Kanye West Just NUKED Democrats From Orbit, Confirms he Is Running In 2020, Praises Trump
Kanye directly called out Biden's "you ain't black" comments in an interview with Forbes.Democrats and leftists have speculated that Kanye is trying to "steal" votes away from Biden and was conspiring with Trump to help him win. Kanye railed against this saying Democrats were pushing this and it was wrong, no one is owed any votes form anyone.Republicans have reportedly seem a major uptick in support from Black voters but polls still show a major bias against them and for Republicans.There is no telling if Kanye will have any serious impact on Biden at all regardless.#Democrats#Trump#Kanye
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In an interview with Forbes, Kanye West has nuked the Democratic Party from orbit.
What that basically means is he tore them to shreds with some pretty bold statements, admitting full well he knows that he will probably take black votes away from Joe Biden, and that could seriously hurt the Democrats.
A few days ago, Kanye West announced that he would be running for president.
How silly and absurd, everyone said.
Well, we knew he had discussed running for president in 2024.
Here he was saying it with only a few months out.
There's no way he could possibly run, right?
I mean, he's passed the deadline to get on the ballot for many states.
What party would he even run for?
Well, now we have those answers.
And he has confirmed, yes, Kanye West is running for president.
This election cycle under a new political party called the Birthday Party, because when he wins, it will be like everybody's birthday or something.
But listen, I did a video about this, a segment.
Many people on the left believe this is a conspiracy between Kanye West and Donald Trump to help Trump win.
This is absurd.
Please present evidence I can respect to varying degrees of speculation.
But come on, calm down.
I love the idea that they think Kanye West was like secretly ushered into the White House for a secret meeting with Trump, where they like unfolded this plan.
Here's what you got to do, Kanye.
Here are the things you got to say.
No, Kanye is Kanye.
He does Kanye things.
Do you want to know what's happening right now?
Kanye West just jumped up on stage, took the mic from Joe Biden and said, I'm gonna let you finish.
But Donald Trump, I'm not supporting you.
I'm running for president.
He basically pushed Joe Biden aside, announced he's taken off the red hat.
He's running.
Now, many people are speculating it's a conspiracy, which I disagree with, but I do think Kanye is doing this because he really hates the Democrats.
I mean it.
I'm gonna read you the quote from him in a second, and when I read this, I was like, wow.
At first, I was thinking, like, I'm gonna do a segment just talking about Kanye confirming he's running, until I read what he said about the Democrats, and it resonated with me in many ways.
You know, Kanye basically says that they're forcing him.
They tell him you have to vote Democrat because, well, Kanye's black.
Kanye doesn't like being told what he should or shouldn't do.
And that's one of the reasons he came out in support of Trump.
It's one of the reasons he praised Candace Owens, who says something similar.
And there are other high-profile individuals, members of the black community, who have said similar things.
Now, I can't relate to that mentality, you know, because I wouldn't know.
But I can relate to this idea that, based on this emotional argument about bigotry or whatever, you must vote Democrat.
You must oppose Trump.
No.
I want an argument.
I want you to tell me what you will do with the presidency, with the Senate, with the House.
Go to the Supreme Court.
And if you can't tell me, I'm not interested.
So I can only imagine there's a similar feeling there.
Don't just come to me and say, you must vote for our party, otherwise you're X, you're Y, or there's something wrong with you.
Don't give me these emotional arguments.
I want to know what your plan is.
I can say the same for Donald Trump.
Tell me what your next term is going to be all about, because right now you've been talking a lot of culture war stuff, and I can respect it to varying degrees, but I want to know, what's the plan?
How do you get us back on track?
And for the time being, I can understand why Kanye West is smack-talking these Democrats, but this quote from him, I tell you, it is a nuclear bomb dropped from orbit.
It's pretty amazing.
Let's read what's going on.
I also want to talk about what's going on in other electoral politics, the polls.
Can Donald Trump win?
And will Kanye West actually help him out?
I think we're now learning.
The answer is...
Yes.
So let's get started.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I got a P.O.
box if you'd like to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do, share this video.
If you think I do a good job and you think my analysis and opinion on these issues make sense, then you can help my channel grow by just sharing it.
And I have a big marketing budget like CNN or Fox or MSNBC.
I just have you guys.
But if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, the notification bell, and the like button as well.
And let's read the story.
First, can I just point out this beautiful image by Forbes showing Kanye and, you know, Obama and Kushner and Elon Musk and, yeah, but let's read.
Kanye West's 4th of July declaration via tweet that he was running for president lit the internet on fire, even as pundits were trying to discern how serious he was.
Over the course of four rambling hours of interviews on Tuesday, the billionaire rapper turned sneaker mogul revealed, Let's just go through these bullet points, but I want to read you the full quote.
He's running for president in 2020 under a new banner, the Birthday Party, with guidance from Elon Musk and an obscure vice presidential candidate he's already chosen.
Like anything I've ever done in my life, says West, I'm doing to win.
He no longer supports Trump.
I am taking the red hat off with this interview.
We'll see if that really means he doesn't support Trump or if it means he wants to assert himself in his positions.
That he's okay with siphoning off black votes from the Democrats, from the Democratic nominee, thus helping Trump.
Quote, I'm not denying it.
I just told you.
To say that the black vote is Democratic is a form of racism and white supremacy.
Interesting stance.
Wait till you see the full quote.
That he's never voted in his life.
There it is.
That's a big bomb drop right there.
Kanye West, the silent majority.
He's been speaking up, but he did not vote last time.
Now he's talking about supporting Trump.
Now he's talking about running himself.
Now he's smack talking the Democrats.
Something lit a fire under Kanye West, a man who has not voted before.
I mean, come on, this dude was very vocal about George W. Bush.
What changed?
Something lit a fire under this man and got him to speak up.
And I wonder if we're going to see something similar with the so-called silent majority come November.
He mentions that he was sick with COVID.
He's suspicious of coronavirus vaccine, terming vaccines the mark of the beast.
Yikes, Kanye!
That he believes Planned Parenthood has been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the devil's work.
Now that is very bold.
That he envisions a White House organizational model based on the secret country of Wakanda in Black Panther.
What?
Is that like a hereditary monarchy with confirmation by combat or ascension by combat?
Because you know, in Black Panther, to become king, you fight, and when you win the fight, you become king.
And that's just for starters, for much of the phone call, his core message strategically.
Was that he has 30 days to make a final decision about running for president.
At that point, he says he'd missed the filing deadlines for most states, though he believes an argument could be made to get onto any ballots he's missed, citing coronavirus issues.
I'm speaking with experts.
I'm going to speak with Jared Kushner, the White House with Biden, says West.
He has no campaign apparatus of any kind.
His advisors right now, he says, are the two people who notably endorsed him on the 4th, his wife, Kim Kardashian West and Elon Musk, of whom he says we've been talking about this for years.
Now let's be real.
Kanye West wants to run for president.
I really do believe he does.
He mentioned this last November that he said, when I run for president, and I believe he said in 2024, they laugh.
And then he goes, what y'all laughing about?
I think Kanye is jumping in because Trump said it was a good trial run for 2024.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
I think Kanye's got a bit of that MAGA message.
I think he wants to run in 2024, and this is a good opportunity to see what happens if he does a short run with only a few months of space.
And it also probably will help Donald Trump.
Now let's jump down to some of the statements he made.
Check this out.
On his natural political party, he said, I would run as a Republican if Trump wasn't there.
I will run as an Independent if Trump is there.
So I don't know what that birthday party message thing is.
Maybe he's just joking.
But he may run as an Independent in 2020.
Interestingly, I wonder if Republicans would actually vote for him.
And I've said this before, you can mock Kanye West.
He's got some pretty, you know, eccentric behavior.
I'm being polite, alright?
But I think he can really unify a lot of this country, and he's got a very strong, you know, a pro-America message that's going to resonate with Republicans, and he's also got that urban Chicago liberal mentality on social justice issues that may speak a lot to the black community, of which I think he would get a massive portion of that vote, would help him win.
I think he'd be guaranteed to win.
He says, of his previous support for Trump, he says, Trump is the closest president we've had in years to allowing God to still be part of the conversation.
on his MAGA hat moment.
One of the main reasons I wore the red hat as a protest to the segregation of votes in the black community.
Also, other than the fact that I like Trump hotels and the saxophones in the lobby, this guy is something else.
Let's jump down to the nuclear bomb I mentioned earlier.
Here's what he said, quote, That is a form of racism and white supremacy and white control to say that all black people need to be Democrat and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote.
All of that information is being charged up on social media platforms by Democrats.
And Democrats used to tell me, the same Democrats have threatened me.
The reason why this is the first day I registered to vote is because I was scared.
I was told that if I voted on Trump, my music career would be over.
I was threatened into being in one party.
I was threatened as a celebrity into being in one party.
I was threatened as a black man into the Democratic Party.
And that's what the Democrats are doing emotionally to my people.
Threatening them to the point where this white man can tell a black man, if you don't vote for me, you're not black.
Wow.
Bravo Kanye West, man.
That was a powerful and bold statement.
I can only really say, me personally, you do you.
You believe what you want to believe.
You should not have someone hold you back, insult you, discriminate against you.
We are all people.
We are all granted unalienable rights.
As equals.
All people.
If Kanye West feels that way, then we need to listen to what he has to say.
Now, of course, there are many other members of the black community who have spoken up and rejected this, and I have nothing but respect for their opinions as well.
The only thing I can really do is say, hey man, To everybody's talking, I defer to you guys.
But you've got to recognize, with the rise of people like Candace Owens, and people like Kanye West, and many other individuals who are speaking up, challenging this idea that they have to vote Democrat, they're bringing up a really important point about individuality, their rights, and the respect they deserve for their opinions.
I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that Candace Owens, Kanye West, the Hodge twins, etc., Terrence Williams, would be denigrated, insulted, because they're told they must vote a certain direction.
And there are a lot of slurs that have been dropped.
Snoop Dogg just dropped a slur.
Inappropriate, man.
Look, if Snoop wants to come out and give his opinion, I respect that 100%.
But I don't think slurs should be used to try and force people and pressure them into choosing your politics or ideology or party.
All I say is, I defer to you guys, man.
You guys vote how you think you should vote.
I mean literally everyone.
I don't mean any one group of people, I mean literally everybody.
You vote as you think you need to, to do right by yourself, by your family, by your friends, and by your interests.
That's what we do.
For Kanye to drop these bombs, man.
That's bold.
Because this is the kind of stuff that... It's true, man.
He really does risk his celebrity.
I mean, think about cancel culture.
They're gonna come for him now.
They did.
When he came out for Trump, they called him all of these awful names.
Well, he's standing up for himself. 100%.
He says, on how the race will be decided.
Let's see if the appointing is at 2020 or if it's 2024.
Because God appoints the president.
If I win in 2020, then it was God's appointment.
If I win in 2024, then that was God's appointment.
I think 2024 makes more sense.
And I really do think he can win.
Make fun.
You can complain all day and night.
You can say, no more celebrity presidents.
I get it.
I hear what you're saying.
But Kanye is a very, very smart and powerful individual.
You can call him crazy, you can call him eccentric, call him whatever you want.
The dude's a billionaire for a reason.
He knows what he's talking about and he's made things work.
He's got influence, people will listen to him.
And that can be a good thing if you just give him the respect he asks for.
And I believe people are deserving of respect based upon the content of their character.
If they can prove to me that they have the best intentions, they're good people, they're willing to listen, and they're good leaders, people deserve respect.
But you must earn that respect.
Now, let's see what's going on.
What's the big issue, right?
The big issue is whether or not Trump can muster enough of the black community's support to win.
Some polls recently had Trump with around 41% of likely black voters approving of his job.
That seems kinda crazy to me, man.
It seems really, really high.
Republicans usually don't get anywhere near that high.
Other polls have him around 14% approval.
We'll see how things play out.
But if it's true that many people in the black community will support Kanye West specifically, not necessarily because of his race, partly, but also because of his message, that will hurt Donald Trump.
We have this story from the New York Times.
Black voters are coming for Trump.
They shouldn't lose hope.
They are at the heart of the fight to take back America by Juan Williams.
I believe... I believe he's actually right.
They absolutely are.
Probably one of the most important voter blocs right now, which is why Kanye West has seriously ruffled the feathers of the Democrats.
I think we now, many of us, need to defer to what members of the black community are saying.
And I mean that sincerely and literally.
It's not just about whether they're Democrats.
It's not just about Black Lives Matter.
It's not just about Kanye West.
It's about all of these issues.
It's about a lot of people speaking up, giving their opinions.
It's about the protest movement.
It's about police brutality.
And it's also about people like Candace Owens and Kanye West who will stand up and say, but I disagree and here's what I think.
It's about time people start paying attention.
And I think the Democrats are getting a harsh lesson in this.
I'm gonna be honest, man, how I feel.
I can't speak to what this community is looking for, so I'm not going to, but I can tell you that I've seen Donald Trump try.
You can criticize him, you can call him all the worst names in the book, but he has had these events at the White House, he has spoken directly to this community, and I think he really is trying, for all of his faults, for, you know, whatever, I think he is.
I think he's aware that it's about time he starts paying attention to what they have to say.
Kanye West certainly is active in paying attention.
He feels empowered.
And there are many other individuals.
Same thing is true for Black Lives Matter.
The Democrats are going to get a rude awakening if they're not paying attention to what's being asked of them.
You will see people like Kanye stand up, and that could hurt Joe Biden.
But it's not just about Kanye or the Democrats.
Check this out.
BET founder Robert Johnson says Democrats taking black voters for granted calls for BLM to form their own party.
Listen, again, I'll defer to people like Robert Johnson and to the Black Lives Matter activists 100%.
I will never assert what I think they should or shouldn't do.
Do your thing, man.
And that's true for everybody.
Do your thing, and we'll see how things play out.
Personally, I have concerns about ideology.
I have concerns about the way these corporations have acted and hate speech policies and people being banned and censorship.
This is where you better shut up and listen, because if you don't, you will lose, be it Republican or Democrat.
We also have Vernon Jones.
I believe Vernon Jones said, I am black and I am a Democrat, but I ain't voting for Joe Biden this November.
That's the important takeaway, man.
You've got it.
You've got to listen.
You know, I think what we're hearing from, you know, from BET founder Robert Johnson, he wants Black Lives Matter to form their own party.
Clearly, the Democrats, in his opinion, have been taking them for granted.
And with him calling for a Black Lives Matter party, I don't think he's aligned with Trump, the MAGA message, or Kanye West.
You can see that these people, you know, these high-profile individuals, are starting to speak up for the community they feel they represent, or at least they feel that they're a part of.
And that's bad news across the board for Democrats.
Considering that Republicans haven't had a very large base of black voters in recent history, I think it's just a net positive for the Republicans in the long run.
So, here's the big question.
We've got the Cook Political Report out.
Will Kanye West and these, you know, these high-profile individuals, their call out to the Democratic Party, will it cause a defection where at the very least we see a third party run?
We see Kanye West getting a large portion of votes.
Will that help Donald Trump?
Here's what I'm going to tell you.
I'm not going to speak to any one community, one racial group, whatever.
I'm not a fan.
I like to speak about what Americans believe.
And I think what we're seeing with Kanye West, at the very least, is an overlap with the expansion of this cancel culture and the assumption that an emotional argument is enough to convince a person that you're going to help them.
I disagree.
I want to hear about the tangibles, man.
And we've heard this from Black Lives Matter.
They have protested the police in Ferguson.
There was a video.
Or they said, tell me what you're gonna do.
Give me numbers.
Don't just give me empty platitudes.
Tell me what the numbers are, right?
Take a look at the Cook Political Report.
We can see that right now, Biden is favored to win.
These are based on polls.
Now, Frank Luntz, the famous pollster, says, polls are not predictions.
It's just a reflection of what people think based on the methodology they use, and they're imperfect, to be fair.
But we can see right now, based on states that are solid, likely, or leaning Democrat, Biden's already got it in the bag.
But let's wait a second.
Kanye West just came out and said, yo, I'm running.
What if a portion of those votes go to Kanye, including people of all races?
Because I've got to be honest, I'd consider voting for Kanye if he had the right message.
Probably not right now.
We'll see what he can muster up right now.
But check it out.
Of the lean, likely, and solid Republican votes, there's only 188 electoral votes.
Here's what they say.
Republicans have 188 electoral votes in the solid, likely, and lean categories, and would need 71 electoral votes from the toss-up column, plus 11 from the lean Democrat column.
Meaning, the states that are polling that lean Democrat have to move towards the Republicans.
But I'm going to tell you my personal bias.
First, what you've got to understand is I will defer to the polls, even if they may be wrong, because we've seen it in the past.
The first thing I'll say is, pay attention.
If you are a Biden supporter, this is no guarantee.
You've only got a lean Democrat.
If you're a Trump supporter, you better fight ten times as hard, because it is favoring Biden.
And Hillary Clinton won that popular vote last time.
However, My personal view, based on the riots, the conversations I've had, and cancel culture, and with people like Kanye coming out, I believe that this is biased against the Republicans.
And I would argue this.
In the toss-up states, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, They are not accurately polling non-college-educated white people, which would make lean Republican likely Republican, and toss-up leaning Republican, and lean Democrat more toss-up.
That's my opinion.
I believe in these lean Democrat states, it's likely a toss-up when you add in those people that they cannot reach.
And Politico has even stated as much.
The pollsters don't know how to reach white, non-college-educated voters.
They may compensate for this, and that's fair.
But I'm going to factor in the culture war issues, which don't translate in the same way, especially in the polls.
And it stands to reason that it's actually a coin toss.
It's a very close election.
I don't think it's necessarily favoring Joe Biden right now the way they would, because I think they're going to have a bias in their polls.
We've seen it with the expectations from California's 25th, and I think it was Wisconsin's 8th, I could be wrong.
But we saw FiveThirtyEight say that if the Democrats win in CA25 and Wisconsin, it will prove a blue wave is coming.
And what happened?
The Republicans obliterated them.
Says to me, a red wave is more likely.
Why didn't FiveThirtyEight write up that article?
Why didn't they come out and say, oh, well, the Republicans swept.
That's a red wave signifier, right?
It says to me there's a red wave signifier, but they're so desperate to try and convince people that Joe Biden is going to win, probably because they need it.
And we see, man, the social media censorship campaign is getting bold, I'll tell you this.
So check this out.
Political polls just tweeted this out from Rasmussen.
Has Biden up nationally 10 points?
Now, this is interesting.
Rasmussen tends to favor Donald Trump.
Now, this is just national polling, and they don't specify what it means.
But if this is just the national average person, it doesn't mean every voter.
That means a lot of people may not vote.
The bias may be in those numbers, and maybe Biden is down a bit more.
Let's say 11% of those Biden voters vote for Kanye.
Well, then Trump is, he wins.
He has the plurality.
I've thought about this, right?
I've thought about the idea that Donald Trump might actually win with a minority vote, but a plurality vote if Biden can't muster the progressive vote or he loses a large base.
But there are a lot of other and more interesting points about what happens.
Take a look at this tweet from Mark Murray.
He is the senior political editor for NBC News, as well as a diehard Texas Longhorns fan.
Thanks for letting me know, Mark.
Mark tweeted, Your continued public service reminder that Election Day 2020 is going to be more like Election Week or Election Month due to the counting of mail-in ballots.
As of 1.10pm ET this afternoon, we have just 38% of the vote in from New Jersey's statewide primary yesterday.
I'm sorry, that means Trump won.
Hands down.
If Mark is correct, Trump won.
And it's an argument, it is.
But let me show you what the left has argued over at Newsweek about Trump losing the election and still remaining president.
Now, in this op-ed, they imply something a bit more nefarious.
They say that Donald Trump will contest the results.
Jamming up the election for a month, the Supreme Court steps in, or what happens is, It's forced to the House.
The House state delegations favor the Republican Party and Trump wins.
How Trump could lose the election and still remain president.
Let's drop the malintent segment of this and just say straight up.
Let's say due to mail-in voting and COVID, the election is delayed by a month and there is an electoral vote deadline.
The result?
It goes to the House.
And Trump wins.
Take a look at their scenario.
They say, Biden wins the popular vote and carries the swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Trump immediately declares the voting was rigged, that there was mail-in ballot fraud, the Chinese were behind it, etc., etc.
Having railed against the Chinese throughout his campaign, calling Biden soft, Trump delivers his narrative claiming they've interfered.
Trump indicates it's a major national security issue and invokes emergency powers.
Let's remove all of that.
Here's what he says.
The investigation is intended to tick down the clock toward December 14th, the deadline when each state's Electoral College electors must be appointed.
All four swing states have Republican control of both of their upper and lower houses of the state legislatures.
Those state legislators refuse to allow any Electoral College slate to be certified until the national security investigation is complete.
The issue goes to the Supreme Court.
They shut down the process.
The Electoral College meets, but there's no 270 consensus, and it defers to the House.
If we remove the malintent, then Trump may win regardless of anything, simply because it will take too long.
Mail-in vote may backfire on the Democrats.
Perhaps this warrants a longer segment to discuss, but in the end, there's a couple scenarios I would propose.
With Kanye West's run, maybe he siphons away votes from both Trump and Kanye.
I'm sorry, both Trump and Biden.
And then no one wins.
It defers to the House.
Trump wins based on state delegation.
Or mail-in ballots take too long, and the Supreme Court is called in.
Trump says, we are waiting on these ballots.
What is going on?
You know, think about it this way.
The mail-in ballots come in late.
Trump calls for a recount.
Too close to call it.
The Democrats call for a recount.
No mail-in recount.
No mail intent.
I don't know, man.
steps in and says, I'm sorry, it took way too long and there is no way to do a recount
in time.
The deadline is the 14th.
They pass it to the House.
Donald Trump wins.
I don't know, man.
I don't know.
Hey, man, hasn't 2020 been fun so far?
I used to complain about how boring life was.
Now everything is just so absurd and crazy, I'm getting kind of fed up with it.
Can't we, we, we, many of us long for the days where we would lounge on our, you know, on our sofas, watching the game and having some wings, and nothing was going on.
Missing out on that grand adventure of life and purpose?
Well, here you go.
Everything is going nuts!
Is this, as some describe it, the collapse, the civil war, the chaos, the end of the great American empire?
I don't know.
Some people have said that empires tend to only last around 200 or so years, so we're certainly at that point.
Maybe.
Maybe we've reached our wit's end.
Or maybe it's just an election year.
Because apparently according to these, you know, these op-eds about Trump cheating and the weird election results, it's happened before.
We've had civil war before.
And we've come together.
And we've carried on.
So maybe we don't need to be so pessimistic.
Maybe we just need to make sure we stand up for what we believe in.
We call out what needs to be called out, and all of us, no matter which side of the aisle you stand on, left or right, you go out and vote on November 3rd and respect the process.
I don't think anyone will respect the process, though, so I guess we'll see how it plays out.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
If you were to watch mainstream news, you may have heard that last night in Times Square, an SUV plowed through a group of protesters.
My word, the driver has been arrested.
And if you actually do the work of watching the videos and investigating what really happened, you'd learn that's kind of not really the truth.
The car was stopped.
The protesters attacked the vehicle.
Now the driver was taken into custody and was released without being charged.
So why is it that when I Google search this story, or when I go on Twitter, the narrative is that an SUV drives into the protesters near Times Square, or as NY1 puts it, SUV plows through crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters in Manhattan?
No one's seriously injured.
We keep hearing stories like this, where they're like, 50 vehicles have rammed the protesters, and it's like, bro, there was one incident in Seattle, and that was obviously an accident.
So here's what ends up happening.
We have this story.
Fortunately, the driver is not being charged with any crime.
They were attacking his vehicle.
We've got the video footage.
They put it on YouTube.
They tell you what they're doing, but not a single journalist will do an ounce of investigation.
Not a Google search.
Not a phone call.
How is that journalism?
I tell you what, man, we are in serious trouble.
I love it when these lefties are like, Tim Poole's not a real journalist.
He doesn't even make phone calls.
When was the last time you asked for a comment, Tim?
Actually, a couple weeks ago.
I do it fairly often.
And I don't even consider myself to be overtly doing journalism.
It's obviously political commentary and opinion.
But man, I tell you what, the amount of journalism I do is less than what a journalist would do.
Because again, political commentary, cultural commentary.
But the journalists do less than that!
A journalist should find three sources to verify what really happened and then write it up.
Instead, what they do is they just ask the protester, oh, a car hit you?
Tell me more.
They didn't watch the videos, they didn't seek out evidence, and then they end up putting out a story that is factually incorrect, or at the very least, mis-framed.
This is the big challenge I think we're facing now, and I gotta be honest, maybe what we're really seeing is not the degradation of journalism, but The transparency of it.
You know, I gotta be honest, I'd imagine that journalists back in the day still did the same stuff.
Like, why would you believe that some journalist 40 years ago would bother doing the work when there was less scrutiny?
Think about it.
You're a journalist today.
You write up this bunk story.
I almost swore.
And then some guy in his house on YouTube makes a whole 20-minute long video calling you out for it.
You got scrutiny.
There's some accountability.
Now let's imagine it's 40 years ago, and you're writing up a story, and there's literally no one who can prove you wrong.
And even if they could, who are they going to tell?
Well, this is the first story I want to show you, and then I got bad news.
So you may have heard this.
The couple that was painting over the Black Lives Matter mural has been charged with a hate crime.
Look, I'd understand if, you know, you said this is a sanctioned mural and they vandalized it and you give them a minor charge for vandalism, but a hate crime charge?
Yeah, man.
Welcome to morality policing.
But again, the good news here is this guy has been released without charge.
Let's read the story.
And then I'm going to correct the story.
They say it was a frightening end to a Manhattan protest as a driver plowed- I can't believe this!
Plowed his SUV through demonstrators, dragging a bicycle several feet.
Ah, an inanimate object.
Okay.
And it was, it was one of those city bikes.
It wasn't like, like, actually like Citibank.
They have the bikes that you can rent.
It wasn't like a person's bike.
According to witnesses in the scene, no protesters were seriously injured, though EMS personnel were on scene making sure bystanders were okay.
The incident happened at 42nd Street and 1st Avenue.
The march had begun at Washington Square Park and made its way through the city, stopping traffic and, at one point, preventing drivers from entering the Lincoln Tunnel.
The protesters were making their way across 42nd when the driver appeared to speed up, targeting cyclists and marchers.
One cyclist, Jeffrey, told NY1's Rushel Boone about the terrifying moments when the car pushed its way through the crowd.
I thought you said it was speeding up and plowed through the crowd.
What does that mean?
Pushed through the crowd?
Sounds like you got a whole different story going on here, man.
Let me tell you what really happened.
There's a video.
And it is on YouTube.
And it shows nothing bad, nothing graphic, nothing violent.
It is literally just a guy in his car.
But you do hear people yelling things.
They're yelling, pop his effing tires.
And you hear them deflating his tires, and then he slowly speeds up, and they all start screaming and banging on his- actually, I'm sorry, they start banging on his vehicle first.
Then he slowly speeds up, and I don't want to say speeding, like, he's inching forward, and then people start going, ah, yelling, and then once he's clear of protesters, he just goes, and takes off.
That's it.
He didn't plow through anybody, nobody got run over, yet.
What would the media tell you?
SUV plowed through demonstrators.
These people love their propaganda.
Yeah, it pushed its way through.
Update.
NYPD says the driver is now in custody and charges are pending.
But according to the latest update, he has been released without charges.
He didn't stop, Jeffrey said.
He literally put the pedal to the metal and literally drove through the crowd.
It was devastating.
Welcome to the modern era, where the activists will obviously lie about everything.
Man, evil people, I tell you what.
One of my favorite videos is Jack Posobiec, and he's like standing on a street corner in D.C.
and some guy punches him in front of the cops.
And when the cops pull up, because they're like watching it happen, everyone's like, he didn't do anything, and they all start lying to the cops.
This is what they do.
They lie.
These people are evil.
They don't care about creation.
They don't care about construction.
They don't care about helping people.
They are a destructive, chaotic force that will lie to get whatever they want.
I got bad news for y'all.
It works.
Cheating works.
I'm sorry.
It does.
They lie.
This story is the narrative.
Now, of course, y'all are watching me, so I would humbly ask that you share this video.
And that's why I usually ask that you do.
You know what, man?
I gotta be honest.
The biggest challenge right now in what our country faces, what our culture faces, what free speech, liberalism, in the true sense, not the colloquial sense, I mean like, freedom, consent of the governed, things like that.
The biggest threat we face is that we have powerful media outlets, and people just blindly trust them, and they're fake news.
You know, Trump goes a little bit further than I would, saying enemy of the people, I say complete ineptitude, and some of these people are malicious.
But I'll tell you what, This story from NY1 will probably get a lot more views than this video will.
And people will see this story, then other journalists, I'll do air quotes, will see this story and they all rewrite it.
This story will then appear on 50,000 different websites in different forms over the next couple of years because they'll keep rewriting it and then smaller blogs pick it up.
It'll get carried by most of the big outlets, SUV plows through protesters, dragging a bike, and everyone will just believe the fake news.
So what do you do?
How do you fight it?
I don't know.
I really don't.
I feel like sometimes, you have all of these people that are building a skyscraper, and there's every single media outlet, they're building a narrative, like a skyscraper, and I'm one of maybe a few people who have a little tiny hammer, we're trying to stop them from doing it, we can't.
We can't stop them from building this narrative, and they lie, and lie, and lie.
Let me actually show you this video, because, to be completely honest, there's nothing in it.
You can see clearly.
The SUV is stopped, right?
It is not going anywhere.
And there's people just sitting in it.
They're doing nothing.
Let me see if I can turn the audio on on this, make sure you guys can hear it.
I don't know if the audio... That doesn't work sometimes.
They're telling him to go a different way.
Go this way, sir.
Pop his effing tires, they just said.
Pop his effing tires.
You can hear the hissing.
You can also see they have the city bikes with them.
Now you hear them banging on his car and he slowly inches forward and then takes off.
He didn't plow into anybody.
He didn't speed into anybody.
That was all a lie.
They said that he plowed through.
I just showed you the video.
They were lying.
So what do you do?
What do you do?
I don't know.
I don't.
If you guys share this content, I appreciate it, and maybe that will help people realize.
But man, I tell you what, there are some evil, evil people out there.
I really do mean it.
You know, when I was younger, I liked to be like, there's no such thing as evil.
Everybody has their perspective, blah blah.
No, I think that's wrong.
I think about what we need to do as people.
To help make the world a better place, to improve things, to increase positivity, decrease negativity.
And there are people like this, and they're like the Joker.
Their whole goal is the destruction, pain, suffering, misery.
And they lie to get what they want.
They'll say things like, we're fighting for marginalized people.
Well, then why would they attack marginalized people?
Why would they call, say, you know, Candace Owens or people like Zuby white supremacists when they're black people?
Because it's not about that.
They're just lying to you.
They're manipulating people's goodwill so that they can destroy and lie.
I mean it.
You know, I mean it.
I often talk about how... You know, let me put it this way.
There are two sides, but there's clearly a good guy and there's clearly a bad guy.
It's just the way it is.
You have people who don't believe in objective reality, and they manipulate stupid people as their pawns to deal damage and hurt you.
They do it because they want power.
Then you have the other faction, which includes a coalition of liberals and conservatives.
I mean, like, traditional liberals, in the colloquial sense.
Who disagree on a lot of issues, people like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro who disagree on basically everything except for, we're a great country, freedom of speech is important, live and let live, all of these things, we can disagree on everything.
But where the line stops is violence is wrong and authoritarianism is wrong.
These people are violent authoritarians.
They want to hurt you because it makes them feel good.
Now, of course, I'm not talking about literally every single person on the left.
I'm talking about the manipulators, the grifters, the higher-profile people.
They would tell you, I am the same thing.
And that's the scary reality of what they do.
I had a conversation with a couple people the other day, and they try obscuring things, saying, I'm the one lying and manipulating for power and all that stuff, when I literally just showed you the video.
I just showed you the video.
What does that gain for me?
What do I get out of breaking their narrative?
What's my overarching ideology?
That's the big question.
I don't have one outside of regular old liberalism, American self-government by the people, for the people, civil rights, social programs.
I'm pro-choice.
I believe in a progressive tax.
These things don't matter to these people at all.
So I will have no problem saying, I don't want to be in charge of anything.
I don't want to be anyone's president.
I barely like running a company as it is.
That's why it's a small thing where I basically just do my thing.
I don't like being in charge of other people.
So when I see stories like this, I'll just tell you the truth.
I don't care who it empowers.
I care that you know the truth.
And if the truth is that this car did not plow through these protesters, and that they were attacking him, well then I'll tell you that's what's happened.
They don't like that.
See, they're trying to build that narrative because they think once the skyscraper is complete, they're the ones who will sit atop that throne.
But they're wrong.
They won't.
It'll be like, you ever see that movie The One with Jet Li?
At the end of the movie, they transport him to his prison dimension, where everyone's climbing a pyramid and he's fighting everyone off.
Yeah, it'll be the Goblin King.
Do you know what that is?
In order to become the Goblin King, you have to kill the previous Goblin King.
And that's what you will get once the skyscraper is complete.
Just constant fighting and theft over power.
They will not be in charge, they think they will.
Now, While they're all climbing this tower to try and wrestle for the throne that they will not sit in, they're mad because I'm pointing to all of them saying they're lying to you so they can gain power over you.
A power I do not want.
And then they try and make the same claim about me, but listen.
I'm just sitting here saying, that's what happened.
That's what happened.
What do I get out of it?
Oh, they'll argue.
See, you're trying to get clicks for traffic so you can make money and all that stuff.
There's other things that get way more traffic.
This is the most obvious lie.
Let me tell you this.
People say that if, you know, they say these people do politics because they know it's a grift and you'll make money.
I love it.
You know there's a lot more money in basically every other industry, and that news on YouTube is like the sixth or seventh ranked subject matter.
And if I took all the time and energy that I put into things like this, into, I don't know, Minecraft or something, I'd probably have way more views, way more money.
Why should I spend my days risking demonetization, risk being banned for subject matter that people... It's not the most popular content!
I'd make way more money talking about celebrity pop culture and stuff, and that's a fact.
Look, man, we've done... I've done videos where I've talked about, you know, where cultural issues overlap with celebrity, and these videos are fire.
They pop off.
But I'm not that kind of person.
That's not what I care about.
What I care about is what's happening in the world and what's shaping things.
These people don't.
These journalists don't.
These people all need to be fired.
I'm sorry, this woman right here for NY1?
Fired.
They didn't even watch the video and they write this up?
Look at this, man.
The protest was mostly peaceful.
No one was seriously hurt.
They were banging on the car and deflating its tires while threatening the people.
They were saying, pop the effing tires.
What is a person in the car supposed to do after every single video that has happened?
Doesn't even matter.
Let's say you think the driver was wrong regardless.
That's fine.
You're allowed to.
But I just showed you the video.
The car did not plow through anyone.
It was just sitting there.
Then they tried deflating the tires and they were banging on it and jumping on the hood.
And so the driver inched forward, they yelled, move out of the way, and then he took off.
End of story.
Nothing happened.
That's it.
The narrative will be that cars keep plowing through the crowds.
There was one story from NPR, and it showed a car hitting a protester, and they claimed it was like a right-wing attack, and it turns out that photo was actually, the woman in the car was the victim, and the police charged the guy, the people, the protesters, because she was stopped, and they reached into her window and started beating her, and so then she just panicked at the gas and swerved and hit a guy.
They blamed her.
And that's where we end up today.
That's what the fake news will get you.
Check this out.
The morality policing is real, man.
Couple are charged with hate crimes for painting over a city-sanctioned Black Lives Matter mural in California with black paint.
Hate crime.
Listen.
If you say that it is free speech to paint in the street, then why can't anyone else do it?
Alright, alright, to be fair, the mural for Black Lives Matter was permitted, meaning they applied to the city, the city approved it, in which case, I believe Judicial Watch is suing for this in DC, they should have the right to paint their slogan, because no one is above the law, on a street as well, because public streets are now public forums, and it must be equal access to everybody.
That makes more sense.
These people showed up and just started painting over the mural.
You can argue that's vandalism, fine.
But here's the real problem.
These people have gone around destroying our statues.
Donald Trump has taken action to uphold the law.
Several of these people have been charged and arrested.
And in probably the boldest of smackdowns, Trump announced a Garden of Heroes where he's going to build tenfold the amount of statues they've destroyed.
That, I love.
I love it.
You gotta like or hate Trump.
Build a garden of statues of people we revere, which includes people like Harriet Tubman, and I think that's fantastic and awesome.
They want to tear down our history?
Trump says, I'll build ten times statues you tore down.
Well, there you go.
But, these people, for the most part, in the cities and these other states where Trump isn't, you know, Trump runs the federal government, not the state governments, they're tearing things down with impunity.
For the most part.
And this.
So we sit back and we watch these statues being destroyed.
And nothing happens.
And then a couple of people go with some paint.
And it was already painted back.
They restored the mural.
And they get charged with a hate crime.
If you told me they were being charged with, like, low-level vandalism or something, I'd be like, yeah, okay, I get it.
Because it was a permitted mural.
They should apply and go through the same process because that's equality under the law.
But I hate crime?
Man, that's crazy stuff.
Violence is getting worse, the chaos is getting worse, and the media will lie to you, and the media will defend them.
There's an article out in RedState, it's a conservative opinion website, and I mentioned this the other day when I was talking about civil war, and this guy, I actually don't have it pulled up, I think his name is Brandon Morse, writes that we're in a civil war, it's just not what you expect, because the people who are waging this war are smarter than to actually trigger a hot war.
I've talked about this.
Whether it's intentional or not, the dominoes are falling down, and I have to wonder if it's just too late.
You know what I mean?
With all of these major corporations now basically lining up behind intersectionalism, and no one calling out the destruction of our statues except for Trump, Does it even matter if Trump gets re-elected?
I don't think so.
Let's say Trump gets re-elected.
What's he gonna do?
The best case scenario is you see a perp walk among some Obama administration officials over Obamagate and stuff like that.
Can he stop the tides of intersectionalism and the people who seek to destroy our history?
He.
Can.
Not.
He can't do it.
He can't.
It's too late.
There's an issue right now that people on F1 visas, the student visas I believe, they're F1s, will have to go home because they're not going to be holding any classes this semester.
It's going to be online.
And that makes sense.
If you don't need to be here because your school is online, then why would you get a visa to be here?
That's not even that hard to understand.
But the left is outraged.
He's deporting people or whatever.
It's like, your visa is so you can go to the school because the school is here.
So Trump can do whatever he thinks will protect the American way of life, our culture, our borders, our jobs.
But you've already got 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton.
I know they talk about the silent majority.
Maybe they'll wake up.
I don't believe it.
I'm sorry.
I just don't believe it.
I see what people post on Facebook and you have anger addictions and rage and people who just seem otherwise zombified.
Maybe a video like this can help.
That's why I asked you before to share it.
Because now when they hear the narrative about a car plowing through the protesters, they can see the clip I played.
And I'll link in the description below.
They can see that the car did not do this.
So when I talk to my friends and they say things like, but the media says this, and I'm like, how do I stop this?
I don't mean literally everything they post is a lie.
I use them as sources.
But it's typically half-truths and false framing.
Did the car plow through these protesters?
Quite literally, no.
I would call that a lie.
Pushed through the protesters, you could argue.
But what if I wrote a story saying, the way I tweeted that was, BLM rioters surround SUV and attack it, yelling, pop his effing tires, and then the driver inches forward and then speeds off.
Well, uh, driver was released with no charges.
There's a reason why the police released the man.
You know what they're gonna say?
They're gonna say the cops are white supremacists and they teamed up with the guy and cut him slack.
There's a video of a cop.
This is recent.
And he flashes the OK sign at a protester.
And now the left is claiming he flashed a white power hand gesture.
In reality, he was basically- so the real story, as it was actually reported, was that there was an injured protester or something to that effect, and then someone came to let the cop know that everything was okay, and so the cop raised the okay sign, like, it's all- it's okay?
It's okay.
Something- that's basically the story I heard.
Maybe he was flashing the OK sign.
I don't know.
But that's so ridiculous, man.
Because the OK sign doesn't mean anything.
It means OK.
And you think this cop understands any of this?
They'll claim he does.
If you ever see someone flash the OK sign, which literally means OK, they will claim, Aha!
It's proof!
We caught you!
And how do you tell them otherwise?
They don't want to hear it.
They are addicted to the rage.
They are addicted to the anger.
And they post and they're angry non-stop.
It's sickness.
It's bad for you.
The craziest thing to me is that I see people who I once respected for their calm rationale just being rage addicts.
They always want to be furious.
They assume the worst of literally everything.
They live in a paranoid, delusional state.
And the Democrats and the establishment left think they can wield that power to defeat Donald Trump.
Maybe they can.
Maybe that rage addiction will work.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Over the past several weeks, there has been a boycott effort against Facebook, where advertisers have piled on demanding that they police hate speech more.
Well, Mark Zuckerberg has resisted this to a certain degree.
But as the boycott's grown larger and larger, he's slowly given up more ground because apparently Mark Zuckerberg isn't smart enough to realize there's no line.
You see, first they came and said, oh look, you know, you've got hate speech, our advertisements shouldn't appear on these things.
And so Mark Zuckerberg introduced some changes.
One of those changes is that you can't criticize immigration anymore.
Or that you can't claim that anyone having anything to do with immigration or immigrants could result in a threat to your safety or your health or things like, or the economy.
It's a big portion of Donald Trump's campaign.
Well, the boycott didn't stop.
It got worse.
So, Mark Zuckerberg said, look, we're not going to change our policies because advertisers are threatening us.
It's a small percentage of our revenue.
Well, they kept threatening.
They kept piling on.
Hundreds got on board.
I think like 750.
Even though Facebook makes most of its money from small business advertising in local areas, they eventually passively caved.
And Sheryl Sandberg said, we're gonna do better to ban hate speech.
The boycott has not stopped because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't understand it will never stop.
He already banned a bunch of right-wing, you know, personalities and Trump supporters.
Did they stop then?
No, and they won't.
The only thing you can do is say, shut up.
No.
He tried a little bit.
But you know what?
He was scared of the negative PR and gave in.
And now that you've given in again, they will keep pushing.
There is no lying.
They want total subjugation.
Well, Facebook's certainly being rewarded for it.
The same day they announced that they were going to be policing hate speech to do better, which they already do, which is a nonsensical statement, their stock reached a record high at $247.65 per share.
This is the opposite of get woke, go broke.
It's kind of confusing because it is fair to say to a certain degree Zuckerberg said, you know, pound sand to these companies after they finally pushed him too hard.
Then Sheryl Sandberg came in and it seems like they're finally just giving in.
They're giving in and giving up and their stock's being rewarded for it.
But I got to imagine If Facebook starts to ban more of its users, and people already are going to go to other sites, well then they're going to start losing money, because the less users you have, the less valuable those advertisements are, or the less ability you have to actually place those advertisements.
But perhaps Facebook's so big it doesn't matter.
They could ban hundreds of thousands of people and say, what do we care?
We got, what, two billion users?
I'm not... I don't think we're in a good place right now.
For those of us that believe in true liberalism, the true definition, meaning, you know, freedom of speech like classical liberalism, John Locke, etc.
I think liberalism is losing.
I think it's absolutely being crushed under authoritarian leftism.
And the reason for this is that those who believe in liberty give ground to their ideological opponents, authoritarians, who will cheat to win.
Like this boycott against Facebook.
Facebook boycott leaders slam Zuckerberg for doing just about nothing to remove hate speech from July 8th, from today.
Yet the other day, what did we see?
This is from July 7th.
Their stock was up, but Sheryl Sandberg issued a statement saying, okay, we're firmly against hate.
We are going to do better to remove this hate.
They come up the next day saying, no, not enough.
Mark Zuckerberg is bending over backwards, spineless, unable to stop the hordes of authoritarian leftism and intersectionalism as communist faith or ideology is taking over.
And if Mark Zuckerberg continues to ban more opinions, as Twitter has already done, as YouTube has already done, maybe there will be some kind of marketplace competitive resurgence.
The positive, the hopeful, the optimistic idea here Is that, look, when you ban people, they don't just cease to exist.
And now you have Parler, which is taking off with a massive, uh, massive user base.
Couple million people, I think.
Not the biggest platform in the world, but at least you can still follow all of these people who have been banned, you know, on other platforms.
In the past, Whenever someone's tried to create an alternative social media platform because of the censorship, they've been immediately attacked by the far left.
This is the game they play.
It is insidious, it is malicious, and they do not want you to have any freedoms or civil rights.
So here's what happens.
The people in media will slam Mark Zuckerberg and defend major international corporations who want Facebook to do what they say, ban more people, silence more people.
If those people who get banned try to go to an alternative platform, what happens?
The same media outlets will then write that they're far-right, they're Nazis, or whatever, and then all of a sudden their advertisements get pulled, their DNS hosting gets, you know, their DNS service gets like jammed up or pulled, their hosting service gets pulled, all of these really, or they get DDoS attacked.
They don't want them to be able to communicate.
They want to make sure that dissent is crushed.
They do not believe in freedom of speech or freedoms for anyone.
They'll claim that, and they do, that Parler is a bunch of far-right extremists when it's literally just like conservatives.
That's it.
It's mostly just like Trump supporters and conservatives.
All of this says to me that I think they're winning.
You know, look, you can argue, you can be hopeful, be optimistic.
I think that's fine.
But I'm going to be realistic.
Right now, we are seeing Facebook losing out.
The more they resist, the worse things get.
And the more they give in, the better it is for them within reason.
We recently saw this letter go around from Harper's.
I haven't actually done a segment on it, so I want to talk about it.
And it's kind of funny because, for those that aren't familiar, a letter was drafted saying that this illiberalism and cancel culture is a bad thing, and it must be, you know, we have to resist this.
And I think it was like 150 writers, journalists, academics, and artists, including J.K.
Rowling, Noam Chomsky, and Margaret Atwood, signed the letter, arguing that stifled free speech is creating an intolerant climate within society.
Immediately, people tried canceling those who signed the letter.
J.K.
Rowling is certainly no longer pulling her punches, and people stood defiant.
While it is, you may say, it is a hopeful thing, it is a positive thing, that this letter was written with many left-wing and liberal voices, When we already have some people apologizing for having signed the letter in the first place.
Now, I actually think that's a good thing.
That they would apologize suggests there's a real reason for this letter, and it legitimizes the concerns here.
If I write a letter saying we should be allowed to have a debate, and then you try and shut it down, and I have to apologize, I mean, I personally wouldn't, but someone else does, it just proves it.
It proves there is a serious problem.
In fact, some people have already contacted the employers of some of these people who have signed this.
Well, you ain't doing nothing to J.K.
Rowling, she's got F.U.
money.
Noam Chomsky is very old, so I don't think he's gonna budge.
And Noam Chomsky, there's a video going around, I retweeted this, it's him from like the 70s or something, maybe the 80s, I don't know, where he's basically saying, I will support free speech, even for those whose people I, people whose views I disagree with, and simply defending free speech doesn't mean you defend their views, and people are screaming at him.
And he's like, no!
He's like, no, I will legally defend someone's right to free speech if you're trying to silence them.
But still, this seems to me like, almost like a death rattle.
The death throes.
Freedom of speech, liberty, individualism is being crushed by major corporations and by, unfortunately, yes, Democrats.
Who are in agreement that people shouldn't have the right to speak up and that we should ban and censor people.
When we hear from these Democrats talking about Facebook, for the most part, they're not talking about spying, though AOC has called out the spying from Big Tech, and I can respect that.
They're typically talking about hate speech and how their opponents should not be allowed to communicate.
And they are winning.
I don't know how to tell you.
You might get mad that I'm saying it, but I see it every day.
The cliffs are eroding.
They're banning more and more people.
You may disagree with Stefan Molyneux.
I don't know a lot about his views, to be honest.
Don't really watch his YouTube content.
And I've only ever met him passively, you know, once.
But they banned him.
He had close to a million subscribers.
How did he make it this far, having broken no rules?
Well, I do know the media has lied about him a lot.
Again, I can't speak for what his actual ideas are, I don't know.
But I do know that following his banning now from YouTube and Twitter, there are people showing some of the things he said, clearly showing that many articles written about him are completely false.
They've tried doing the same thing to me, albeit it's much more difficult for them, but they have absolutely tried to smear me in the worst possible way, but the best they could muster is that I'm right-wing or something.
Which is strange, because I'm not.
I'm liberal.
Traditional liberal.
I actually took this test from the Hidden Tribes More Than Common data, and yep, traditional liberal.
The only problem is, these people who are in control and are dictating these stories, this cancel culture, they are more powerful.
Because they cheat, and because they threaten people.
Most liberals aren't politically active.
This is according to the More In Common data.
More In Common, you know, the Hidden Tribes thing.
I love citing this.
And they're not really engaged.
So there are some people who are engaged, people like me.
We call these people the politically homeless.
They're obviously liberals, left-leaning individuals, who don't agree with the authoritarianism and are speaking up, but are getting crushed because of it, getting lied about, getting smeared.
I mean, they go after the intellectual dark web type individuals all the time.
They've tried to shut them down, but it's really hard when the people are actually fairly liberal.
But this is where we end up.
As long as these people are willing to cheat, and no one else is willing to stand up out of fear, then they will continue to win, speech will be stifled, and then I can say it really does seem like they are winning on this front.
It's funny, because at the beginning of COVID, beginning of this year, it seemed like they had been crushed entirely.
Realism was setting in.
With a real conflict, all of a sudden, no one cared about these weird issues anymore.
But then, end of May, they came back with a vengeance, and now...
They're just pushing even harder than before.
So I don't know.
I don't know how we stop it.
I don't know how we succeed from here.
But you basically only have conservatives that are fighting back.
And that's probably why they would say someone like me is conservative, or that, you know, Dave Rubin, for instance.
It's because liberals are not engaged.
Not speaking up.
And so you have well-intentioned social liberals who are saying things like, I agree, you know, Black Lives Matter.
But then you have policy dictated by the most activist, the furthest left, the most extreme, and they dictate policy.
Let me read you this story.
Let me read and show you what's going on with this letter.
They tried, but to me this is a death throw, right?
It's a desperate gasp for air from a drowning man.
We who believe in true freedom, liberty, like on the libertarian spectrum, the true definition of liberalism, and I don't mean the colloquial sense, I mean like, Freedom.
Okay, I had to clarify that because the definitions have been muddied up.
They say that, you know, I'll put it this way.
The left is not liberal.
You can be conservative and be in favor of liberalism.
And that's where I think what the left has done is so insidious.
I see conservatives saying liberalism is a, you know, is a disorder or something.
And that's not true.
This country, America, was founded upon the ideals of liberalism, the consent of the governed, freedom of speech, you know, like our founding, our Bill of Rights and all that.
But the word has been corrupted and tainted by leftism.
And now people don't even know what it means.
But this is our country.
Our ideals, our freedom.
We are drowning.
And this letter was a desperate gasp for oxygen.
And I'm sorry, it just wasn't enough.
It wasn't.
These people, many of them, they fed the beast for a long time, including J.K.
Rowling.
And so my respect to her for finally speaking up, but perhaps too little too late.
Too little, too late.
Of course, I think it's fair to point out, maybe, maybe, you know, the tides can still be turned.
Just because freedom and free expression has been routed by our opponents, the authoritarian left, doesn't mean we can't spark a comeback.
And, you know, with a strategic retreat or war cry, charge forward, maybe we can take back some of this ground.
But I'm not convinced.
I'm not at all.
Even if Donald Trump wins, even if the Republicans control the House and the Senate and they pass some measure that curtails Section 230 guaranteeing legally protected speech, I'm not entirely convinced.
Maybe that would be enough.
Maybe that's the last-ditch effort.
I'm not a fan of a lot of the right-wing cultural policies.
The easiest way to explain the divide between the freedom-loving faction, how we don't agree, is Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro.
And I cited this in the past couple of segments.
They clearly don't agree on many issues, even the way each other lives.
Or, for the most part, Dave being a gay married man and Ben Shapiro being an orthodox Jew, they have serious disagreements.
But they agree on freedom.
And so that's how you can see someone like me doesn't agree with these policies, but all of us are united in defending the rights to freedom and free expression.
And perhaps because of that, the only hope we have is that Republicans get in and finally do something.
Here's the problem.
I don't think they will.
They had two years from 2016 and 2018 where they controlled everything.
Did they do anything?
No.
Were we talking about censorship and our rights being curtailed?
Yes.
Did they care?
No, they didn't.
So why should I believe they'll do anything now?
Take a look at what's going on with New Jersey's 2nd District.
Jeff Van Drew won.
Maybe you've seen the news.
This is not, in my opinion, good news.
I mean, it is, to an extent.
Jeff Van Drew is a conservative Democrat.
He is the furthest left Republican, as far as I can tell, as of right now.
Because he ran as a Democrat, he won as a Democrat.
What's happened now, in South Jersey, is that the Republican running is For all intents and purposes, a Democrat!
He ran as a Democrat, he won as a Democrat, and then he just changed the symbol from a D to an R.
Which means, everything is being pulled to the left.
If the Republican now in New Jersey is a moderate, right-leaning, conservative Democrat, he's got a 100% Planned Parenthood rating.
Now, I'm not saying this to rag on the Republicans, because the Republicans do have more left-leaning members for sure.
What I'm seeing is that everything is being pulled further and further left, and authoritarian left.
And now I'll tell you something that may worry you.
In New Jersey's 2nd, Jeff Van Drew did win, so that's good.
Trump endorsed him, and that is good in my opinion.
The Republicans are becoming more moderate.
I can respect that, and that makes it easier for me, especially, to consider supporting Republicans, especially if they will defend free speech and free inquiry.
But when you look at what's going on with Van Drew and the second, when you look at the vote count, it's worrying.
The Democrats mustered 37,000 votes, I believe.
I believe it was 37,000 votes.
And the Republicans mustered 27,000.
Now it could be because everybody knew Van Drew was going to win, and there were only two people running.
On the Democrat side, they pulled in 37,000 primary votes, and they had like six people running, I believe.
Maybe that's why they got more votes, because there were some people who really cared about those individuals, and, you know, Van Drew still mustered more votes individually than any other Democrat.
But if you were to take those hard numbers and translate that to a general run, it seems like Jeff Vandrew will not win re-election.
New Jersey's 2nd will remain.
I mean, it's red now because he changed parties, but he got elected as a Democrat in 2018.
And it's likely the Democrat will win in New Jersey's 2nd, unless every single person who's not a registered Republican gets out and goes and votes and votes Republican.
Here's what's gonna happen.
The Republicans have been fairly static in their ideology, how conservative they are relative to the rest of the population.
Someone sent me this chart, actually a progressive sent me this chart.
It was interesting.
If the Republicans win, and they agree to immediately pass Section 230 reform, which would, according to DOJ guidelines released by Bill Barr, would state, the only way Facebook, Twitter, and these other platforms will maintain their legal protections, meaning they can't be sued for libel, is if they protect legal speech.
Right now, Section 230, for those that aren't familiar, says that... The gist of it is, if I post something on YouTube, you can't sue YouTube for what I said.
The argument is that, you know, back in the day, if YouTube made a website, whatever appears on that website was published by YouTube.
So actually, it was a newspaper that had a forum.
And the newspaper argued, we don't control the comments section.
That's just what people want to post.
And so Section 230 was crafted specifically to say, we want people engaging online, but you can't if there's liability issues.
So how about this?
No one can sue you if, you know, it's user-generated content, which is separate from what you publish.
They say an online service is protected from their speech, blah, blah, blah.
But then they said, well hold on, what if we have to remove stuff?
Like what if someone posts something really nasty and we have to take it down?
We don't want them to think we're a publisher if we're choosing what gets removed.
So section 230 specifically said that objectionable, lewd, illegal content could be removed.
Under the word objectionable, They can remove literally anything because it's an opinion.
Now they ban political opinions they don't like, and people who believe in free speech are being shut out.
I'm not even talking about conservatives.
The left will use the insidious tactics of lying about what I believe and what other people believe in an effort to get us shut down and get you shut down.
They'll say they're conspiracy theorists, they're a bigot, they're far-right, whatever.
It's more difficult to do to the intellectual dark web types who are fairly liberal, but conservatives are fair pickings.
They can easily just knock them out because a conservative might criticize immigration.
And then they slowly erode the cliffs and ever increase the rules.
Oh, now you can't say anything bad about immigration.
Then they ban more people.
It's clearly not objectionable.
But they have that leeway.
The Republicans would have to win the House and the Senate and the Presidency.
They would have to immediately draft Section 230 reform under the DOJ guidelines, which would state that they could only remove content if it's illegal, in good faith.
The DOJ guidelines are still not perfect, but what we would essentially see then is that you could post all of the worst opinions in the world on Facebook, and so long as it is a legal opinion, they cannot remove it.
Otherwise, they would then lose their liability protection and could be sued.
These companies would immediately then say, we will unban, unblock, and people are allowed to say what they want.
Well, they'll probably still keep the people who are banned, banned, but that means it stops here.
And that means people can sign up, they can say what they want to say, for better or for worse, and that will restore balance to the political conversation.
Now, of course, they argue that the left won't want to be on the platform.
They'll threaten a boycott.
They'll leave unless they do something.
That's what they've been doing.
The left has repeatedly threatened boycotts, like people like Will Wheaton, you know, the guy from Star Trek who played Wesley Crusher.
He once threatened to quit Twitter unless they banned Alex Jones.
Twitter refused to do it, so Wil Wheaton quit and went to a far-left platform called Mastodon.
Mastodon isn't necessarily far left, but everyone there is far left.
Well, they eventually did ban Alex Jones.
Wil Wheaton deleted his account, and he's like, I'm gonna quit unless you do what I say.
If you took away Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube's ability to actually ban people, they would be immune from far-left boycott campaigns.
That's the point.
I go back to the initial story, where Facebook is saying, fine, fine, we'll do what you say.
Imagine this.
Advertisers show up to Facebook and say, we demand that you ban hate speech!
And Mark Zuckerberg need only say, that's illegal.
And they go, oh, yeah, sorry.
If you want the ad space, you can buy it, but we literally can't do what you ask.
Sorry.
The way I see it is this.
Let's say you buy a billboard.
You're a regular advertiser.
You buy a billboard.
You buy billboard space, sorry.
And you put up your big ol' ad for your crunchy cheese-flavored snack.
And then all of a sudden, next to this billboard, a guy shows up holding a gigantic sign with some objectionable material on it.
Are you then going to go to the city and say, I DEMAND YOU REMOVE THAT MAN BECAUSE IT APPEARS IN PHOTOS WITH MY AD AND IT'S MAKING ME LOOK BAD.
They're gonna be like, free speech.
Why can't we have the same thing on the internet?
If someone posts something dumb, I'm not stupid enough to think Coca-Cola's endorsing that dumb thing.
So maybe it's our last chance.
Because if this does not happen, 230 Reform doesn't happen, I will be banned, you will be banned, many of you probably have already been banned several times from different platforms, and Facebook will keep bending over to the far left.
They will keep losing, they will keep ceding ground, and we will lose.
It's the last ditch effort.
If it's true that, you know, people hate Trump and the Republicans and Biden's gonna win, Maybe that's the end.
Republicans were too stupid to stop this before it got too bad.
And now because of the censorship, Trump's, some of his highest profile supporters have been purged from mainstream platforms and they're not part of the conversation anymore.
That's a huge advantage to Joe Biden.
You're not getting a lot of those arguments that would help Trump win.
I'm not, I'm not saying Trump is the best guy in the world, but I am saying we are facing an illiberal horde that is destroying our freedoms and tearing down statues.
And our last chance, our last chance is now.
We'll see what happens.
Now, I'll wrap it up with this.
For obvious reasons, people are going to be commenting, saying like, well then, are you going to vote for the Republicans, Tim?
Are you going to vote?
We will see.
But of course, I said yesterday, and I said it the day before, and a week before, I am absolutely leaning in that direction.
I wouldn't be saying these things otherwise.
And I did say yesterday, if the election was held right now, and I had to make a choice, I would not be voting Democrat.
I'd probably vote for the Republicans.
However, The Republicans have been so incredibly ineffective, I've become rather pessimistic on any hope for us stopping this trend and pushing back on what's happening.
But I will give props to Trump, because he's going to build that garden of heroes.
So that is rejecting the destruction of these statues, and he'll at least do what he can to replace the statues that were destroyed.
We'll see how things play out.
We have four months.
To do something that will protect our speech rights.
Keep in mind, they could still, even if we do 230 reform, the Democrats could win two years later and then destroy that reform.
And then we're in trouble.
But we're in trouble now.
Most Americans don't realize how bad it is.
And maybe that's why we will lose.
I don't mean conservatives.
I mean people who believe in the right to free speech, free expression, and liberty.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at timcast.net at 4 p.m., and I will see you all then.
And there it is, the creeping normality.
You know, we talked a bit about this on the IRL podcast that over time, the far left slowly makes things normal, things that shouldn't be normal.
Case in point, far left's Breathe Act calls on states to expand voting to undocumented people.
We are quite literally now entering the point Where the Democrats are advocating for decriminalizing border crossings, no longer deporting people, a path to citizenship, which is the more reasonable point for people who may already be here, not if you just allow everyone to come now, but to the larger point.
Now that they've already normalized that idea and gotten the activist base completely on board with it, Now they want non-citizens to have the right to vote on local and state issues.
And I'll give you the specifics in a minute.
But can we just talk about the obvious result of what they're proposing?
It's not going to be the success of this country.
It's not going to be a utopia.
It's not going to be a happy world where everyone is holding hands because China, Russia, Europe, many other countries still exist.
If they get what they want, it quite literally just means the entire collapse of the United States.
That's it.
And China will still exist as a nation.
So no, it's not about some global utopia.
It's just literally destroying this country.
Let's get the specifics here from Breitbart.
They say, The proposal, drafted in partnership with the Movement for Black Lives, aims to overhaul the U.S.
criminal justice system, providing a range of radical changes, from defunding the police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to establishing a commission tasked with designing reparations for victims of mass criminalization.
You can see what they're doing.
They're using Black Lives Matter.
They're introducing this, getting you all on board with it, and tucked inside as non-citizens can vote.
They say an overview of the proposal devotes a section to ensuring democratic, fair and secure
voting processes that are free from racial discrimination and voter suppression in every
state. The proposed measures include enfranchising all formerly and presently incarcerated people in
federal elections, creating a public financing program for campaigns that are powered by small
donor contributions, incentivizing states to increase voter turnout and incentivizing states
to pass laws that expand voting access.
I don't completely disagree with some of these positions, and that's how they get you.
They're not going to come to you and say, would you support our bill that will allow non-citizens to vote?
You'd be like, what?
Wait, no, of course not.
No, they're going to come to you and say, don't you think that we should pass this bill that will help bring more people to vote?
Yeah.
Don't you think that voting, you know, election day should be a holiday?
That makes sense.
Now, sign on the dotted line.
You do, and you don't read the fine print.
This is why lawyers exist.
The funny thing is, when it comes to a contract and fine print, you have your lawyer review it, assuming you can afford a lawyer if you're in a position like that.
But typically, you get a contract, you get a lawyer.
When you vote and they show you these bills, you don't have a lawyer.
No one's going to read over this for you and be like, here's what this means and here's what this will do.
And so people just fall for the tricks.
Here's what they say.
They say, in addition to enfranchising past and present incarcerated individuals, the leftists call for laws specifically allowing local and state resident voting for undocumented people.
Well, there it is.
Additionally, the proposal calls for full and free access to a lifetime of education for undocumented people, as well as a jobs program that targets the most economically disadvantaged individuals, including groups that disproportionately include black cis and trans women.
Formerly incarcerated people, undocumented, and disabled people.
Notably, the radical proposal also calls for the removal of federal laws that criminalize illegal border entry, as well as the full dismantlement of ICE and CBP.
We can start to envision, through this bill, a new vision for public safety, one that protects a firm's black lives, Rashida Tlaib said on Tuesday.
I am so sick and tired Of the lies, I absolutely cannot stand these people.
Every single thing they do, it is the same.
It is... Ah, man.
You know what really frustrates me?
Let me tell you a story.
I used to have a Discord.
I got rid of that Discord.
You know why?
Because there were people who you knew what their agenda was, and they were anti-Semites.
And it was the most annoying thing in the world.
I have never wanted to punch someone in the face more in my life.
Because what they do... What they do... I'll tell you what they do.
You read this thing, this bill.
This is what all of these fringe lunatics do.
And you'll have a conversation.
You know, I think we need prison reform and police reform.
And they're like, I hear you, I hear you.
Let's have a conversation about police reform.
Yeah.
And then here's what happens.
They'll go...
You know, I was talking about police reform with my friend who was undocumented, and they were talking about how in their country, you know, they use these programs.
I think one of the problems we have is that, you know, when it comes to undocumented people, that, you know, the police will treat them differently.
In fact, we should probably just take a look at how the undocumented people are being negatively impacted.
I mean, shouldn't they have a right to speak?
I think we should totally pass a bill that allows the undocumented people a right to vote.
And then you're like, wait, Hold on.
Weren't we just talking about police reform?
How did we move over to the subject matter of socialism, jobs guarantees, and undocumented people getting to vote in this country?
It is this this it's so annoying.
It's I just can't stand it.
You'll be having conversation.
You'll be like so What do you guys want to eat for dinner?
I think we could do Pizza you guys want to do pizza.
Yeah, I could go for pepperoni.
What do you what?
What do you think miss Rashida Tlaib?
What would you like on your pizza?
You know I think I I think a good, a good topping would be probably bell peppers.
You know they grow bell peppers in like, in Mexico?
And there's like, I actually went to one of the farms there, and you know, the undocumented workers who ended up coming to the United States were being confronted by police.
You know, why don't we, why don't we all have a conversation about, you know, legalizing border crossings and giving undocumented citizens the right to vote?
And then you're like, bro, we're talking about pizza!
Look what they're doing.
Everybody's talking about Black Lives Matter, and this is what they do.
They put a big ol' Black Lives Matter up on the top, and then all the way down at the bottom, I'll show you what they do.
Here it is.
Ensure democratic, fair, and secure voting processes that are free from racial discrimination.
And they say, incentivizing states to pass laws, yadda yadda, enfranchising, yadda yadda, allowing local and state resident voting for undocumented people.
And this is where we've come to.
This is where it brings us.
Back in 2018, San Francisco will allow non-citizens to vote in local election, creating a new immigration flashpoint.
You see how they one-up things?
They will Trojan Horse this psychotic policy, which will literally just destroy this country and take all of your possessions and everything you love and just crush it!
And they will put a big ol' smile right in front of it, with a big ol' sign that says Black Lives Matter.
But stop trying to shoehorn in your stupid and psychotic far-left trash when we are talking about real issues here.
Let me just break it down for you.
Let me give you an analogy.
Well, let's talk about what happens when non-citizens vote.
Let's say you have a house.
Let's say in your house, everybody has $100.
Everyone is voting on how much of their $100 should go towards fixing certain things.
And you know, most people agree, look man, everybody's gotta pitch in.
We all live here together.
Y'all gotta pitch in for utilities, right?
We all pay that bill.
Now, hold on.
Jim, you use more electricity than anybody because you got that editing rig up in your room, so I think you should pay a little bit more.
That makes sense.
Now, there's an argument about progressive taxes where you're like, Jim actually has $200, so he should pay double.
And it's like, whoa, that's not fair.
Just because I have more, we're all using the same thing, right?
That's a different argument.
But let's keep the analogy going.
So you all decide, you're all allowed to vote on how much we all pitch in.
And everyone decides 10%.
Everybody will put in $10.
Then a group of people say, I think we should allow people who don't live here the right to vote.
Then all of a sudden people come in and you're like, yo, you guys don't live here.
Well, you can't kick them out.
They all vote.
You're not allowed to kick those people out.
Where are they going to sleep?
What are they going to eat?
Then those people who just came into your house are now saying, we should have the right to vote on how you spend your money.
Well, they'll vote for the money to be spent on them.
They'll vote for the right for more people to come into your house.
That's why we can absolutely have a program where we say, listen, we can only let in one or two people at a time.
But if people are not pitching in to the pot, to our tax base, And we allow them to vote, they will vote in such a way, and with all due respect, to support themselves.
They'll vote for policies that benefit them personally.
That's what every person will do, so it's not specific to immigration.
It more has to do with the fact that if people haven't pitched in, they should not be voting on what we do with the money we did pitch in.
Legal immigration.
You see why that works?
That's why what we do is we say, if you'd like to come in and become a part of our community, we have a process to make sure we're not straining ourselves, and it's not going to cause greater problems in the long run.
And there you go.
But they're going to allow non-citizens to vote, and where do you think that brings us?
It will lead us to the next iteration.
Right now what they're saying is local and resident, what do they say, local and state
voting for, I'm sorry, it says local and state resident voting for undocumented people.
That means people who enter the country illegally, we don't know where they are, we don't know
what they do, we don't track their income properly, they're now going to vote on core
That just means, over a long enough period of time, there will be more and more people who have no ties to the community who will be voting on issues to extract resources from that community or allocate resources in certain areas that will negatively impact the people who are producing those resources.
In the long run, it will just be a detriment to everybody.
But I'll tell you, that's not the worst thing of it.
The worst thing of it is that...
Okay, that is part of a bigger problem.
The issue I have is I am sick and tired of the bad faith.
They know that if they actually propose this to regular Americans, they would say no.
And they know that if they use pressure tactics and manipulation and Trojan horse tactics, they'll eventually get what they want, because regular people aren't going to read the bills.
What do you do about it?
I don't know, but I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Earlier today, I talked about a letter that was written and signed by around 150 individuals calling out cancel culture.
One of those individuals was Matthew Iglesias of Vox.
Because he signed this, they tried to cancel him, but they had to play it smart.
The letter itself was saying, cancel culture bad.
And if they came out right away and said, Matthew Iglesias, you bigot!
Well, that would just prove the letter right.
So they'd be clever about it.
A letter was written that said, well, I'm not calling for a reprimand, I'm just pointing out the privilege.
And it worked.
For those that aren't familiar, Matthew Iglesias is one of the, I believe he's a founder, I'm not entirely sure, of Vox.com, the leftist publication.
And now he has been officially cancelled.
Now, I don't know to what degree he's been cancelled, but this story, man, I tell you what, is particularly nefarious.
You see, after the cancel culture mob came for Matthew Iglesias, it would seem that in private he was told to STFU.
Zip it.
And he is no longer going to be going on Twitter and engaging with people in these debates.
They basically shut him down.
They snipped his wings.
But then, the founder of Vox.com, Ezra Klein, had the nerve to come out and smack him down publicly!
And Matthew Iglesias wasn't allowed to respond.
That is the true, malicious, and nefarious nature of what cancel culture is.
That they will come for your job, even if you're a progressive, they will tell you to shut up, and then you do, and then they laugh in your face.
Reminds me of Evergreen, the story of Brett Weinstein.
There's a viral video from the university where all these students are protesting racism, And then the administrator, whatever his name is, is talking with his hands, and they say, stop talking with your hands, that's racist.
So he stops.
And they all laugh.
They all laugh.
They're flaunting their power.
They're a chaotic, destructive force.
And I bring you now to the story.
But let me just tell you.
You see, Matthew Iglesias has entertained this.
Vox has helped this.
And now it has come for you.
For you reap what you have sowed, and now you will see what you hath wrought.
Open letter endorsing free speech sparks civil war at Vox.com.
Vox editor and co-founder Matthew Iglesias is drawing public backlash from colleagues after signing an open letter endorsing free speech and pushing back against the stifling atmosphere in some corners of the media.
Vox critic-at-large Emily Vanderwerf tweeted a letter she said she had sent to Vox editors stating that Iglesias' decision to sign the letter, which she said was also signed by several anti-trans critics, made her feel less safe at the publication.
Quote, the letter signed as it is by several prominent anti-trans voices and containing
as many dog whistles towards anti-trans positions as it does, ideally would not have been signed
by anybody at Vox, much less one of the most prominent people at our publication, she wrote.
There it is.
The reason why Matthew Iglesias is on the verge of termination, if you were to ask me,
is that by signing the letter, it is now evidence of anti-trans discrimination.
And as you all heard, recently the Supreme Court ruled that that is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Cancel culture has won, baby!
Matthew, I hope you realize the damage you hath wrought with your publication.
And you hate to see it...
You really do?
Some love to see, I suppose.
But now you will be dragged publicly by everyone around you, mocked and ridiculed, and your voice has been silenced.
You will not be allowed to speak.
Welcome to the world you helped create.
They say Vanderwerf's criticism is indicative of a growing movement among journalists to replace objectivity in reporting with progressive values.
The most prominent flashpoint in this debate occurred when New York Times opinion editor James Bennett resigned after employees said publishing an op-ed by Tom Cotton Put black staffers, quote, in danger.
An overt lie.
But let me show you where we are.
Yasha Monk tweeted, this is a founder of Persuasion, associate professor at SAIS Hopkins, contributing editor for the Atlantic, said, clearly no signatory of the letter has reason to fear losing their job if they speak their mind clearly.
Take a look at this.
this.
Ezra Klein, also a co-founder of Vox, tweeted, a lot of debates that sell themselves as being
about free speech are actually about power.
And there's a lot of power in being able to claim and hold the mantle of free speech defender.
Matthew Iglesias responded, should I reply to this with a concrete example or stick to
my commitments to you?
Now what could that possibly mean?
In another tweet that had been highlighted earlier, Matthew Iglesias noted that he had made a commitment to stop engaging on these issues on Twitter.
So what can we infer from this?
If I had to make an assumption, I would say that following the criticism of Matthew Iglesias, he was put in his place.
You see, he opened the door to anti-trans discrimination arguments from trans individuals at the company, or anyone else, really, because they could argue that some of those people, oh, J.K.
Rowling, she's a bigot.
Therefore, Matthew Iglesias joining this letter was proof that he held discriminatory views against these people.
In my opinion, again, very speculative, they came to him and he made a commitment to Ezra Klein himself.
And what was that commitment?
Not to engage on these issues.
Now we can see the true disgusting and disturbing future in front of us.
Ezra Klein had the nerve to make a... to talk with... So look, Matthew Iglesias saying he made a commitment to Ezra, it stands to reason, I think it's very fair to say, that they had a conversation about this, that Matthew agreed to back down, not publicly talk about these things.
So Ezra then, using his right, the rules for thee but not for me, comes out and says, oh, you know, specifically referencing the signatories of this letter, which includes Matthew, you have a lot of power, In this conversation.
So Ezra is allowed to smack down Matthew himself and Matthew is on his knees begging.
Should I reply or I'll just keep my commitment?
That's right.
Shut your mouth, Matthew.
You are no longer allowed to speak.
I hope you're happy with the world you helped create.
The other day, somebody hit me up on Facebook.
This is hilarious.
There was some comment conversation and they were fervent, freaky, anti-free speech, full far leftist, whatever.
For some reason, they sent me a friend request.
I accept this.
They told me that they were going to contact my employer.
I will be contacting those who employ you, and I said, who employs me?
And they didn't know.
But it shows you something.
These individuals who would like to threaten you, they know that they have the power to contact your employers and jam you up.
That the companies you work for are so pathetic and weak that they will cry, I don't want any damage to my bottom line, I'll fire whoever you say, random stranger on the internet.
I'll tell you what, man.
I put on an event once, and the far left tried cancelling it.
And I was privy to some of the conversations and communications the far left had engaged in.
There were people from California calling a Philadelphia venue saying that, you know, they were upset about their choices to host the event and they would no longer patronize this business.
And the business was like, your caller ID says San Francisco.
And they're like, right.
You don't live here.
No.
I'm not worried about losing your business, dude.
I'm sorry.
But they know that these campaigns work.
Matthew Iglesias, now you live under a boot, and I hope you enjoy kissing it, because you can't speak up anymore.
I appreciate you signed the letter, but it was too little too late.
You knew what was coming, you signed the letter, and now they have come for you.
Vox is a disgusting website.
And it's sad for me to say.
They're not the worst.
I'll give them that.
They're not the worst.
But they absolutely entertain this.
And the reason I would say they're disgusting now is because of what Ezra Klein is saying.
Ezra Klein is the king of duplicitousness.
What he does is so... I mean, it's really funny.
You can look through his Twitter history, and people bring this up.
He is a sophist to the most extreme degree.
He will always have an argument in favor of his tribe, even if it contradicts his previous points.
The one example people love bringing up is the Supreme Court.
He points to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and he's like, oh, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, it's like we really got to make sure that we maintain Supreme Court positions for life to truly honor and respect those who serve on the bench.
And then when it comes to conservatives, I think this is actually a really good argument for why it's time to end appointments for life.
Yeah, we get it.
When it comes to your tribe, you'll make any argument.
And the funny thing is, the people who read this guy, they have a memory of a goldfish.
They don't remember, like, Ezra Klein just tweeted three months ago the exact opposite of what he's saying now.
Now you can argue, he's evolved his opinion, and that's fine, we all do.
But then he flip-flops back the other way a month later, the dude, come on.
There's so many examples of this.
I refuse to live in their freaky world of no speech and bending your knees while these people are allowed to do whatever they want with impunity.
Sorry, I don't work for anybody.
So there's no one for you to call.
I work for myself.
So please, by all means, email my boss and complain about me, myself.
It won't work.
I love it.
That's what we need.
We need cancel culture herd immunity.
When enough people have been canceled, cancel culture won't work anymore.
That's why what you need to do is just say it.
When your boss comes to you and tells you, here's my advice to you, Matthew Iglesias, tell Ezra to shove it and say, I'm going to talk about what I want to talk about and y'all can't stop me.
Oh, but it's your, your co-founder.
How dumb.
If you work for a company and they come to you and tell you that this is the message of our company and you disagree politely, say, you know, I really don't like getting political.
There are so many people who work for apolitical companies that shouldn't be making these statements.
It makes no sense.
Let's say you work for a company that makes, I don't know, a fast processed cheese product.
And you're sitting there in your office filling out, you know, forms of, you know, requisition forms.
Oh, he brought in this much milk today.
And they come in and say, we're going to be issuing a public statement about this political group.
Just say it.
With all due respect, we make cheese product.
I don't think that's appropriate for us.
I'm not okay with that.
Because I don't want to have my name attached to a message.
And I'll give you an easy out.
For all those who are scared saying, but I'll get fired.
You simply say this.
I would humbly request that our company do not take a public position because
people know I work here and I could get harassed by people. And if they say, well, that's too bad.
That's, you know, whatever.
No, you don't get to make, you put me in danger by putting out those statements.
Tell them that.
You will put me in danger.
I'm only half-joking, mind you.
If I worked for a company and they said, we're going to issue a big public statement endorsing a political view, I would say, you realize that there are crazy people who will harass me because of your statement.
So please, we are a cheese factory.
I don't want to make a public statement.
I get it.
Vox is supposed to be a cultural commentary and news website, so that's different.
But if you work for a company that has nothing to do with politics, just speak your mind.
If they fire you?
Well, then the sooner this- Look.
It's not a good thing, I know.
But the sooner people have been cancelled, the sooner people stand up, the sooner this stops.
And maybe it won't, because people won't stand up.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Recent events have brought to mind a certain circumstance and business tactic that I experienced working for several non-profits a very long time ago.
More than 10 years ago.
Man, almost like 14 years ago.
For those that aren't familiar, I used to be a director for various non-profits fundraising.
Well, I should say that I handled fundraising for various non-profits, ultimately becoming a director at one of these.
A director is a managerial position for many non-profits.
What I want to talk to you about today is a tactic they used for stopping the demoralization, but the big issue is...
I want to talk to you about what I see happening in this country.
And what I think is happening is there is a demoralization anger mind virus.
That's what I call it.
It spreads like an illness, like a disease from one person to another, increasing the amount of anger and hatred they have for everything around them, even when they have no reason to be angry or hateful.
This is resulting in the far left.
They're angry, demoralized, ultimately hyper-pessimistic, but they are addicted to the anger.
It feels good.
It's satisfying.
It solves their problems for them, and they won't let it go, and they want to spread that anger and hate and fear to you, and you must resist it.
So let's do this.
This won't be as newsy as many of my other segments, but if you're interested, I want to tell you a story about how nonprofits ended the demoralization anger mind virus with this Twitter thread.
Here's what I said.
I used to work for some fundraising nonprofits that had a particular technique for dealing with demoralization.
People would start to become angry and pessimistic, and the toxicity spread like a virus from person to person, inhibiting their ability to work.
The job was tough.
You had to be positive and upbeat in the face of near-constant rejection.
The goal was to solicit donations from strangers, not easy for most people.
For those who aren't familiar, it's like Greenpeace, right?
I did work for Greenpeace.
You stand in the street, you wave with a smile, and say, would you like to talk to me about the environment?
It's very hard because 99% of people will say no.
Unless you're really good at it, and then, you know, for me and my friends who ended up becoming, you know, ended up running offices, we were really good at it, so we got everybody to stop for the most part.
Not everybody could handle this.
When people started to get frustrated with the rejection, they would sour.
All of a sudden, the upbeat, happy young person who was energetic and inspired by the cause would become angry.
Frantic, panicked, and pessimistic people struggled to get donations because people don't respond well to the negativity.
This created a negative feedback loop of failure.
When you're out there, on the streets, waving to someone, with a smile on your face, saying, come here and talk to me, give me a few minutes, I want to tell you a story about the environment, you need to hear this.
Well, people are like, oh, story, oh, this sounds good.
And you talk to them, and if you're happy, upbeat, and convincing, and charismatic, they'll listen, they will join, they will donate.
It's actually relatively easy for certain people of strong mental fortitude.
But what happens if you get rejected by everyone?
Now you're frantic, you're tired, you're angry, and now you have a furled brow, and you're waving, you're gonna talk to me?
And people are like, dude, get out of here, why are you yelling at me?
I explain this kind of phenomenon a lot to people.
That if you really want to convince people to join your cause, anger and hatred are not the right way to do it.
I know, I worked in these companies.
People then become demoralized.
Completely.
And start spreading the fear and anger to others in the office.
They would constantly complain about how awful everything was and how the job was impossible.
It would then spread like a virus.
And this, to me, is intersectionalism.
It's what we're seeing in the culture war.
Somebody has a problem.
Someone offers them a reason to be angry.
In and out.
It's so easy.
Why am I living in poverty?
Why am I suffering?
It's not your fault.
You see, it's a thing called white privilege.
I can solve all your problems.
All you have to do is believe in this ideology that gives you no escape but allows you to be angry about it.
And they gladly accept.
Why should I be responsible for my problems when someone offers up a solution?
The solution being I can feel good and do nothing about it.
My situation won't improve, but at least I can enjoy and wallow in the anger.
Pessimism and panic spreads from person to person.
When one person gets angry and is demoralized, well eventually you're on a lunch break and you're talking to another person, you say, it's impossible man, people are just too evil and they won't do anything and I can't stand it and it doesn't work.
And the other person starts getting angry too, saying, okay, calm down man, it's not that bad.
Now they're frantic.
They start getting rejected.
Now they get angry too and they agree, I agree man, this is awful, people are so miserable, I hate this.
The office starts getting infected with this mind virus.
At a certain point, the directors could see that the numbers were dropping due to low morale.
Revenue wasn't coming in.
The worse morale got, the worse the numbers were.
They had an obvious solution.
They would completely purge the office, firing every single person no matter how well they did.
They did not want anyone to know about the morale or what happened to the previous staff.
Completely new hires and new training.
You see, if you had ten people and eight had become demoralized, angry, pessimistic, and were constantly complaining, but two of them were upbeat, strong, and really good at their job, they would fire those two people along with everyone else.
You know why?
They didn't want anyone to know about getting fired.
They didn't want there to be a history in the office of what happens when this mind virus spreads.
So you'd be good at your job and they would say, we're just firing everybody.
They would say, you know, the season's coming to an end.
It was a temporary job.
Have a nice day.
A week later, they would completely rehire new people who had no idea what happened.
No, no history, no memory.
They just purged the mind virus.
If an office would lose 50% of its revenue due to low morale, they might as well take a month to fire and retrain if it means after that they are back at 100%.
If I'm going to lose due to low morale, I don't know, let's say $50,000 for the office, I might as well just fire everyone now, spend that lost $50,000 on bringing the office back so that a month later, I'm back up at 100%.
Otherwise, we risk going down even further.
And then people quit, and then what?
The morale never goes away.
Here's what happens.
If they keep those two upbeat people, eventually people will say, what happened to the rest of the hires?
And they say, well, they started getting scared that it wasn't working.
They started feeling miserable, and they couldn't raise any money, so they got fired.
That spreads the mind virus.
Then people are like, whoa, I hope this doesn't happen to me, oh man.
And then they know what happened, they panic, they get angry, and the cycle continues.
They must get rid of everyone.
And if they keep even one person who's demoralized, the demoralization spreads so much more easily than an upbeat, positive, optimistic message.
And to be fair, I don't want to pretend like I've been particularly optimistic for a long time.
I don't necessarily consider myself overly pessimistic though.
When I talk about what I think is going to happen, I'm not trying... I'll make this clear.
I'm not trying to say that it's necessarily good or bad.
You know, I'm trying to tell you what I think is going to happen regardless.
Maybe that's a pessimistic worldview and maybe that is part of the problem.
But I think there's a difference between self-defeating mentality and just believing we're on a negative track, that we need to fight to succeed.
So, for what it's worth, by all means, I'm open to being criticized.
I said the U.S.
is facing a similar demoralization, mind virus.
Everyone is reveling in anger and they like it.
It becomes an addiction.
But we are not a small office.
We are a nation of hundreds of millions.
So how do we bring back the positivity and break the cycle of anger addiction?
I think the real issue we face as a country at its core is demoralization.
People like being angry.
It feels good even if it is not warranted.
We are a wealthy, safe, and healthy nation.
But these people are just filled with rage that they love.
They wake up every day in It wallowing in self-pity and anger and fear because it gives them an out.
The reality is...
People, we have it better than ever.
So I have to wonder, with everything going on in this country, perhaps humans are doomed to this cycle.
You know why?
I mean, we certainly can't just have endless growth and constant improvement.
At a certain point, there's no mission anymore.
Without a mission, without purpose, we have nothing to do.
We get bored.
And in that boredom, we struggle for purpose.
And without purpose, we seek it.
And then people will give it to you in the form of some non-theistic religion, say, intersectionalism.
We no longer have a reason to strive.
People, with their lives being better than ever, still want more.
And if they don't get more, they feel like something is wrong.
Something is wrong with them.
They talk about abolishing poverty.
We hear this from Andrew Yang's base.
You know, all due respect to Andrew Yang.
I like the guy.
You can never abolish poverty.
Because poverty is relative.
How is it that the poor people we have in this country today have better dental care than Rockefeller did back in the early 1900s?
Or whatever year he was... You know, the oil baron guy.
Richest guy in history, right?
This guy didn't have nearly the access we did.
He did not have air conditioning.
We do.
Poor people today are, in many respects, wealthier than Rockefeller was.
Now, of course, he had access to big buildings and luxury and the finest foods and things like that, for sure, I understand.
Poor people don't have that today.
But certainly we have lifted so many people out of poverty.
It's striking.
It's sad.
That today, we are seeing mass demoralization because people just want more.
It's greed, really.
Why can't people just be happy with how well we've done?
Why can't they be happy knowing that they have a higher standard of living today working at a fast food restaurant than the average person did a hundred years ago?
Now, maybe it's not fair to compare a poor person today to Rockefeller.
I can point out the dental work, for instance, and air conditioning, refrigerators, a stovetop, etc.
But how about this?
A person in poverty today who works at a fast food restaurant has a standard of living ten times what a middle-class worker had in the early 1900s.
Poverty has been dramatically reduced.
Dramatically reduced.
But it will always exist because it's relative to everyone else.
If a person in poverty today lives like an upper class person did a hundred years ago, why would we still call it poverty?
Because we have people today who are extremely wealthy.
Now, to be fair, I understand homelessness is an issue of poverty as well.
I'm not talking specifically about that.
I'm talking about people who have homes, who live in apartments, who barely get by on their $15,000 a year working fast food.
But the access they have, the clean water, The refrigerator, the air conditioner, the amenities, the access to medical care, even if it does result in debt, is still substantially better.
What ends up happening is these people, who can't figure out how to become the best of the best, they're greedy and they're jealous.
Not all of them, but some of them are.
There are many people, especially these upper class, you know, white progressives, who have it better than ever.
But they want more and they don't know how to get it because there's not more to be had!
So they get angry.
They find purpose, they find anger, and they spread the anger.
The reason you can't succeed, the reason you don't have more, it's because of them.
Those people.
They blame somebody else.
I love how they accuse Trump of doing this.
Scapegoating.
They're doing literally the same thing.
How do we solve this?
I don't know.
Perhaps the issue is that many of these people need to spend some time out in the wilderness to learn what poverty really is, and then come back and see the luxury that they have before them.
Perhaps they need to realize that with hard work you really can succeed, and those who would tell you otherwise are lying.
That's the takeaway from all of this.
When I worked for these offices, I never had a demoralization problem.
Me and my friends had great mental fortitude, and we knew that no matter how hard things got, you just had to push harder.
Sometimes, as you were pushing that stone up the hill, there was a strong wind pushing you back down, and you would just give it all you got and scream and resist and say, no, I refuse.
And we succeeded.
And that's why we ended up becoming directors and raising tons of money.
But many people didn't have that.
Once the harsh winds came and the storm came, they said, I give up!
It's not fair!
It's impossible!
It can't be done!
Even though we proved it could.
They would just say, no, I refuse.
And they would try and get everyone else to wallow in their misery.
And that's what's happening today in this country.
How do we stop it?
I don't know, man.
I don't have all the answers.
I just have insights, I guess, and some opinions on my observations, but I'll leave it there.
The next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
