth tourism.
He's going to be implementing new rules to stop people who fly into the U.S.
just to give birth, so their child can have American citizenship.
Trump is actually taking more action.
So even though the migrant caravan story kind of died out, And even now, they're not making it even to Mexico.
Trump isn't backing down.
More money is being appropriated for the border wall.
Right now, I believe it's at around $11 billion.
Trump is still building.
They're commemorating 100 miles of new border wall.
And Trump is enacting new policies, even in the face of the defeat of this migrant caravan.
I know, I know.
A lot of people are going to be mad, saying, Tim, don't call it a defeat.
These are people— Listen, listen.
The migrant caravan tried getting to Mexico.
They could not do it.
And here we are, in the face of all of the latest news and Trump's new policies, he's not backing down.
Even with the latest victories, Trump is still making everything harder.
So let's start here.
And see what's going on with the latest migrant caravan.
And then we'll move on to the latest news about the wall and what's happening with these new policy rules.
The story from the New York Times.
A surge of migrants rushes a Mexican border crossing.
The latest influx from Guatemala is testing Mexico's resolve to restrict the movement of undocumented migrants under pressure from the United States.
Now before we read on, As always, go to TimCast.com slash Donut if you would like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
The best thing you can do, though, is share this video.
YouTube's algorithm is seriously hurting my channel and other political commentators, and if you want to help overcome that restriction, just sharing the link is probably the best thing you can do.
But also, I'm looking for a web developer.
If you know somebody who wants to, you know, help design a new website for me, you can send me an email, Tim at TimCast.com.
But let's read the news.
From Ciudad Tecún, Uman, Guatemala.
After days of walking and hitchhiking, a crowd of migrants rushed a bridge at Guatemala's border with Mexico on Saturday and clashed with Mexican police who used pepper spray and closed the crossing's large metal gates to keep them out.
More than 1,000 migrants were trying to cross the bridge spanning the Suchiete River, which delineates a section of the border between Guatemala and Mexico.
After calm was restored, small groups of 20 or so migrants, many of them women and children from Central America, were allowed to file through in orderly fashion and register with the Mexican migration officials.
The melee was the latest test of President André Manuel López Obrador's resolve to get tougher on undocumented migration and stop the flow of migrants illegally entering Mexico, many of them trying to make their way to the United States.
So let me stop and tell you what's going on.
These people were trying to illegally enter Mexico from the southern border.
And what Mexico wanted was orderly registration.
Hey, same as what the United States is proposing.
Same as what Bernie Sanders, for basically the longest time, also proposed.
I'm curious then to those who criticize Trump's policies, if even Mexico is now saying, you know, we want you to come in and register legally, is that racist?
I'm going to have to say no, because you can't simultaneously call Mexico the victims of and the perpetrators of.
I mean, I guess technically you can, but the point is, Securing your borders is just basic law enforcement.
It's just basic management.
You want to make sure these people are safe?
We need to know who they are and what they're doing.
I don't know why, what their intention was with trying to storm through the border.
Or, I'm sorry, I'll use their language to be careful.
Because I know a bunch of people on the left are going to get mad at me.
But they rushed the border.
Police deployed pepper spray.
Why would they do that?
They're being let through, okay?
But I guess the main issue is they're not going to make it to the U.S.
border.
They say, the governments of Mexico and several Central American countries, the source of many of the undocumented migrants who have sought to cross the southwest border of the United States in recent years, has been under pressure from President Trump to help stem the flow of migrants.
Mr. Trump temporarily withheld development aid and threatened tariffs to try and force his counterparts in the region to take a tougher stance.
The showdown on the southern border of Mexico on Saturday involved the vanguard of a mass mobilization of migrants, most of them Hondurans, who set off from the northern city of San Pedro Sula earlier this week as part of a new caravan.
They are part of a tradition of mass migrants who have offered safety in numbers to participants.
A tradition?
Is that beyond what we saw last time?
I don't know.
Over the years, such caravans have usually numbered in the hundreds and have mostly passed unnoticed.
But in fall 2018, a caravan that at one point numbered more than 7,000, according to the Mexican authorities, caught the attention of Mr. Trump.
He turned the matter into a campaign issue warning against an invasion along the American border.
Let me stop you right there, man.
7,000 people!
You even acknowledge in this article that number was larger than normal.
So yeah, it caught the attention.
Right now we're seeing... There was another article, I believe it was the Washington Post, I did talk about it a few days ago, trying to argue that the only reason no one's talking about the migrant caravan is because we're not in election season yet.
They said, you know, the migrant caravans are forming just in time for the latest 2020 election.
So what's the argument really here?
That these migrants formed massive and unprecedented groups trying to storm through the borders of Mexico and the U.S.
because it's election season?
Like, they're doing a favor to Republicans so that Republicans can complain about it?
To me, that seems absolutely absurd.
Sorry, I'm not going to play the left- or right-wing conspiracy game.
People on the right were saying George Soros is funding these groups.
No, it's just not the case.
People on the left were saying Republicans are funding this group because then they can campaign on it.
What are you- what are you talking- look.
Trump turned it into a campaign issue because we've not seen 7,000 people try to get into the U.S.
at once, and numerous caravans kept forming.
They were increasing in numbers, and they were getting here faster and faster.
So, you wonder why it became a big issue?
For one, the media.
I wonder how many people are actually talking about this.
I haven't seen it on TV.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Some people have mentioned it.
I think Fox may have mentioned it.
But I'm willing to bet most people just don't care anymore.
Let me tell you a big secret about why this stuff isn't really news right now.
And I wonder how much traffic I'll get in this video even.
Because Trump won.
I'm sorry, that's the case.
You know, it's really crazy to me, and I know I mention this often, but it's like simply from pointing out Trump is winning on most of these fronts, they're like Tim's right wing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it, man.
You don't want to admit that Donald Trump is getting what he wants.
He's building the wall, he's expanding the wall, he's appropriating more funds, he's restricted migration down by like 80%, and you're sitting here pretending like it's not happening.
Nobody cares right now because the migrants couldn't even get into Mexico.
Donald Trump not only secured our border, he somehow managed to get Mexico to secure their border too.
So he went above and beyond what he was planning.
And I'll tell you this, whether you like the guy or not, Trump supporters are probably loving the news that these migrants tried to break through the border of Mexico and couldn't even do that.
Now they're not going to make it to the US, and Trump is making it harder and harder.
Recently, he... I don't want to say he, but the administration proposed new rules, where you have to wait... They moved people... I don't know exactly what it is, because the news was all confusing about it, but basically...
When asylum seekers come to the U.S., they had to wait 350 miles away from where their court case was.
I don't know what the issue was, because the news was reporting it very confusingly, but it was basically that some people who came to Mexico, who came to the United States, would wait in Nogales, and then have their court case in, like, El Paso, or somewhere over by the border.
Maybe not El Paso, but the point was it was very, very far away.
And so advocates were getting angry, saying, how are they supposed to make their court dates?
That's a good point.
I do think it is a responsibility of the United States to take asylum claims seriously.
I also think it's fair to point out there are people who abuse the system.
Trump isn't sitting there going through all the files of every migrant and saying no to them.
There's an administration in place.
They're looking over the asylum claims and saying these don't fit and it's judges doing it.
Okay?
You want to blame Trump?
Judges are sitting there saying this is not asylum.
The one thing I love quoting was Vox.com when they interviewed somebody.
Vox is left-wing, by the way.
They interviewed someone in the caravan saying, why do you want to come to America?
And they said, I miss buffalo wild wings.
Dude.
I want to be there for the asylum seekers who have no choice, who are terrified for their lives.
That includes marginalized peoples, the LGBTQ community, not the dude who wants chicken wings.
When that dude with chicken wings comes in that caravan, they're displacing the actual asylum seekers.
And that's the big problem with these caravans.
Certainly not all of these people are going to get asylum.
Many of them probably don't even have asylum claims.
They're probably just coming, hoping they can get in.
And that's what you learn from a lot of the interviews.
A lot of these people were saying, I'm hoping to get a job.
Well, I'm sorry, dude.
Okay?
A lot of people want to come to America.
America's awesome.
I totally respect that.
Thank you for your appreciation for my country.
I'd like to help you out.
But if you're here for a job to make your life better, I'm sorry.
There's a huge line of people waiting to get in.
You can't just jump in front of them.
That's not cool.
You know who can jump in front of them?
The people who are literally in danger for their lives.
And it's very few of them.
And we see these stories.
So let's read this news.
Let's continue on.
They say, By some estimates, the current mobilization is also in the thousands.
The Guatemalan authorities say that more than 4,000 migrants, part of this scattered caravan, have entered Guatemala from Honduras since Wednesday.
Many of them had been expected to arrive in the small Guatemalan border city of Tucumán on Saturday or Sunday.
In recent days, as the caravan approached the Guatemalan border with Mexico, the Mexican authorities announced that only migrants who registered with proper documentation seeking asylum, work permits, or other protections would be allowed to enter.
Once registered in Mexico, migrants were transported on white unmarked buses to another location to continue their application process.
You see this.
Even Mexico is saying, proper documentation.
You know why?
When all of these migrants, the thousands of them, came to Tijuana, came to the southern American border, and the U.S.
said, this is not how the legal, how the system works, first, we saw a ton of people actually storm the border!
You know that famous photo of the woman carrying her kids, they're firing tear gas, and the left freaked out, saying, why are children being tear gassed?
Well, I would ask the question, why are people storming our border with children?
Okay?
Now, I'm not a fan of the tear gas either, I gotta admit.
But it's like, listen man, Conflict isn't about one person.
They didn't have to storm the U.S.
border.
They literally didn't, okay?
Like I said, most of these people, the overwhelming majority, are not asylum seekers.
What ends up happening is, these people then sit in Mexican streets, and the Mexican citizens are getting angry, telling their government, we don't want the illegal immigrants here either.
So listen, there are people who do it the right way.
But the reality is, and I will quote Bernie Sanders on this one, my God, there are too many poor people in this world.
If we open the border, we couldn't take them all.
I'm paraphrasing at the end, but he said, my God, there are too many poor people in this world.
He was asked about open borders.
We can't do it.
Now he's flip-flopping in the latest campaign, that's fine, but the point is, it was Bernie who said that.
It was Bernie who said that, not even, you know, was it six, seven months ago he said it?
So when you look at people who are actually concerned about how to take care of these people, they're going to tell you straight up, we need registration and documentation.
If you just let these people break through the barriers and run in, you know what happens?
They wander through hundreds of miles of desert.
We just can't have that.
It's crazy to me that we see these tragic photos of people who lose their lives, and the left is like, it's ISIS' fault.
Of bad security and desperate people running through the desert and they don't make it.
You know what we should do?
Secure the border, bring people in, give them a chance, an opportunity under the rules we have in place.
If you want to change the rules, I'm all for it.
But when they come through the borders legally, when they apply for asylum, guess what?
They get transport to safety.
And there's a lot of crowding problems.
It's true.
Kids are getting sick.
Yes, because we don't have facilities for literally everyone.
Perhaps then, If you're complaining!
About these overcrowded facilities and people getting sick?
Remain in Mexico was the right thing to do.
Because instead of bringing these people in and locking them up, we just say, you wait there, move around as you see fit, come back when your court date is up, and then they're not locked in these cages like everyone complains about.
So I kind of ranted on this for a long time.
I definitely want to go and cover the next bit.
So we are seeing that there's a tense standoff going on.
The latest news.
After the failure to storm the border, they're now all just basically sitting there waiting.
But we also have this tweet From the same reporter from the New York Times who says... This is as of this morning, so... I don't know exactly where we're at yet, but this is the latest breaking news I was able to pull up.
across the border bridge toward Mexico and dozens of Mexican police in riot
gear. This is as of this morning so I don't know exactly where we're at
yet but this is the latest breaking news I was able to pull up. But now we've
talked about this you know in great detail in great length.
Check this out.
Trump is ramping things up for one thing.
They try to argue that there's no new border wall.
Sorry.
Trump administration, this is two days ago, installs plaque marking finish of 100 miles of border wall.
They tried claiming that this wasn't actually a wall because there was existing border barriers.
But I kid you not.
It's a manipulation technique.
These walls are 30 feet high.
They're bothered fencing on purpose.
You know, people are like, Trump didn't actually get a wall.
It's a fence.
Yes.
Because Border Patrol said, we need to be able to see through it.
And he went, good point.
So they switched.
It was cheaper, by the way.
You know, Trump was saying, we want a big, beautiful concrete wall.
And everyone joked about it.
And then when CBP said, actually, we need to see through it, he went, okay, well, then we'll do that instead.
And literally, I don't think a single Trump supporter cared.
The left pretended to care.
It's the weirdest thing ever when I see leftists like, Trump didn't actually get a concrete wall.
You didn't want it in the first place.
What are you complaining about?
Trump supporters don't care.
They're getting something.
They're happy, right?
So what ends up happening is you have these barriers that are like four foot high sticks.
They have sticks that make an X and they put a stick above it.
Like you can literally just like walk over it.
That's what's being replaced.
But they are absolutely building new border wall too.
So let's move on, and I want to get to the big scoop about birth tourism.
That's the big thing I want to cover as I wrap this up.
So this is the news from Washington Post from just over a week ago.
I think it's less relevant now, but I do want to mention that Trump is planning to divert an additional $7.2 billion in Pentagon funds for the border wall.
Didn't they already rule that Trump was allowed to appropriate funds in this way?
Listen, man.
We have a Supreme Court.
We have Congress.
We have the executive branch.
There's checks and balances.
And I will tell you this.
The weirdest thing to me right now is that I don't think it matters for the most part
if Republicans control the Senate, the judiciary, and the executive branch, because that would
imply that they don't disagree on things ever, and they do.
We all saw what happened when Matt Gaetz voted with Democrats on constitutional limitations.
Republicans agree on many issues and vote with each other on many issues, and sometimes
with Democrats.
But if the Democrats don't agree with Trump, the point is, just because the Republican
Party is in the Senate, the Supreme Court—I mean, they're not in the Supreme Court, but
you know it's like leaning conservative—doesn't mean that Trump wins everything.
He doesn't.
It doesn't mean that they believe all of the same things.
It just means that the fringe elements of the left are losing the argument because nobody agrees with them.
That's it.
You know, as more and more moderates join the Republican Party, they act like the Republicans are doing everything.
No, it's you scaring them away.
So, here's where we're at now.
This is from yesterday, from NPR.
$11 billion and counting, Trump's border wall would be the world's most costly.
Yeah, because it's really, really big.
I mean, I think they're estimating it's going to be $20 billion.
What's really funny is, you know, the scale of the money to build these things varies wildly for government programs, depending on what you're talking about.
So I think it's really funny that we spend, what, like $130 billion?
on foreign war and they're complaining about this.
Dude, this is why my first priority is not the border wall, it's not Trump, it's not,
for the most part, not even domestic policy.
We're wasting money and we're losing lives overseas.
You'd think the first concern would be not having our soldiers in foreign lands?
But instead, they're like, Trump's wall, bleh!
Uh, no.
Okay, you know what?
I'll be honest, though.
It's not even about anything having to do with domestic or foreign policy.
And this is where the big argument comes from for basically everything.
See, for me, my concerns are based on real things.
And my principles.
So, an example would be, I'm not super concerned about a $20 billion wall when we're spending $130 billion every year to be overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How about we get rid of that, then we work down on all of our expenses and figure out where we're wasting money.
This one's not my first priority.
It's just not.
And if people want border security, I'm... I... And?
Like, I don't know.
It's normal, man.
It's not... We're not invading anyone else.
We're literally building a wall on our own property.
Like, to an extent, as private property has big complications there.
But I feel like all we're really getting is that...
No matter what Trump does, it's wrong.
Period.
And then you have the Rachel Maddow-type conspiracy stuff.
It is nuts.
Okay?
You've got insane conspiracies from the weirdo-resistance MSNBC types, and then you get people who are just mad about literally anything Trump does for no reason, even if it's not even a priority or makes no sense.
So Trump is like, I'm sending troops.
They say it's bad.
He says, I'm taking the troops back.
They say it's bad.
Okay, well, let's build a wall on our own border to secure our country.
That's bad, too.
You want to talk about cash?
Let's talk about all of the ways the government wastes money, and the wall isn't even the worst.
Nowhere near the worst!
It's not even a tenth of the money that we waste on foreign war.
Look, I get it, man.
I know liberals on the left, they don't like foreign war either, but they're too obsessed with Trump as a person instead of what the country has been doing and is doing.
I wish they were screeching during Obama's years, like I was, about the waste of money and the horrible things we're doing.
But I gotta wrap it up.
I'm sorry.
This was a longer rant, but check this out.
Axios.
Birth tourism is Trump's next immigration target.
Axios reports the Trump administration has a new target on the immigration front.
Pregnant women visiting from other countries.
With plans as early as this week to roll out a new rule cracking down on birth tourism, three administration officials told Axios.
Trump has threatened to end birthright citizenship and railed against immigrant anchor babies.
The new rule would be one of the first tangible steps to test how much legal authority the administration has to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of the 14th Amendment's protections of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S.
There's a quote there, they say.
This change is intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry.
The regulation is also part of the administration's broader efforts to intensify the vetting process for visas, according to another senior administration official.
Birth tourists often come to the U.S.
from China, Russia, and Nigeria, according to the AP.
There is no official count of babies born to foreign visitors in the U.S., while the Immigration Restrictionist Group Center for Immigration Studies, which has close ties to Trump administration officials, puts estimates at around 33,000 every year.
They say, it's unclear yet how the new rule would be enforced, whether officials would be directed to consider pregnancy or the contrary of them in citizenship in determining whether to grant a visa.
Consular officers who issue passports and visas are remarkably skilled at sussing out the true versus false claims.
Excuse me.
The underlying practical issue is that very few people who give birth in the U.S.
got a visa for that specific purpose.
Most people already have visas and come in later.
So this is a serious issue.
Birth tourism is an exploitation of American goodwill.
I don't like the idea.
I think it's absurd that you can have people, what they do is, and this is an important point they mention, they will get a visa, You know, like a six-month visa, and then once they're ready, you know, so nobody knows anything, right?
They apply for a visa, they earn it, the government says, okay, and then six months later, you know, because actually I think there are visas that are good for a lot longer than that.
You get a visa when you're not pregnant, they wait until they're about to give birth, and then come here.
It's not everybody, it's not most people, but it is a problem.
So I'm not super... I really don't... Look, I'll say this.
I do not see a left-wing argument in favor of this.
Like, what's your argument?
Let people just come here to exploit the system?
Doesn't make any sense.
At all.
Like, you can argue about asylum seekers.
I understand that.
You know, we want to keep people safe and err on the side of safety.
You want to argue about the detention centers?
I'm listening.
But I don't see an argument for this.
I really don't.
It's an exploitation of the system.
And so, yeah, I think it makes sense to end it.
Although I'm sure people will say that, you know, tourists are being unfairly turned away or whatever.
But I will remind all of you.
Coming to America is a privilege, not a right.
I'll tell you this.
There are inalienable rights, like free speech, expression, movement, etc.
But movement, like, when it comes to those rights, they butt up against other people's rights.
So when it comes to movement, we have also a right to protect ourselves, self-defense, and also act in the defense of others.
If people are doing, you know, dangerous things, I think it's important to enforce certain laws.
Lo and behold, I am not overtly libertarian, I'm actually a liberal.
I do believe in freedom and liberty, but I lean left.
I think the government needs to regulate a lot of this stuff.
And that's how it used to be in this country for a long time, until the far left started taking over.
So I'll tell you two things.
The far left is mixing ideology and economic ideology.
It's weird to me.
And it's scaring people away.
But I'll tell you also, there are a lot of immigrants who don't like the fact that Democrats are advocating for this stuff, because they fought so hard to come here, and now their rights and their access to resources are being taken away, because the system is being strained.
Under Trump, the economy is booming, and he's securing the border.
Whether you like the guy or not, his fans do, and so do a lot of Americans.
I think it's important the left recognize that, because if the left wanted to win, if the Democrats wanted to come back, they wouldn't be advocating against these things.
They'd be agreeing with Trump on some areas, and then calling him out in areas they don't like.
They don't do that, though.
Everything he does is bad.
So anyway, we'll see what happens.
You know, the election is coming up in, you know, just about 10 or 9 or so months, just around.
About 10 months.
And we'll see how this migrant caravan stuff plays a role.
I'll have any developments, you know, should things change.
But, you know, there you go.
Another migrant caravan trying to break through the southern Mexican border, and they're failing to do so.
So it seems like, as I stated before, Trump won this one.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
That is my other channel.
And I will see you all there.
As I'm recording this video, a massive Second Amendment rights rally is underway in Richmond.
Many people are concerned about threats of violence.
Personally, I think everything is being overhyped by the media because they want sweet, juicy clicks.
As exemplified by this story, NBC News' Ben Collins slammed for warning of, quote, white nationalist rally in Virginia.
There is no white nationalist rally in Virginia.
There are just gun rights advocates.
And I must remind all of you, Adam Ruins Everything, College Humor, as well as Al Jazeera and even Antifa have repeatedly called out how gun control is racist.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that.
Adam Ruins Everything, you know that show is College Humor?
That's a lefty show.
They did this whole segment about how gun control only became a thing because people were worried in the slave era and into, you know, California, the Black Panthers, of black people buying and protecting themselves with guns.
Now, I don't think literally every instance of gun control is racist, but I think there absolutely is a racial history to it, a racist history to it.
I think it's important to point that out.
So here in Virginia, it's not in fact the white nationalists who want to defend guns, it's the people who want everyone to defend themselves.
In fact, in the Adam Ruins Everything sketch, When they point out that it was in California under Reagan, they started implementing gun control laws because of the Black Panthers, the conservative character says, that's what I like to see, Americans bearing arms to defend themselves from tyrannical government.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone in Virginia would agree.
So anyway, we have this dude who works for NBC News who I've digitally crossed paths with before.
This guy Ben Collins, he's an activist, okay?
He's not a journalist, he's an activist, and I'll give you now two examples.
So he smeared me in some piece because I think it was on Joe Rogan.
I said, you know, you look at these journalists who are actually activists, and they're trying to stage a narrative, as we see here, right, he's calling it a white nationalist rally for a reason, to frame a narrative about who's coming down to protest for their constitutional rights.
And this guy, basically what happened was, a bunch of 4chan people started going after his friends.
Like, I say going after, like, it was a troll campaign, like, people were tweeting it, journalists, learn to code and stuff.
He got all angry.
Because it was his friends.
And so he wrote a story that was just, you know, misleading.
In my opinion, incorrect or misleading, I gotta be careful because this guy's, you know, he's already tried smearing me in the first place.
He'll probably get mad about this segment.
And he works for NBC, so he has that power.
You can see what he's doing now to this rally.
And I'll explain what I think his intentions and actions are.
So he got mad that I called him out.
I don't know this guy.
All I know is, look, if you're a journalist and you're writing for a news organization, And your friends are being, you know, involved in a flame war or people are brigading them.
You must disclose that your friends are the targets of this, you know, brigade.
A brigade is when like tons of people come and start doing an action on the internet.
He did not do that.
And then a day later he made another thing like, oh no, now they're targeting me!
I don't agree with threats or violence or any of that stuff, but, you know, getting mean tweets?
Yeah, it happens.
But what he did was, he made a fake narrative, you know, defending it to defend his friends, because this is what he does.
And you can see he's doing it right now, right?
He basically was like, You know, people were tweeting Learn to Code.
It was a joke.
It was based on, you know, journalists telling coal miners to learn to code.
And he started saying it was 4chan, it was death threats, and all this other stuff.
And then people started pointing the finger at him and brigading him, and then he was like, oh!
So they do it on purpose, right?
He knew he was going to get traffic.
He didn't disclose that he was connected to the story.
It's a violation of journalistic ethics.
He got mad that I called him out.
So they started smearing me as a conspiracy theorist.
That's what he does.
Now we can see what he's doing.
I want to show you his tweet.
I do believe he deleted it.
it. I don't know if they... Okay, so he said, reporters covering tomorrow's white nationalist
rally in Virginia, I'm absolutely begging you. Verify information before you send it
out tomorrow, even if it's a very sensational rumor you heard from a cop. Don't become a
hero in neo-Nazi propaganda circles with made up stuff.
It got 1,000 retweets at the time they screen grabbed this, but I do believe he deleted it because everyone was tearing him apart.
But let me break down for you what he's doing here.
In my opinion.
There was absolutely no reason for him to ask journalists to verify information.
That makes no sense.
It would be like if someone said, police officers, please, when you're stopping someone at a traffic stop, ask for their license and registration.
Don't just let them off with a warning.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Like, why would you tweet that?
The real intention of the tweet was to frame it as a white nationalist rally.
He couldn't just tweet out, tomorrow's rally is white nationalist.
He couldn't say, I believe it's a white nationalist rally.
He had to give a reason to passively insert the narrative.
This is what they do.
They do it all the time.
There's a bunch of clever tricks that the activists in media will do to frame a narrative while keeping it off-subject, right?
So, for instance, what he did, to me, was he included me in a story, it made no sense, and they've done this before, other activists, like at Vice, for no reason will include weird snippets and tidbits.
So here's exactly what happened with this guy.
Okay.
One, two, three, four.
He wrote for NBC News that I had pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.
And he did, based on activists pulling clips out of context and reframing them.
And the real story is that when the Seth Rich thing was happening, we had reports from Fox News, we had statements from Julian Assange and Kim Dotcom.
Kim Dotcom had been saying, this is true, I can prove it.
I said, I don't know if I believe him.
I've met Kim Dotcom, I've interviewed him, so I'm likely to trust him based on the evidence But, I don't think it's legit.
Julian Assange was making allusions to the fact that Seth Rich may have been the leaker.
Said, I don't believe that either.
If Julian Assange wanted to make a statement, he would.
But Fox News, it was Fox Business I believe, put out a definitive story.
And my position was still, I lean that it's better than chance that he leaked to WikiLeaks.
But, you know, I don't completely believe it.
That whole context is removed.
See, what happens is, Fox Business eventually retracted that story.
They then go back, remove the context of the fact that it was definitively reported by Fox, and then retracted, and take an out-of-context clip, and when they say, like, no, no, no, look, like, here's the greater context, they fail to mention that it was definitively reported by Fox News.
We now know that Fox was wrong, it's not the case, there's no more evidence, so I leave it where it is.
But there's a lot of stories like that.
If I did a video talking about, you know, like, you could take anything Rachel Maddow has said, and it makes her look nuts because the stories are fake.
So here's what he does.
Because of that, he then writes a story about the White House Social Media Summit and includes this passive line for no reason accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory when it was in no relation to the story at all.
The reason they do that, in my opinion, is because it was immediately then picked up by Deadline, by Variety, by the Daily Beast, and they started running that narrative.
And then, this is the best part, he deleted the source from his own article, so it created a circular loop of everyone sourcing each other.
The source he had was an activist blog with snippets.
After that, people took each of those now... It's called cytogenesis, essentially.
It's where a journalist will make something up, and then someone will cite their story, and then someone... So, let's do this.
You have three news organizations.
NBC, Deadline, Variety.
NBC dubiously sources some ridiculous claim.
Variety then sources NBC News.
Deadline, then sources of variety.
NBC then removes the source, and then it goes and cites Deadline, creating a circular loop.
It was XKCD, as much as I criticize them over the free speech thing, who I think coined the term of cytogenesis, meaning it's citation.
The genesis of creating citation with a circular loop.
So now all these news organizations cite each other, and there's no original context as to what it means.
Activists then take those articles and go to Wikipedia and say, look at all of these people claiming is a conspiracy theorist.
This proves it.
Fortunately for me on Wikipedia, most of the editors were like, this is ridiculous.
This claim about Tim Paul has nothing to do with anything.
But it went on for like a month apparently where they were trying to change my Wikipedia from journalist and political commentator into conspiracy theorist.
And like right-wing conspiracy theorists and stuff.
That's the game.
That's how they play.
The point of this tweet was to generate, in my opinion, was to generate a citation.
Because now you're going to see activists showing his tweet, calling it a white nationalist rally, then other news organizations will start citing each other, and there it is.
Fortunately, I think in this instance, it was too much, and he got called out.
So let me stress again, his tweet has absolutely no reason for existing.
Telling journalists to verify information, Why would you say that?
And why?
So, man, it's really clever, it's really clever.
You see, what he did was, he basically, he passively frames the Second Amendment rally as white nationalist, and then goes on to say this tweet is about telling you to fact-check, creating this amazing circumstance where you must assume he's telling the truth because he's the one trying to tell people to verify their information.
Well, he got slammed really hard for it.
Eventually, he deleted it because the organizers were like, this is not true.
These people have been banned.
It has nothing to do with this.
But he was trying to frame it that way.
This guy's an activist who works for NBC News, and there are other activists who do this as well.
The problem with media today is they don't fire these people.
They won't do it.
I don't know why, probably because there's too many of them and they're friends.
But this guy actively does this.
And what's really funny, because when I called him out, he blocked me.
He doesn't block a bunch of other people, he blocked me.
So I think it's particularly hilarious.
And I'll tell you this, if anyone blocks me, I immediately block them too.
Because what people like to do on Twitter...
is they'll block you so that only they can see your tweets.
You can't see theirs.
And then they go through your Twitter history and start causing problems, and you don't know where the problems are coming from.
So they'll start screenshotting your tweets, quote-tweeting you, and you won't get notifications.
They're doing it so they can rally their base to come after you, and then, you know, you're like, why is this happening?
Where are these people coming from?
So my advice to anybody on Twitter, if someone blocks you, immediately block them back.
Don't allow them that one-sided... So let's read a little bit.
They say...
I talked a bit about what he tweeted.
They say, after several hours, Collins deleted his original tweet, writing a seemingly peppy message.
Hi everybody, I'm deleting a tweet so I can be super clear about tomorrow's rally in Virginia.
The Lobby Day protest is and has traditionally been a gun rights rally, but white nationalists, including militant group The Base, have been planning violent action at the event.
I do not believe that's true.
I believe what happens is, you see how he's already tried framing things.
This is what they do.
They'll find one tidbit message, and then they'll create a citation for it, so it circles around in the washing machine, spirals around all these media organizations, and they create the fake narrative for political gain.
This dude's, like, you know what, man?
I've seen a lot of bad journalists, but what's really scary is that there's a lot of journalists who believe this guy, and he does this stuff all the time.
They say commentators and Second Amendment advocates had unloaded on Collins, asserting that it was strikingly unfair to claim that the thousands of expected attendees at the gun rights rally were attending a white nationalist event, simply because a handful of people outside the state potentially plotted to attend.
Not only that, a local anti-fug group, a small one, said they were on the side of the gun rights advocates, and that they didn't want the state, excuse me, Coming to take away their rights either.
So therein lies the big problem.
This guy tried framing.
This is what they do, man.
This is the game they play.
If you are on the right, the activists in media know how to weaponize information to alter The narrative.
Like I explained with the Seth Rich thing.
It's completely BS to claim that I was actually pushing anything because I had repeatedly said, come on guys, it's likely not true.
Things like this just don't happen.
But lo and behold, the moment Fox News does a story and someone asks me about it, I say, oh yeah, Fox News said it was legit.
I still don't believe it entirely.
I'd put it at like 65% chance of being true at this point.
Even with Fox saying, yes, I still said, I'm not entirely convinced.
And that's what they take to justify their insane citation.
It's how they weaponize the narrative against you and try and destroy you.
Now it's much easier to do with people like Alex Jones, because Alex Jones is bombastic.
And they were able to pull a bunch of stuff from him, change the contest, they did to Gavin McInnes too.
Now admittedly, look.
Jones and Gavin are easy targets because they did say bombastic things.
They did say things they should not have said, absolutely.
But they definitely did, you know, with Gavin and Jones, they take things out of context.
There was one thing where Gavin McInnes was talking about choking a dog with a choke collar.
Like, you know dogs have choke chains and you pull it?
He was talking about literally, like, reprimanding a dog when the dog was being disobedient and they cut it out to make it sound Like he was talking about attacking people.
Steven Gutowski said, tomorrow's event is in no way a white nationalist rally.
It is not organized by racists and they won't be in any way a significant portion of the attendees.
Yet this writer is elevating them while smearing the regular people who will actually be
there.
Yes, surprise, surprise.
When Collins responded that white nationalists were at least attempting to co-opt the event,
Gutowski replied, I agree there is a danger of extremists co-opting the event,
but can't you see how labeling it a white nationalist rally when that isn't the case
literally accomplishes that goal for them.
I'll see you next time.
I'm gonna say it.
I think Ben Collins is actually a white nationalist.
Okay, I'm not being serious, but, you know, I think it's fair to say, listen, One of the biggest things that the white nationalists and the far-right need is legitimacy in the press.
They're in no way relevant to this event.
Sure, people might show up, but if a local Antifa group said they were coming, would we call it an Antifa event?
No.
So these groups need legitimacy in the media.
They want people to talk about them.
They want to seem more powerful.
And Ben Collins makes sure that happens.
He makes sure their narratives persist.
He makes sure people see this and think these people are a powerful force.
Why would anyone want to make them seem powerful?
You know, if anything, you'd want to make them seem weak and stupid.
And that makes me question this guy's motivations.
Because he's certainly not marching around with Antifa.
He's in the media.
Why would he bolster them?
Why would he promote them?
That's what he's doing.
This guy for NBC is actively promoting these individuals.
He's showing their names and faces, he's telling their stories, and then he's claiming they're the ones who run these big and powerful events that are setting national news cycles.
I mean, that's advocacy, right?
Not direct advocacy for their cause, but for them and their narrative.
I'm not saying I know what this guy's intentions are, but I will tell you this.
Vox ran a story They tried claiming that there were like 4 million alt-right people or some ridiculous number.
It's like, why would you say that?
It makes me, like, look, if you don't like these groups, you want to mock and belittle them, not bolster them.
And that's what I really don't understand.
And I think there was this really great viral post that was being shared on, like, Facebook and Twitter.
This guy said the reason the Identitarian left and right I'm sorry.
The reason the identitarian left is so adamant about changing definitions and controlling them is because their ideology is basically the exact same thing.
So the specific example is how racism is only about, you know, white people targeting other groups.
The reason they change the definition is because they believe literally the same thing as the white nationalists, but believe it for a different race, right?
The general idea is that their ideology on racial identity is the same thing, so they need to find a way to differentiate themselves from neo-Nazis because they literally believe the same things.
And you'll see this when you look at like, you know, Farrakhan and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and how they talk about Israel and Jewish people, okay?
It's no coincidence that Linda Sarsour and the Women's March It's no coincidence that the left-wing identitarians believe the exact same things as the alt-right or the white nationalists when it comes to Israel and the Jews.
And that's the fight over definitions.
So what I would say is, I think, deep down, these people really do, to an extent, want to bolster the white nationalists and make them a force in America, even though they're not, and they've never really been.
They haven't been.
They've certainly tried to gain traction, and they had, like, a wave, and then people, you know, saw them for who they were, and said, no, we're not playing that game with you guys, you guys are nuts.
But not the left.
Even though you still have Linda Sarsour who has said crazy things, you have these people on the left who are actively supporting Farrakhan and stuff like that, even though they believe the exact same things.
Nobody comes to ban them.
Nobody comes to shut them down.
They allow it.
And then you get people like this dude at NBC who starts promoting.
I want to clarify what I mean by promoting.
Not like he's going around talking about how good they are.
He's making sure you know who they are.
He's making sure that they control the narrative.
Why would you do that?
A serious question.
Why would you do that?
Why would this guy try to elevate white nationalists to a powerful national force?
Why would he want people to believe that white nationalists were organizing a massive nationwide news-setting precedent event?
Why?
Why would this guy want people to think that white nationalists are a powerful force to be reckoned with?
I think there's a simple answer.
It generates clicks for him and his job.
But this guy has taken ideological approaches to framing narratives before.
So my only assumption is these people, they like the white nationalists.
They really do.
Because how often do I talk about it?
How often does anyone else talk about it?
In mainstream politics, they're not a real issue.
Nobody was talking about this event like a white nationalist event.
He's the one who tried creating that narrative.
And the reason it didn't work is because it was just too absurd.
Nobody believed it.
Not even the left.
They're like, what do you mean?
It's a 2A rally.
We know about the gunfight that's happening.
The gun rights battle that's happening in Virginia.
Why would you try and bolster the white nationalists and make it seem like they're the ones who are controlling this event like there's thousands of them?
Why would you want people to believe that white nationalists are strong and powerful?
I can only assume, in my opinion, if you really didn't like them, you'd mock and belittle them and call them stupid and silly like many actual activists do.
Yet this guy is here trying to make it seem, I don't know, I find that very suspicious.
So I'll leave it there, you get the point.
But I will end with this.
In that line of thinking, I really don't think anything's going to happen at the Virginia Rally today.
It's a bunch of law-abiding American citizens.
They're not all conservatives.
Like I mentioned, there was a story from Vice.
And I think that's another reason why his attempt at framing the narrative backfired, is that Vice already ran the story.
That Antifa was planning to join the pro-gun rights side of the event.
You know, they were adamantly opposed to fascists and stuff, but they were like, no.
You know, the government doesn't have a right to take this away.
And they actively pointed out how gun control is racist.
You know, you look at Chicago.
Who's disproportionately affected by gun control?
Not the white people in the suburbs.
It's the black inner city kids.
That's who gun control is targeting.
So, that's what makes me curious about why someone would simultaneously defy Antifa.
Here's what's really funny.
I got my problems with Antifa.
I think they're zealots.
I think they're violent.
But if Antifa is coming out in this event, not just the local ones, but even nationwide, saying, we don't like tyrants and we don't like fascists, and defending the right to bear arms, I gotta say, I think the dude who's actively bolstering the white nationalists and who opposes gun rights sounds like the racist according to Antifa.
But you know what, what I really think about the guy?
I think he wants money.
I think he wants to get hot million-click, you know, articles.
I think he's just a sociopath.
I really do.
I think this guy, he's done it numerous times in the past.
I think, I think he's all, he's driven by, you know, narcissistic, self-aggrandizing.
He wants, he's, it's funny because he's very much like the lonely dudes on the internet.
Who try to shape the world through memes and stuff.
He's very much like, what can I do from my seat to affect the world, positive or negative, it doesn't matter.
So what he tries doing is he tries making people believe that there's a bunch of white nationalists and they're a very strong group of people.
Why would you do that?
Why would you want to make white nationalists seem strong and powerful and commanding?
I don't get it.
That's why I'm saying the dude is at least a white nationalist sympathizer.
He's going around telling people how strong they are.
What?
Why?
They're a tiny fringe group that have no real power in politics.
It's weird, isn't it?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up.
Oh, hold on, hold on.
I needed to say this media hype stuff.
No, I don't think anything's gonna happen, okay?
So I know a lot of people are really worried.
It's media hype, dude.
Look at what this guy is doing.
It's media hype, right?
They're trying to get clicks.
They're trying to make money.
They're trying to scare people.
That's the point of the game.
So, I'll tell you this.
We really are in the post-truth world, so long as NBC employs people who actively lie, and they do it all the time.
Like, why is this guy still working at NBC, you know?
It's because there's no accountability in journalism.
Nobody's gonna fire their buddies.
They're playing a political game.
They know what they're doing.
They're trying to sell Snake Oil, and just because he failed to sell this one doesn't mean they don't want him to sell more.
He sells Snake Oil and it works!
There was a, uh, you know what?
I'll stop now.
Stick around.
We'll see what happens.
Come later today, but I will see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
They're a group of people who are obsessed with every little thing the far-right talks about.
And, you know, look, I understand some of these organizations.
It makes sense to track what certain extremist groups are doing.
But then the media latches on and it becomes completely insane.
So when the Anti-Defamation League put up a story talking about how the word boogaloo is now far-right slang, it eventually trickles down to NPR and we get this.
Boogaloo is the new far-right slang for civil war.
My response?
Who cares?
Seriously, who cares?
It's not a slur.
It's not calls for anything.
It's literally just a word that basically means, like, party or, like, throwdown.
And for those that aren't familiar, It basically gains its popularity from Breakin' to Electric Boogaloo.
Everybody knows the movie.
And I'm reminded of that joke from Family Guy, where Peter and Lois are debating each other or something like this, and Peter says something like, I once stopped an evil developer from taking over the community center, and Lois is like, that was, I don't know the guy's name, Adolfo something, Adolfo Shabadoo, from Breaking 2, Electric Boogaloo.
And that's basically where it comes from.
The name is just kind of a buzzword thing for, like, something happening.
And so, I have a really funny article that kind of breaks down why Electric Boogaloo is a thing.
But lo and behold, NPR has to run a segment explaining how this is the new far-right slang.
And now we're at a point where, just like clowns, just like milk, if the far-right does it, it must be theirs.
It's the weirdest thing to me.
Boogaloo is a meme.
That's it.
People say it.
People on 4chan say it too.
It doesn't mean it's far-right slang.
It's just slang.
This is the weirdest thing to me.
Why they do this.
They want to empower the alt-right, the far-right, whatever you want to call it.
No, dude!
Could you imagine if they were like, we've found that people in far right circles are posting pictures of cats.
Cats are the new... It's like, yes, everyone posts pictures of cats, dude, calm down.
But you know what?
You gotta justify paying the bills somehow, so let's check out the story.
This one here is like a four minute interview, so I wanna show you some of it.
But then I wanna show you what the ADL actually wrote several months ago.
I think it's really funny.
So, here's what the host says.
Now the story about the strange journey of the word that's popular in far-right corners of the internet.
The word, boogaloo.
Fake story.
This is a fake story, okay?
There are a lot of words they say in far-right circles, and they exist in every other circle.
It's the weirdest thing to me.
It's like milk, like frogs, and like clowns.
Not everybody who posts a milk emoji is far-right.
Not everybody... And this is what they've done.
4chan knows it.
And so they do it for fun because they basically have the media on puppet string.
So bravo 4chan.
It's so amazing how... You know what's really funny?
You want to talk about a media conspiracy?
Here's my conspiracy.
4chan controls all media.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But they can do whatever they want!
You get some dudes on this forum, and they're like, hey, let's say this word, and then all of a sudden the media goes nuts!
The media just literally does what they want them to.
It's actually quite amazing.
It's like they're being moved around like chess pieces on a board.
So here's this guy, he says... No it doesn't!
No it doesn't!
as a mash-up of black and Latin American influences some 50 years later, the word
is still a part of American pop culture but with a very different meaning. It
once represented a fusion of people and cultures, now refers to their coming
apart, civil war, in some quarters a race war." No it doesn't!
No it doesn't! Stop! Okay, so I've jokingly referred to the Ukraine scandal with Donald Trump
as Russia gate 2 Ukrainian boogaloo.
Let me explain to you what this really is.
Here on Wikipedia, we can see Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo.
This is the movie.
It's about three characters from Breakin'.
Kelly Orlando, that's Adolfo Quinonez, And, uh, Tony Turbo Angley, who struggled to stop the demolition of a community recreation center by a developer who wants to build a shopping mall.
It may be one of the most cliched 80s storylines, and that's it.
And it's called Break Into Electric Boogaloo, and here's the actual source.
I have this story from AV Club.
I watched this on purpose, Break Into Electric Boogaloo, and they say this.
1984's Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo contributed precisely one thing to the cultural zeitgeist that the far more successful Breakin' hadn't already provided.
A zingy subtitle that could be added to the end of virtually any sequel.
To this day, children of the 80s still frequently reference, say, Saw 2 Electric Boogaloo, The Hills Have Eyes 2 Electric Boogaloo, Largely because of the built-in catchy rhyme and sheer silliness value.
The gag comes up routinely and randomly via sources from Mr. Show to Family Guy.
In a recent online chat with Lord of the Rings fans, Guillermo del Tormo even joked that H2 Electric Boogaloo had been rejected as a possible title for the planned second Hobbit movie.
It's a joke.
Everybody uses it.
It is not far right.
But the media loves to play this game.
Don't ask me why.
They love to do it.
And I gotta throw some shade.
You know, look.
I think the ADL isn't the worst thing in the world.
I know a lot of people think they're like, you know, evil or really, really bad.
No, I think the ADL has done some good things.
I don't think they're completely bad.
But I think they've done a lot of really bad things.
And I think in certain circumstances like this, they're just trying to justify why you should give them money, right?
Look, there are real things to track.
I'd like to, you know, I look to, like, real journalists.
People like, you know, Jake Hanrahan, for instance, if you're not familiar.
He's a reporter who's covered the far right.
If I want to know what they're doing, I'll go look at what he's talking about.
Because he's not going to give me some impassioned political argument about the words they use.
He's going to be like, here's what they call themselves.
Here's what they do.
Here's where they are.
And I'll say, interesting.
Thanks for letting me know.
When you turn to these non-profits, like the SPLC and the ADL, they try to justify their existence by shocking you and scaring you over literally anything.
Now, the reason why I say I don't think the ADL is the worst thing in the world is because there have been some things they've gotten right.
So when the OK hand gesture first became a meme because the media LOVES to just play this game, ADL actually came out and said, no dice.
Not true.
They said it was a 4chan prank and the media needs to stop playing this game because innocent people are getting swept up, and I'm like, that's great.
Granted, I do think the ADL has done, you know, kind of bad things because my understanding is they're very anti-hate speech, which results in anti-war leftists and conservatives getting banned from the internet.
Mostly conservatives, for a variety of reasons.
But now they're trying to take Boogaloo?
Dude, just because someone uses a meme doesn't mean they now own the meme.
Like, could you imagine if the article actually said, like, the new extremist Pokemon slang term?
Because, you know, Pokemon fans playing Pokemon Go keep calling, like, the next patch the Boogaloo or whatever?
Nobody does that.
This is what's really, really annoying about every single narrative in terms of radicalization and extremism.
They are exaggerating literally everything.
You take a look at the rabbit hole.
I love this analogy, okay?
You've heard about the New York Times, the rabbit hole.
It's like, people go on YouTube.
And then they start getting wrapped up in a series of videos, and then all of a sudden they're extremists, right?
Well, what really happens is that people choose to watch certain videos.
They're not being sucked into anything.
And the best example, the one I love giving, is how If you're a fan of Superman, how many people do you know have become Superman extremists?
How many articles have been written about people who are obsessed with Superman?
How many articles have been written about people who watched Dragon Ball Z and now are completely obsessed with Dragon Ball Z?
It's just not a thing, right?
They don't claim that new slang terms are popping up in various subcultures.
It's almost exclusively about a subset of forum users who use the same slang as literally everybody else, and then all of a sudden now we're wrapped up in this, I don't know, insane paranoid delusion.
So, you now know the origin of the word boogaloo.
I think in terms of, like, modern mainstream culture, boogaloo is... it's about breaking into electric boogaloo, right?
The boogaloo extremist new slang for a coming civil war.
They say it's not often... it's not often an old joke evolves into a catchphrase for mass violence.
But that's just what's happened this past year, when a variety of extremists and fringe movements and subcultures adopted the word boogaloo as shorthand for a future civil war.
From militia groups to white supremacists, extremists on a range of online platforms talk about, and sometimes even anticipate, the boogaloo.
The rise of boogaloo, and its casual acceptance of future mass violence, is disturbing.
Among some extremists, it may even signify an increased willingness to engage in violence.
Ah, stop!
So, hold on, I gotta stop too.
I do think it's fair to point out, yes, they do use this word this way, right?
My point is not that they don't have their own slang.
My point is not that they're not more likely to use it.
No, I think they are.
You know, the average person isn't going around saying, the boogaloo is coming.
It's just a slang term that was meant to be silly, and it was a meme that's picked up.
And just because some people say it, doesn't mean that it's a fringe, far-right thing.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there were left-wing Antifa people who said the same word, because it's just a slang term for, like, a party or a throwdown.
They say, um, moving on.
Oh, they actually talk about Break-In 2, this is amazing.
They say, uh, Boogaloo has its roots in decades of jokes about an old movie, the 1984 breakdance and film Break-In 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Almost from the moment the movie's released, people exploited the format of the movie's title for humorous purposes, replacing Break-In with some other film, event, or person of their choice.
These jokes included Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo, references made every so often by gamers and history buffs, among others.
But its most recent and most serious iteration caught on and spread very quickly, though some still use the phrase as a joke, an increasing number of people employ it with serious intent.
This is where it came from.
People would say Civil War II, Electric Boogaloo, or American Boogaloo, and Boogaloo is just a stupid word!
Of course, they get to own everything.
Guns rights activists threaten violence.
The new usage seems to have started with gun rights activists intimating a promise of violence if the government were to come for their guns.
The full phrase has been used this way before.
For example, in June 2018, someone started a Reddit thread titled Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Featuring a 2012 Facebook post by Gavin Newsom, then California's Lieutenant Governor, telling the NRA, we are coming for your guns.
The implication made by the poster was clear, that any such effort would result in a civil war.
It's not about supporting a civil war or wanting it to happen.
But I think it's fair to say, if the government says, we're coming to take your guns to violate your rights, they're starting a civil war.
You know, so here's what's really crazy.
Right now in Virginia, you have all these gun rights activists, and people are acting like it's the gun rights activists who are starting things, when it's literally the government starting things.
Everybody's chilling, minding their own business.
The new government comes in and says, we're going to, you know, make these changes and do these things.
And then people say, we're going to protest that.
And now I see these tweets popping up where they say, these goons are coming out to scare us.
What are you talking about?
You are the ones passing the laws to like ban private gun ranges and like target practice stuff.
So they came out in response to protest.
And they're abiding by the law.
Right?
So when they say it's happening, or when they say there's going to be a civil war, they're talking about what the government is doing, not their response to it.
They're saying that some people will respond negatively.
So, they go on again, I guess.
In 2019, the usage sped widely among pro-gun activists on a variety of online platforms.
So much so, it quickly pared down simply to Boogaloo, or the Boogaloo.
In August, a Twitter user warned others to buy whatever guns and ammo they wanted now, because soon the ability to do so would be severely curtailed.
Adding, button up for the Boogaloo now.
The same month someone else tweeted the hashtag Boogaloo warning about 100 million active shooter situations when the cops tried to do a nationwide gun confiscation.
I mean, I gotta be honest.
Again, it's not about supporting it, but we see what's going on with red flag laws.
When the police show up unannounced to seize property, Bad things happen.
Americans will not let this happen.
So I see what's going on in Virginia right now today.
I think for the most part, nothing's really gonna happen.
I mean, I may be speaking too soon, we'll see.
But I do think it's fair to point out that, like, if the government starts enacting more heavy-handed bans on weapons, restrictions, don't be surprised when people come out and say, never going to happen.
I'll tell you this, man.
You know, someone tweeted something dumb about the Founding Fathers didn't envision this, and it was a bunch of dudes, like, walking down the street, and I'm like, you're right.
The Founding Fathers literally shot at and killed the government.
Like, that was a bit extreme, you know?
But we're Americans.
That's our history.
That's how our country was made.
And so, when you see dudes walking down the street with guns, I'm like, I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers had a more extreme vision of what the Second Amendment really meant.
So I'll tell you this, the response from the guy was like, wake up, innocent lives are being lost.
I'm like, listen man, I'm right there with ya, to an extent.
I think there is a big difference between the ease of access... See, here's what people don't understand.
I think one of the things missing from the Second Amendment arguments, when it comes to these silly things, is the mass production.
It's not just about owning it.
It's about that people can own, like, dozens.
Now, I think it's fair to say the Founding Fathers understood technology would advance.
They were looking at, you know, new artillery, new weapons.
I don't think they were morons.
They actually did a very clever thing with constructing this government.
But I do think we're seeing mass production on a scale we've not seen before.
And it is, I think, I don't think it's actually, I don't think it's fair to talk about, you know, people say like, oh, it's full auto or semi-auto.
It's like, no, they had that stuff being developed back then.
Like, they knew what was being used in war.
They had, I could be wrong about this, but I was reading about steam Gatling guns.
Like, this stuff was not unheard of.
And I think Steven Crowder did this big thing about the technology of the day, like, they knew technology was advancing, right?
I think that one thing that's left out, though, is the mass production, the rapid production of.
I'm sure, like, back then, it wasn't about whether you could or couldn't, it was about whether or not they could produce them fast enough, so people could have guns, and they could have new ones.
So here's my point.
I actually think we should have Supreme Court rulings and assessments on, you know, what kind of guns people can have and things like that.
The only problem is, it doesn't matter what I think.
The Second Amendment exists.
And so long as I enjoy my rights under the Constitution, other people enjoy those rights.
And if you don't like it, well, you've got to ratify the Constitution.
Right, so for a long time I was always, I was kind of more leaning towards certain gun control stuff.
Like, my position has usually been, I think we need less restrictions, but more knowledge.
You know what I mean?
Like, if we know who has the weapons and what weapon they have, That's better than telling them they can't have it at all?
And red flag laws step over the line.
I mean, if you wanna take someone's weapon away from them, I think you gotta serve them first, they go to court, present their arguments, and if a judge rules, then they can do that check.
But right now, it's just like literally the cops show up and just, you know, bad things happen.
Anyway, this turned from a thing about Boogaloo into what's going on in Richmond, so forgive me for that.
I'll wrap it up.
You get the point.
Listen.
The main point of all this is that, well, 4chan did it again.
They can literally do whatever they want, a hashtag, it doesn't matter who says it or why, it becomes far-right, it invariably becomes white supremacist.
Like, the general idea they're telling us, the ADL, NPR, and these other outlets, is that there could be something you truly love, like milk.
And if a white supremacist uses it, congratulations, all instances from this point on, of its use, are white supremacist.
Like, clearly that can't be the case, right?
But that's what the media keeps doing.
It's because people need to justify their existence.
It's because the ADL needs money.
So, I don't necessarily blame the ADL for telling us that people are using it this way.
It's like, okay, fine.
But then the media latches onto it, and now, all of a sudden, they're gonna go back in time, find anybody who's ever said boogaloo, and be like, aha!
You're far right.
Retroactively applying the game of telephone to you.
That's what's going on with all this.
The reality is, memes exist, People use Pepe.
Katy Perry used Pepe.
Oh no, and then the far right used it, therefore you can't use Pepe anymore.
That's insane.
That's just not the way the world works.
And so long as you have these organizations digging through everything fringe communities do...
And then saying, aha, this is their word.
Like, I was arguing with someone about the clown symbol, and they're like, nope, clowns are far right.
That's the emoji.
I'm like, dude, no, it isn't.
The far right uses it for sure, but a lot of people use the clown symbol.
Like, there was some Antifa guy tweeting about Bernie Sanders and Warren who responded with honk honk.
That's the far right meme.
Yep, okay.
No, you're nuts, man.
It was something about Warren lying and then accusing Bernie of lying.
You probably saw that story.
And they responded with honk honk because, like, how insane is it that Warren, of all people, would accuse Bernie of lying when her whole career is based on lies over and over again?
So yeah, that was the joke.
Clown world, haha!
And I'm like, so how do you have a progressive like Antifa type saying that, but you're gonna argue that it's a far-right, you know, meme.
It's just, it's because of stuff like this.
So anyway, I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Yeah, we'll see what happens with Richmond.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'm shocked!
What is this, Steven Gutowski tweeting?
People are beginning to clear out as the rally comes to an end.
The attendance was massive, there was no violence, disturbance, or really any consternation that I witnessed.
I did not see any racist displays whatsoever.
Everyone in attendance was focused on gun rights.
How can this be?
NBC and MSNBC said Nazis were there.
And other outlets claimed Antifa would start violence.
You mean, the media lied?
My whole world is crumbling before me, for I have been a disciple of the great media institutions.
Yeah, okay, we get it.
The media lied.
The gun rally in Virginia was a massive success for guns rights activists, a large peaceful protest.
Yet of course the media and activists were outraged by the white males trying to scare us in their goon squad.
Seriously, people were tweeting that.
That's not the story I wanted to get to.
I actually wanted to highlight this story, because this story is what takes the cake.
F.U.
I can't swear on this channel.
Elderly man crashes live MSNBC shot at Virginia gun rights rally.
Now, I can't tell you why this man was motivated to do what he did, but bless his heart.
Alright, no, I'm not really a fan of jumping on camera and yelling things, but I do gotta say, As much as I would not advocate for this kind of behavior, doesn't it feel really good?
Don't you understand what I'm saying?
We don't want to encourage people to be rowdy or to jump on camera and scream things, but I think we could all admit it feels really good.
Today, we are all this elderly man.
In his exasperation with how MSNBC and NBC had been lying, the dude he actually jumped out and yelled at, I believe it's the same guy who tweeted something like, He tweeted that the crowd was chanting, we will not comply, and then posted a video of them saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
Everyone got really, really angry.
I didn't think it was that big of a deal.
I understood why you're like, yeah, here we go.
But I do think it's worth calling out.
But I want to read you this story real quick about the elderly man crashing MSNBC.
And then I want to show you, like, MSNBC ran a segment saying it was white nationalists.
It literally wasn't!
It's like, just like local gun rights advocates.
And that's the weird, creepy game these media people are playing.
Where if you came out for free speech, seriously, when you come out for free speech, they call you a Nazi.
When you come out for Second Amendment, they call you a Nazi.
I'm not even a big 2A guy!
You know, my position is pretty much like, I gotta be honest, I'm actually, like, personally, would like gun control.
You know, like, I think it's being done wrong, and I think, well, you can't do it as long as a constitution exists.
So, like, my position is pretty constitutionalist in that, while my opinion would be, I think we do need to, like, regulate firearms in specific ways, I stop dead at the constitution and I say, As long as the Constitution is there, with Second Amendment right there, then it doesn't matter what I think should or shouldn't be.
I think step one is ratifying an amendment, or changing the Constitution.
So long as that doesn't happen, there you go, I get it.
It's crazy to me that there are people who think their desires trump The government and the Constitution.
It's like, dude, the Bill of Rights exists for a reason.
There's a lot of things we don't like in law.
You don't just go out and take people's rights away when it's protected by the Constitution.
So as much as I would prefer certain policies, yeah, you know what?
I ultimately back down.
I did a video a while ago.
Where I talked about what I thought would be appropriate, and a bunch of people started using the same arguments I said against me for my speech, and I was like, I get it, I get it, I get it.
You can make the same arguments about any amendment for the most part, so that's why I drew the line, I said, I get it.
If I want mine, you have yours.
If I want my rights, the ones I like, then I have to recognize other people are going to have certain rights I might not like.
And so, if you want to get together and have a big constitutional amendment or whatever... But anyway, this guy jumps on camera, they say, an elderly man shouting obscenities crashed a live MSNBC shot Monday.
As protesters gathered in Richmond, the man jumped into view behind NBC reporter Gabe Gutierrez, who was speaking to MSNBC host Hallie Jackson in the studio at the time.
Gutierrez spoke to one rally attendee who said they had driven from North Carolina to support our brothers and sisters in Virginia, and then turned back to Jackson.
This rally is set to get started in about 15 minutes or so, and it's expected to last several hours, and I should point out that a gun safety group that had planned for another demonstration after this has cancelled that one because of what they called a credible threat to public safety.
Thousands have shown up here, but so far a peaceful protest, Hallie.
Jackson mentioned President Donald Trump, who has often tweeted about protecting the Second Amendment, blah blah blah.
I'm not going to read all of this.
A bearded elderly man ran into the shot just behind Gutierrez, yelling, y'all are a bunch of effin' lying pieces of ass, he yelled, as two men stepped in to restrain him.
F you!
Gabe Gutierrez, thank you, I appreciate it.
Apologies for the background noise.
Is that what you call it?
Let me show you.
This is a local ABC affiliate.
I believe it's ABC?
The logo's so tiny.
Take a look at that picture!
What might that picture be?
Well, some of you are listening on the podcast and you can't see it.
It's a young black man wearing a sweater that says, Black Guns Matter.
What's this?
How could this be?
How could minority groups actually support Second Amendment rights?
Could it be that the people currently trying to enact gun control are ignoring the history of gun control?
And dare I say it, are...
The real racists?
How come that always ends up being that way?
Isn't that weird?
Antifa goes out shouting racial slurs in Portland and Eugene and Seattle and stuff, and then they claim that they're the ones... You know, they were yelling racial slurs at a black Proud Boy.
It's like, dude, I'm sorry, like, you're the racist here!
You know what I mean?
You have, uh, I was in Texas at, I think it was a Trump rally, and it was one of the coolest things I saw.
It was, uh, there was a tall black dude wearing a shirt that said Black Guns Matter, and I think he had an AR-15.
And he walked, there was like, there was like a shorter white dude who was like 5'7".
The Black Guns Matter guy walks up to these three militiamen and just shakes their hand and they're talking and it wasn't even an incident.
It was literally just people talking.
And I saw it and I was like, that's cool, man.
Like, that's cool.
Like, clearly.
You know, they probably have very different politics.
But this is one thing I've really seen with people who are proponents of gun rights and stuff, even the far left.
I have seen, like, communist militia people, and they have a serious respect for keeping things calm and reducing tensions and avoiding violence.
And it was really surprising to me, because I think one of the things, the difference between the left and the right in terms of youthful rowdiness, like Antifa, is the right doesn't come out and protest like this.
So when the older militia guys come out, they're calm, they're restrained, and they have discipline.
I mean, with great power comes great responsibility, right?
So when you have that weapon, I've noticed a lot of these people tend to be calm about it.
Not always, we've seen some people overreact for sure, but typically.
And so when you see somebody who's like, on the left, but also agreeing with gun rights, and they're just sitting there talking, having a good time, because they agree with each other, right?
You know, that's a cool thing, that's awesome.
So here you have this dude, right?
They say photo gallery, massive gun rights rally in Richmond, Virginia, and ABC leads with a photo of a dude wearing a Black Guns Matter sweater.
I got mad respect for this guy, by all means.
You know, he's standing up to a machine that would call him All of the worst names in the book.
MSNBC tries claiming it's a- look at this.
They put white nationalists, militia groups, and supporters of background checks for gun purchases all in one piece.
A lot of folks, and justifiably so, are worrying about a repeat of Charlottesville in 2017.
This is, this is MSNBC.
This is insane.
Nothing happened.
And that was what I opened with.
Quite literally, dude sang, everybody had a peaceful time, they talked, and now they're going home.
What did you think was gonna happen?
The media is so desperate for the psychotic narrative.
And so they smeared all of the people of color who showed up to defend their rights.
Can I tell you this, man?
When you look at the history of the United States, and you look at the history of gun control, it's... I will say Adam Ruins Everything is a bit slanted, but I think it's fair to point out, man, look at Chicago.
Who is the most impacted by... You know what, man?
This is what really blows my mind.
You look at New York.
They talk about stop-and-frisk.
You know what stop-and-frisk is?
It's where the cops will go to, like, you know, high-crime areas, and they would frisk people and try and find things.
They tended not to find anything.
Started giving jaywalking tickets and, like, pot tickets to these young black men.
And they're primarily going into certain areas arguing it's about crime.
Technically that's true, but they tend to be going to poor areas where the crime is because poverty breeds crime and it becomes this big racial component where Democrats then say, Mike Bloomberg is disproportionately targeting, you know, black and brown people with stop and frisk.
Have you been to Chicago?
Do you know who is disproportionately affected by gun control in much the same way?
Do you know what the point of stop and frisk was?
It was to find guns.
So this is what's crazy to me.
They argue about stop and frisk, literally a policy built upon finding weapons, particularly guns.
And in Chicago, who is particularly affected by this?
Yet who are the ones calling for more gun control?
Yeah, it's the Democrats.
It's the left.
So listen, man, I like Andrew Yang.
Andrew Yang talks about some, like, Comprehensive reforms.
They call it, you know, a lot of people say like common sense gun control.
It's not common sense at all.
You know, they want to ban basically every weapon.
I think we should not infringe on ownership.
But I think, you know, my personal opinion is the more knowledge we have, the better.
But you shouldn't be allowed to restrict people's weapons.
You know, I just don't...
I don't see how you can effectively maintain the system, because right now we're in this weird mishmash of various policies that make no sense.
You get people who drive across state lines to go visit a relative.
There was one story in, so I'll give you a better example.
There was one story, I gotta keep these short, so I'll wrap this up.
But there was a woman who came from, I think, Tennessee to Illinois.
And she had a permit for a concealed carry.
And when she was trying to go as a tourist to, I think it was the Sears Tower, not Willis Tower, She mentioned that she had her revolver and she said, here's my permit.
And they're like, we don't care.
That doesn't work in Illinois.
You're under arrest.
And she got prison time.
Like, that's crazy, man.
Like, we can't have that.
So anyway, I do think we need, you know, gun control reform in a certain capacity.
But anyway, the main point is...
When I look at Chicago, when I look at New York, and I see these policies designed to target weapons, they're not going to white neighborhoods.
They're not going to the suburbs.
Think about it for two seconds, man.
And I'm surprised the right doesn't get on this more often.
Like, they want to yell that Adam ruins everything for a lot of things, but yeah, dude, he's right about this one.
Check it out.
When you hear about gun control in Chicago, are you hearing about police doing no-knock raids on white suburban families for hunting rifles?
Nah.
They're going to poor neighborhoods, and they're going into areas with a lot of black and brown people, and I get it.
I'm from the South Side, man.
I've seen the gang violence and the crime, and it's the same thing with stop-and-frisk.
If your concern is that there's more crime here, therefore it's disproportionately impacting minority communities, Why wouldn't you be concerned about the gun control laws that are causing it in the first place?
I did an interview with this woman, and she said the problem is illegal guns.
She was all about legal carry.
And she was like, these people, they need to do things legally, get their guns the legal way.
And the police come in and do these raids, and they target black and brown people.
Yeah, shouldn't that be a priority for Democrats?
So anyway, let me wrap that up.
Otherwise, I gotta keep these short and we're getting to gun control.
Point is...
I'm confused.
I am.
I'm confused as to why, like, you know, David Hogg, and it's like all these, like, white, upper-class people complaining about guns.
Meanwhile, you go to Chicago, you go to poor communities, guess what?
They're protecting themselves.
They're buying weapons.
And they're doing it in ways that are often illegal because they're concerned.
Now, I think a lot of people in Chicago are irresponsible with their weapons.
Absolutely.
And that woman I interviewed, that's why I brought her up, because she's saying, do it responsibly, do it the legal way.
I agree.
But who's disproportionately affected by this?
I don't have a lot of stories from Chicago where the cops were going and raiding, you know, white suburban homes for their hunting rifles.
It's not happening.
But sure enough, on the south side of Chicago, it's happening.
So I'd like to see the Democrats address that.
I don't know what the big... Look, you want to argue Democrat, Republican, gun control, whatever, I will tell you this, and I'll say it one more time.
I would ask Democrats to answer for the disproportionate targeting of black and brown communities when it comes to gun control.
I'm not making this up.
Antifa talks about it.
Antifa is a whole article about the history of gun control.
Adam ruins everything.
They talk about this.
I think this is something that, you know, conservatives and Democrats should actually come together on, and the Democrats should back off, because it's their... You know what, man?
You get the point.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Yes, yes, yes, the media is biased against Bernie Sanders.
It's true.
Now, Bernie has been running a ton of ads on Reddit where he's calling out corporate media and all that stuff.
But you know what?
Maybe you should just start tweeting more about it.
Maybe you should speak up directly at your events and call this out.
Right now, what's happening is Bernie Sanders is correctly calling out Joe Biden's corruption.
Wow!
Lo and behold, Bernie!
Finally on the Trump train, I guess.
Donald Trump has been calling out Joe Biden's corruption for a long time.
In fact, he's being impeached for it.
Now they say, oh, but he was trying to cheat in the election.
It illustrates everything that makes many Democrats distrust the Sanders team.
And the buck stops with the candidate.
He's quoting this tweet from Mark Murray, who said, the day before the Senate impeachment trial against Trump begins, the Bernie Sanders campaign circulates this op-ed attack on Joe Biden.
Burn notice.
Joe Biden has a big corruption problem.
He does!
Joe Biden!
How is Joe Biden the frontrunner?
Can I, can I, listen.
Joe Biden can't speak.
He often doesn't know where he is, and he inappropriately touches little girls.
How is he the frontrunner?
Like, dude... You know, Bernie Sanders has raised like triple, I think, what Biden has raised.
So if you were to ask me...
It's because people don't pay attention.
The people who do pay attention and are progressive are supporting Bernie.
The people who don't pay attention are just saying Biden, I guess.
And then the crony establishment people are going, I care about Elizabeth Warren, but we'll get to Warren in a second.
What I want to address is that Bernie Sanders is finally calling out Joe Biden's corruption.
Thank you.
Because, you know, the Trump people and moderates have been screeching about it for a long time.
Politico ran numerous stories about Joe Biden's soft corruption.
And now Bernie calls it out.
And, of course, Bernie's going to get shredded for it.
But, hey, it's going to get really interesting.
When Bernie and Trump supporters start saying the same things.
Because they are.
Right now, Bernie is talking about Biden's corruption.
What do you think Trump supporters have been talking about?
What's going to happen when Bernie Sanders supporters start ragging on the media?
Oh, they're doing it now?
What do you think Trump supporters have been talking about?
It's going to be really funny when, if Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be hilarious when basically everyone is going to be attacking the press.
They're going to get torn up.
Let's read the story.
National Review says, The Bernie Sanders campaign circulated an op-ed on Monday
highlighting the transactional, grossly corrupt culture of former Vice President Joe Biden's
record just one day before the Senate begins impeachment trial over President Trump's alleged
attempts to force Ukraine to investigate Biden. Well, would you look at that?
Bernie Sanders, are you, dare I say it, going to agree with the Republicans and vote in favor of acquitting President Trump because Joe Biden is corrupt?
How could Bernie Sanders simultaneously claim he is an impartial juror, but just the day before the Senate claimed Joe Biden is corrupt?
How would Bernie Sanders then go on to condemn Donald Trump, which he did on Twitter, saying, Trump, he tried to rig the election.
But you think Joe Biden's corrupt too?
So hold on.
Both Bernie and Trump think Biden is corrupt.
But Bernie has the nerve to go after Trump because Trump wanted to investigate it?
You know what, man.
This is why I don't like politics.
I don't like politicians.
At least Trump is, like, you know, okay.
I don't know how to describe what Trump is in terms of honesty.
Because half the time he blurts out the important, you know what it is?
Donald Trump is the perfect example of saying the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet.
He's a perfect example of this.
He lies about dumb things that don't matter.
And then he blurts out the truth when you're like, I can't believe he just admitted that.
He's like, I'm going to send troops to Saudi Arabia because they're paying us a billion dollars.
And you're like.
Did he just admit it?
Like, wow!
I loved it when The Intercept said Trump was the most honest president we've ever had.
Because Trump lies about, like, dumb things like Stormy Daniels.
Who cares?
But then when it comes to, like, foreign policy, he's like, Yo, the Saudis, they pay great, we want this contract, we're gonna make billions of dollars, good for the American economy.
And people are like...
The president's not supposed to admit we're just selling weapons, but Trump does.
I mean, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, I gotta admit, that's great, you know.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, a quote, burn notice email sent by the campaign highlights a Guardian op-ed written by Fordham law professor and Sanders supporter, Zephyr Teachout, which warns that Biden has a big corruption problem and makes him a weak candidate.
It looks like middle class Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle and working class Americans.
They say Republicans could call the Bidens as witnesses in the impeachment trial slated to begin Tuesday with Biden's campaign releasing a memo Monday to warn media outlets of spreading malicious and conclusively debunked conspiracy theory on any alleged conflict of interest in Ukraine.
The Biden campaign said that any reporting suggesting that Biden engaged in wrongdoing when he executed official US policy to remove a corrupt prosecutor from office amounts to spreading a malicious and conclusively debunked conspiracy theory.
Wrong.
Sanders has yet to publicly accuse Biden of corruption, while President Trump and his allies have repeatedly touted the claim, citing the former vice president's diplomatic dealings in Ukraine while his son served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
At the very least, Joe Biden, you have shown us, with your son working for a company that was being investigated by a man you were supposed to be removing, you have terrible judgment.
Joe Biden is not the frontrunner, but he somehow is.
Man, we are in serious trouble, I'll tell you this.
Most Democrats don't care.
Don't pay attention.
They're like Biden, Trump, whatever.
That's it.
They're not watching the news.
They're not hearing what I have to say.
They're not hearing what David Pakman or Jimmy Dore has to say.
Specifically the progressives.
They're not listening to any of us.
Because if they were, we'd all be saying no Biden.
I mean, no, no, they would all be saying it.
We are saying it.
Can you think of like a pundit that's actually like a...
I guess a digital or internet-based pundit, progressive or right-wing, that has praised Joe Biden?
I don't think it exists.
Like, dude, you can go and sit—you could take, like, Steven Crowder and Jimmy Dore and sit them down, and they're both gonna rag on Biden and then shake hands and smile afterwards.
And I think even someone like Crowder would recognize Bernie is substantially better than Biden in terms—in a lot of different ways.
I know, I don't want to speak on behalf of conservatives or Crowder.
What I mean to say though, I think everybody understands that Bernie is being smeared and lied about, and as much as he's pandered too much, and that makes him a weak candidate, and I think he doesn't have a spine, he is leaps and bounds better than Joe Biden.
So I don't understand how Joe Biden, I just really don't get it.
Here we go.
Here's another one.
They say, quote, this is from Rand Paul, I think the Bidens are as corrupt as the day is long.
Senator Rand Paul said last week, no young man who is the son of a politician gets 50 grand a month who has no experience working for a Ukrainian oligarch.
You know, for goodness sakes, it smells to high heaven.
It smells like corruption.
Yes!
Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for finally getting on the corruption train and highlighting this stuff.
But I want to point something out, this drag of Joe Biden, this is hilarious.
It's from Brianna Wu.
Shuan had tweeted it.
Brianna Wu says, Joe hair-sniffing Biden has the nerve to call video gamers little creeps and says games teach people to kill.
You know what, Joe Biden?
No one ever died from Mortal Kombat.
100,000 civilians died in your Iraq war vote.
Spare us the lecture.
Yeah.
So here's the thing.
Brianna Wu is very much in the social justice camp of the culture war, but coming out after Joe Biden, that's my point.
I don't know who, like, you can take a staunch conservative, everybody agreed Bernie was getting smeared and slammed, and everybody agrees Biden is trash.
I love the meme, Jack Posobiec tweeted it out.
It was two arms, and it was Trump supporters and Bernie supporters, and the middle, it's the meme where they're gripping hands, it says CNN is trash.
Yep, we all agree.
Check out the response Brianna Woo got.
This guy says, You sound so much like a Trumpster.
Disparaging another Democratic candidate this way because his last name isn't Sanders.
You guys are poisoning the well.
You're going to hand the election to Trump.
Aww.
Well, let me use the last minute or so to talk about Klobuchar and Warren.
This is one of the funniest things ever.
Nate Silver gave his endorsement odds for the New York Times.
And he said it was a 10 to 1 chance they endorse no one or multiple candidates or something dumb like that.
Congratulations, Nate Silver!
You win a something dumb like that prize.
Because the New York Times endorsed both Klobuchar and Warren.
I'm gonna tell you why very simply.
Klobuchar is safe mainstream female candidate.
She is the corporate old-school Democrat.
Elizabeth Warren is the fake mainstream progressive.
They both represent a faction in the Civil War within the Democrats.
They're both female because they want to play the progressive card, but they don't know who's going to win.
If the far left wins, Elizabeth Warren's... The reason Warren is running is because she is the establishment plan B. If the far left progressives gain too much power, she swoops in to make sure she is the nominee.
She's perfect because she's a woman, so if it's Bernie, they can accuse him of being sexist.
Like they're doing!
But I don't think Warren can beat Bernie.
Because, you know, Bernie has got the patriarchy on his side, you know what I mean?
I'm kidding, by the way.
But I will add one last thing.
It's funny that they endorsed Klobuchar because this Twitter account, digital director for Kamala Harris, said, I personally know and am close with at least three people who worked for and were abused by Klobuchar.
Her abusive treatment of her staff is disqualifying and I'm really upset the NYT editorial board chose to overlook it.
They don't care about you.
The New York Times wants to endorse who they think is going to win.
They've endorsed Democrats, like, going all the way back to 1960 or whatever.
It's the game they're playing.
The New York Times is promoting these two because they don't know which faction will win.
That's the game.
Welcome to politics.
I wonder if it'll be Warren, but Warren is just awful.
You know, I'll tell you this, man.
I do think Bernie Sanders deserves to be the nominee.
There's a lot of reasons why I don't think he'd be good for president.
I don't think he can beat Trump.
I think he's weak-willed.
But I'll tell you this, man.
All the other candidates, you know, save for Yang, I think are just not fit for the presidency.
Like, I can respect Pete Buttigieg for his service.
I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about.
I think Andrew Yang is very, very smart, but he'd probably be better suited in an advisory position within an administration.
Bernie Sanders, for a lot of reasons, is a better nominee than most of the candidates, but at the end of the day, Being better than the rest of the candidates doesn't mean he should be president.
I'm sorry.
He's too weak.
He won't stand up for himself.
Okay, I gotta keep this one short, so I'll wrap it up there.
Main takeaway from the segment is, look, Sanders is finally calling out Bernie's, I'm sorry, Biden's corruption.
And now they're gonna come for him.
But come, if Bernie wins the nomination, I think we're gonna see a very similar throughline from Trump and Bernie supporters.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Journalists hate you.
They view themselves as the upper crust elites, the bastions of truth, the only ones who can separate fact from fiction and guide America to its glorious golden future.
It's not true, of course.
They're regular people.
Except for the fact that they're arrogant narcissists, for the most part.
And let me tell you why.
For one, I have a couple of things to show you.
I have this article from Human Events titled Journalists Hate You, a review of Andrew Marantz's anti-social online extremists, techno-utopians, and the hijacking of the American conversation.
And I also have a statement from another journalist who talks about how Twitter radicalizes journalists because they're inundated with this constant barrage of, I don't know, this weird culture on Twitter and far-left whatever.
But let me also add, Think about the kind of person that's required to become a journalist.
You'd have to think very highly of yourself.
You'd have to strive to be in the public light.
And this is what many of these people are doing.
Now, I will differentiate between what a real journalist is and what these people are.
A real journalist is curious.
They're typically ambivalent.
They want to know how things are happening and they're interested in telling stories.
So, for me, for instance, I obviously have my biases and I have my, you know, focus.
But what I do every day... I'll explain to you.
People say, Tim, why are you a journalist?
Why do you call yourself a journalist if all you do is read other people's journalism?
Okay.
There's a bunch of different kinds of journalism.
But I do substantially more journalism than the average journalist who just blogs something or rewrites a tweet.
See, what I do is I collect various bits of information and I fact check them.
I use sources that are verified to be able to inform you.
Basically, the internet is full of noise.
It is static of weird and crazy ideas.
I go in and try to determine which is true and which isn't, I tell it to you, and then explain how I feel about it.
That is political commentary and cultural commentary.
First, coming from a journalist background.
I've noticed a lot of these pundits on YouTube, progressives particularly, and conservatives, come from not a journalistic background, so they don't do research.
There are some progressive pundits who get things wrong all the time because they're not coming from a journalism background.
They're just people who hear a conversation and then talk about how they feel instead of trying to verify and fact-check.
Fact check.
So let me tell you why journalists hate you.
It's not so much they hate you, they love themselves.
Reminds me of that joke on Family Guy where it was like, I think it was Julie Louise Dreyfuss or whatever going, no, no, no, who was it?
Just going like, me!
Oh, me!
And that's what I think of when I see these journalists.
Real journalists are being purged.
They're slowly losing their jobs, they're expensive, and who wants to be in this space, right?
Most journalists don't want to be famous.
They don't want to be a part of the story.
Real journalists, right?
Back in the day, a real journalist had their byline.
But their face wasn't plastered everywhere.
That's now being replaced by the woke Twitterati.
People who are driven to be famous.
And because that's lucrative for businesses, they are more likely to hire someone with a desperate need to be famous than an actual journalist.
Therein lies the conundrum.
If the incentive is to build Twitter followers to become famous so you can tweet out links and make money for your company, real journalists who don't want to be the story and don't really have an opinion, well, they're not going to find work, now are they?
Jesse Singel tweeted this, man I didn't realize the Covington cluster f was a year ago.
I gotta say that it permanently caused me to revise my trustworthiness estimate of many
media outlets and journalists downward. Sorta a big moment for me in media nerdery way.
Covington was also a useful example of how Twitter absolutely radicalizes journalists
because they are on it. All day every day, watching how their friends respond to every
news item in real time, always emphatically.
That has a profound effect on shaping coverage.
The publication of this, in particular, was a holy ass moment.
The whole point was to name and shame journalists and pundits who acted correctly After the long video dropped.
And yes, I miss Deadspin dearly, and read it daily and want it back, but still.
So this is an article that says, don't doubt what you saw with your own eyes.
After the Covington video came out, the two-hour livestream, revealing what really happened, I guess there were two people credited with getting the story correctly.
It was Robby Suave.
I think that's how you pronounce the name.
Suave?
Suave?
I'm sorry, I can't pronounce your name, dude.
But he was, I believe, with Reason.
I could be wrong.
But he had the story right.
And then many people said, I did.
So I didn't really think twice about it, because when Covington happened, someone sent me the video asking me to comment on it.
And I saw a video of a kid standing in front of a Native American guy, and I'm like, I don't know.
What do you want me to say about it?
Why?
Well, I consider myself a journalist for this reason.
When I first saw that video, I said, I don't know what this is.
Look at this image.
You see the Covington kid, Nick Salmon, and the Native American.
I see him smiling, and I'm like, I don't know what that is.
Like, what do you want me to say about it?
Ah, but the woke Twitterati made assumptions about it, didn't fact check, and then everyone rushed to publish the story about the harassment of a Native American.
I didn't make any assumptions.
I literally said, I don't know.
So guess what?
Very, very quickly, when the story broke, I ignored it.
First, I ignored it, but then very quickly, I searched for and found another video.
The second video showed the Native American guy walking up to Sandman.
And so a lot of people were tweeting, and my response was like, I don't understand why, like, the Native American guy walked up to the kid, why is everyone complaining?
But the journalists didn't do any fact-checking, because they are not journalists anymore.
They're people whose sole desire is to get followers.
They want to get followers, so they jump on the bandwagon.
They tweet insane things.
Like, I love the Vince Vaughn thing.
Remember?
A couple days ago, Vince Vaughn shook Donald Trump's hand, and you had people tweeting, like, I can't believe this!
I was such a big fan!
No, you weren't!
You didn't know anything about the guy!
That's the point.
Companies will make more money hiring high-profile pundits, not journalists.
So you know how I was just saying a moment ago, a lot of progressive pundits on YouTube don't do research to get things wrong all the time?
I certainly think I get things wrong all the time too, but I base all of my commentary off of relevant, current, verified sources.
For example, when I'm doing this video about how journalists hate you, I'm citing human events, which is, according to NewsGuard, they say they don't have a good correction policy, but they are legitimate information.
They complain about that.
Well, these people just want to hop on the bandwagon, build a follower count, and sell that to a network, and the network buys it because they're like, if you tweet out my story, then we're going to get more clicks on the story.
But the reality is, these people don't like you, and it's not... Actually, let me read a little bit of this, because one of the things that Daniel writes for Human Events is that They have a disdain for the American intellect.
They think you're stupid.
That's technically true.
That is true, okay?
But it's not about that.
The journalists who are writing all of this fake news, like everything that happened today with the Virginia rally, it's Covington all over again.
White nationalists on the ground rallying for gun rights.
The Black Panthers were there, dude!
They just make it up.
They're not journalists.
They don't fact check.
They just want to be famous.
They are parasite leeches infecting this industry.
And you know what?
My shoutout to David Clinch of Storyful, to Brian Stelter of CNN.
I could go on and name a ton of other people in media.
But you guys refuse to call out the parasites.
So you know what?
I'll give a shout-out to Ben Smith at BuzzFeed, too.
I hope all you guys see this.
You hire these people.
It's mind-blowing to me that I can... You may not be familiar with Storyful.
They're actually owned by Fox News, but David Clinch works there.
He's a journalist.
I ask these questions to him, and there's a couple other people that used to work for Storyful, and I ask these questions.
I say, why don't you call out these parasites that are infecting the news industry and destroying it from the inside out?
Oh, but we don't attack our own.
I spoke at the Online News Association before, and I have seen how there used to be real journalists.
They like telling stories.
They like traveling.
They like learning.
You'd probably get along with almost all of them, because these are the people who won't come out and call you a Nazi.
Except, the news industry today is being replaced by narcissistic, arrogant sociopaths who desperately want everyone to know their name.
The fastest path towards fame for these lunatics is tweeting out bombastic things to get those tweets.
Case in point, that dude David Levitt.
Oh, I'm saying his name again.
He tweeted a photo of a Target employee because he was trying to force her to sell him a toothbrush for a penny.
He's got 212 followers on Twitter.
This guy, in my opinion, is a sociopath.
He just wants attention.
He made disparaging jokes about the victims of the Ariana Grande concert.
Mocking them.
Because he just wants traffic.
He just wants everyone to know his name.
That's all they do.
They don't care about you.
They don't.
And they don't want to inform you.
These people are not here to inform you at all.
These people on Twitter, who claim they're journalists, are not.
And you know what?
Until news outlets actually decide to start calling them out, It'll only get worse and the industry will only die faster.
And you know what?
At this point, I don't really care anymore.
I really don't.
I don't.
I know.
I didn't read... Here's what he said.
He said, Morantz's argument is grounded in his contempt for the intellectual and moral capacities of ordinary Americans.
Andrew Morantz is a journalist who played a weasel game with me where he did an interview with me and it was fun.
I thought the guy was cool.
And what happened was he took two different quotes from me and mashed them into one story.
Yep.
So it totally changed the context of the story.
I told him two stories, and he mashed them together.
It was like one story with two moments, and he arranged it in a way that he was literally quoting me, but he positioned them so it told a completely different story.
Brutal.
And I think that was fake news.
And so what happened was, when he got called out because it was fake news, they said Tim Poole's quote contained errors.
My quote did not contain errors.
My quotes were on point.
He arranged them in a way to change- I'll give you an example, right?
Because I don't have it pulled up.
But imagine if you said something like, uh, you know, I won the lottery.
And in the next sentence, you said, I received $2.
So actually, let me start that over.
Let's say you told somebody, you know, like, I won the lottery this morning.
And then a half an hour later, you said, I made $2 today.
And he took both of those quotes and put them together.
So you said, I won the lottery.
I made $2 today.
It makes it sound like you're saying you won $2 in the lottery, even though they were two completely different moments.
That's what he did to me.
I said, here's a story, a week later this happened, and then he took a quote from here, and a quote from here, and he mashed them together.
Why?
It made a juicy story, and they were legitimate quotes.
And when he had to fact check it, they told me they wouldn't correct it, because we were justified in doing it.
Yeah, they don't care about you.
This guy's trying to sell a book.
That's what he's doing.
So he comes in, and he lies all day and night, and then he sells you property.
Journalists hate you.
They are narcissistic, and we get the point.
But I'll tell you what, I shouldn't have to say journalists, but I pass the blame over particularly onto people like Brian Stelter, particularly onto Brian Stelter.
See, I quit the industry.
I quit working for these companies because I was seeing how bad it was getting, among other things, when I was told essentially to lie.
And I was like, I'm not going to do it.
You're not going to convince me.
But we want you to push politics.
The marketing company said, but these are the politics people want.
You end up watching Brian Stelter's show fall into the toilet every single day, getting worse and worse.
Now, I don't think he's the worst, but I particularly want to drag him right now because he's the person who's supposed to be calling out these people.
Instead, he brings these people on his show to push the lies.
Yeah, because he doesn't care either.
Let me tell you right now, Brian, if you're listening, you don't care about the truth.
You don't care about the facts.
Go do your stupid documentary with HBO, but you won't call these people out when they publish fake news.
You bring them on your show, like Media Matters, who publish lie after lie after lie, because you don't care, because you're a bad person, because you're not a journalist, because you're another one of these sociopathic narcissists who just wants to have your TV show and be famous.
I welcome you to actually call out any of these people, but you won't do it.
So your industry goes up in flames, and that's why.
