Conservatives Face Social Media PURGE, Walk Away And Journalist BANNED, Left DEMANDS Trump Be Banned
Conservatives Face Social Media PURGE, Walk Away And Journalist BANNED, Left DEMANDS Trump Be Banned. Brandon Straka of the Walk Away campaign was banned from Facebook as was Elijah Schaffer of The Blaze TV.Democrats and leftist activists are demanding that big tech purge anyone who was involved in encouraging what happened at the Capitol but more importantly they want to remove Trump permanently.In a story from the NYT it seems Twitter and Facebook are preparing a permanent ban of Donald Trump.Biden has slammed the events in no uncertain terms and announced new security measures to address insurrection.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Capitol, there have been reports from many personalities, not just right-wing individuals, that they were losing thousands of followers.
I have seen myself lose only a few hundred followers, but it's hard to know exactly how many you're losing and how many you're gaining.
For instance, over the past several days, I've seen the number of followers I have on Twitter go down by a couple hundred, but then go up a little bit and then go down by a couple hundred.
And it may actually end up being 1,000 or so, but it could be that I lost 10,000 followers and then gained 9,000 more.
Hard to know for sure.
But even some individuals like Barry Weiss, formerly of the New York Times, tweeted that she lost around 4,000 before deleting the tweet.
Another personality, Christopher Rufo, said around 2,000.
We don't know exactly why these accounts are being removed, what they are, who they are, or why, but there's certainly some speculation.
Based on what we're seeing, my personal opinion is that these are likely smaller accounts for individuals who are probably tweeting support for what happened in Washington, D.C., and thus they are being banned.
Many people are losing followers, but it's not like it's a million people.
It may only be actually 5,000 people, but they followed a bunch of similar personalities.
It could also be that Twitter is just doing a blanket purge of anybody who might get close to supporting what was going on, and we're seeing some pretty serious actions.
On my IRL podcast just two nights ago, the chat was disabled by YouTube.
Now, I tell you, they say there was concerns about incitement, and there are a lot of comments that get really close to it generally on the internet.
In fact, I have a comment from the Gravel Institute, a leftist organization, praising the tactic of storming the Capitol, saying they absolutely would be in favor of it, which says to me, escalation ahoy, boys.
But anyway.
We can only do so much when it comes to the internet in terms of moderation.
So when you see these actions taken that would outright ban users for rhetoric, when it's in the tens of thousands, that's beyond the control of one person running a YouTube channel or a Twitter account.
And thus, I think what we're seeing now is a mass purge of conservatives.
It's not just these issues.
Brandon Strock of the Walk Away campaign has been totally removed from Facebook.
Elijah Schaefer, a reporter from Blaze TV, has also seen his Facebook and Instagram banned.
I think it's fair to say that we are seeing another mass purge of conservatives.
Now, maybe that's a little hyperbolic, so that one's on me, but the president himself is being banned.
Joe Manchin, a Democrat, has called for Trump to be suspended from Twitter, and Michelle Obama says he should be permanently banned from all platforms, and that all these platforms should stop this kind of thing from happening again.
At the same time, Twitter has announced they will allow Statements praising Uyghur concentration camps in China.
Now, I'm not necessarily advocating for any censorship in that capacity, just pointing out the nightmarish double standard in tweets praising concentration camps in China.
Meanwhile, American conservatives are banned or restricted based on their speech.
Let me clarify.
I do not condone incitement to violence.
It's illegal.
I'm not a fan of violence.
Most of you know I don't think it works.
A lot of people give me historical precedent as to when they say it did work, but I actually think that's not true.
I think it's certainly obvious to say that in certain instances throughout history, of course, storming the beaches of Normandy worked.
I get it.
War happened.
You know, we got hit by Pearl Harbor.
Hey, that didn't work, right?
It could go either way.
The point is, maybe in the past there was an effective nature to violence in terms of conflict, but we're in the Information Age.
In order to win in the Information Age, you need to win the hearts and minds of the people.
You do that by persuading them.
Something I've talked about quite a bit.
Fifth Generational Warfare.
This is why what I'm bringing to you today is so absolutely significant.
In order to engage in fifth-generational warfare, and again, it's not a reference to violence, it's a reference to arguing your ideas.
I think that's great.
In order to do so, you need access to the platforms for which you can actually argue with people.
And that's being taken away right now.
Even as we speak, users are flocking to Parler, but journalists are trying to advocate for some kind of action to be taken against Parler because people there believe crazy conspiracy theories or have advocated for insurrection or violence.
If you do those things, in my opinion, that's illegal and a crime, it's ineffective, it hurts yourself, and you shouldn't do it.
And illegal activity should be removed.
Now I understand there have been advocates from the left for political violence.
Sure, if we're talking about what happened in World War II Germany, I get it.
But today's day and age, it's all about winning the hearts and minds of the people.
And that can't be done when prominent personalities on the right are purged.
They were purged before, they're being purged again.
And it starts with Brandon Strzok of the Walk Away campaign.
Now I'll show you what he says.
He's been completely removed from Facebook.
He doesn't know why.
He's calling for help.
But we need to start with the context around Trump and how that is used as the cudgel to justify the removal of anyone who would support him.
The New York Times reports the president is losing his platforms.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I've got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do Actually, comment on the video.
Like and subscribe.
The engagement really, really does help.
And then if you really want to help, you can share this.
Apparently, engagement is great.
And if you want to help me grow the channel, that's a great way to do it.
But I think right now, as I'm talking about the seriousness of mass censorship, which is underway, maybe you should go to TimCast.com slash donate and there's nothing else I can really say.
Maybe we wake up tomorrow and my channels are gone as well because Facebook just purged Elijah Schafer.
I wasn't on the ground in the Capitol.
I actually said on the IRL podcast I wouldn't go near it if there was actually some attempted revolution of some sorts and I thought my plan was going to be to go down and, you know, have some people do an interview.
Following what happened at the Capitol, though, it is a mass purge.
And the scariest thing about what happened is that when we saw the riots throughout the whole year, With 30-plus dead, shootings, you know, people like David Dorn, buildings being burned down, there was no mass purge of the left.
Now, recently there have been some leftists who have been purged, because I think what's ultimately going to happen from all of this...
What Twitter wants, what YouTube wants, what Facebook wants?
They want to return to the era of yesteryear, when there were only a handful of channels you could go to, where there were strict editorial controls, and the masses shared their opinions.
It was easier to control that way.
I think that's where we're headed.
The channels that survive on YouTube and social media are the ones that do as they're told.
Surprise, surprise, my milquetoast-tepid opinions seem to be okay on YouTube.
We'll see what happens to other people.
There are some channels that have been on hiatus for several weeks, and many people are wondering what's going on.
We'll see.
There have been some channels that have been deleted.
We'll see.
From the New York Times.
After years of gentle wrist slaps, social media companies are finally revoking President Trump's megaphone.
Now, this story is from Kevin Roos.
I do not have a good relationship with this man.
I know him personally, and I believe that he is, uh...
Not an ethical reporter.
I can only say that as I preface this video with, how much am I really going to trust him?
I don't.
He's written articles about the supposed YouTube rabbit hole, which researchers have said doesn't exist time and time again.
The idea is that by going on YouTube, you'll see a video about some subject, and then you'll get trapped in a rabbit hole where you go deeper and deeper, and eventually you go from being a regular person to a far-right conspiracy theorist.
That's actually not true.
Many researchers who have come out with data trying to claim that was true haven't actually proven it.
Some of these studies have ineffectively tried to claim that some channels are right-wing.
For example, one study that came out recently argued that Xu Anhad, who is, I believe she's a democratic socialist, and I mean that literally, I think that's what she identifies as, they said she was far-right, so it's clearly not accurate.
But in another research group that produced something called Transparency Tube, they said there are echo chambers for sure, and that can create problems, but there's no driving factor.
If anything, you'd be driven more towards normal content.
But I digress.
Kevin Roose says, After Wednesday, big tech platforms took their strongest actions yet against Mr. Trump, Facebook's chief executive.
Mark Zuckerberg said on Thursday that the company was locking Trump's accounts until at least inauguration day, adding that the risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.
Earlier, Twitter and YouTube took down a video in which Mr. Trump praised the rioters and falsely claimed the presidential election was rigged.
Now, YouTube has a rule that they put out.
I believe it was last month where they said you cannot make claims alleging that... Well, you can't parrot what Trump had been saying.
It's the easiest way to explain it.
And the reason I describe it that way...
is that I believe the rule change was specifically to remove Donald Trump's advertisements and advocacy for his claims.
He had been alleging widespread fraud, he had been saying that he had won, and YouTube made rules saying you can't do that.
It hasn't affected a whole lot of channels.
Scott Adams did see one of his videos removed under these new rules.
Following the events at the Capitol, YouTube moved up their timeline and said we will now be giving a strike and removing any video as of the 7th, which is just the other day.
I believe that those policies were put in place to stop the President, not conversations around what the President was doing.
Like I said, the idea is, right now, to create a more unified public perception space.
When there was only a handful of news channels, everybody was getting kind of the same information.
You turn on one channel and they'd say, I think taxes are too high!
You turn on another channel, I think taxes are too low!
And, I don't know who was saying that, I guess, but apparently, You know, you get the point I'm trying to make.
There would be wedge-issue disagreements, and then we would have their election, and for the most part, the American plan, as it was, would carry on like normal.
But thanks in part to social media and the internet, Donald Trump was able to win and overcome Hillary Clinton.
I think now what they want to do is they want to make, they want to get rid of comments.
Comments have been slowly removed from many news websites because they don't want those conversations to exist.
And they want to make it so that only a select few group of individuals are allowed to actually have channels.
So like I said, we'll see if I make it through this.
If my channels survive in the long run.
Over the New York Times, they say Twitter locked Trump's account on Wednesday until 12 hours after he deleted tweets that violated the company's policies and threatened a permanent ban if he violated more rules.
YouTube removed Mr. Trump's video and said it would give strikes to channels that posted videos promoting false claims.
The measures may be just the start.
I spoke with several employees at Twitter and Facebook on Wednesday who said they expected their companies to ban Mr. Trump's accounts permanently.
There is simply too much danger of continued violence stemming from his posts, and these employees who would speak only anonymously because the internal discussions were private, and few expect that a temporary timeout will be enough to dissuade him from fanning the flames.
These people are still alive.
They still exist.
Alex Jones has his own particularly prominent platform.
But you know, to be fair, it is true.
Alex Jones saw a major decline in traffic after he lost access to the big social media platforms.
You can argue that it's a good thing because certain ideas are allowed to prevail and other ideas aren't.
The problem is that's an authoritarian worldview.
And if you're an authoritarian, I suppose it makes sense.
If you believe in freedom, liberty, and individual rights, you would probably disagree with that.
Case in point, I do.
But, as many on the left try to claim it's been effective, it's not, okay?
What you need to understand is these people don't just vanish, they continue to express their ideas, but now they're angrier and unrestrained.
If they went, actually I'm sorry, when they went to Alex Jones and told him he was going too far, he toned things back.
There was one famous moment in his clip, one of his clips while he was being, during the time frame of his banning, where he made a figure of speech and then he walked back saying, no, no, no, no, I mean that figuratively, I mean that figuratively.
Think about it.
If the big networks just went to him and said, listen, do not say these things, okay?
Then they could have had some control.
Instead, they nuked him.
What happened?
Well, Alex Jones went and made his own platforms.
And now he's getting a substantial amount of views, and it's unrestrained.
No arguments, no pushback, no fact-checking, nothing.
It was a wrong move.
And these people think it will get better when they do this?
It won't.
Over at CBS2 Pittsburgh, they say, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin says President Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter for the next 14 days.
Manchin responded saying, 12 hours is not sufficient.
He is a danger to our democracy and should be banned from Twitter for the next 14 days.
Well, a temporary suspension.
I have to wonder what Trump said explicitly that would warrant the suspension.
Herein lies the next big challenge in the censorship.
I think Trump's tweet was awful.
I really do.
And the more I look at it, the more I'm like, man, not good.
Because he said something to the effect of, this is what you get when you steal, you know, when you take a historic and sacred landslide away from the people, go home and in peace, never forget this day.
It wasn't a direct incitement.
But at this point, the President of the United States needed to make a stronger statement.
Now, he went out and he did.
He did.
He made a statement, he posted it on Twitter, and he said he condemns the violence, he condemns the people who stormed in.
Not everybody who went to the Capitol stormed in, mind you, but there was a decent amount.
There are videos of people yelling, heave, and like shoving through rows of cops, and there's videos of police literally opening the doors and letting people in, saying that they disagree, they agree to their right to protest.
It's really weird stuff.
I digress.
I think it was a mistake for everybody.
I don't think it should have happened.
And it was a failure from everybody, from the Mayor of D.C.
to Trump, to the people who went inside.
That's a fact.
And it only hurt their cause.
But more importantly, Trump didn't come out explicitly saying, do anything.
They're trying to claim he did.
Because he said, protest in D.C., be there.
They're trying to claim he did because he said, we're going to the Capitol.
What they're arguing now is something called stochastic terrorism, where they argue that Trump knew they would do something.
There's a famous piece of art that shows a match standing at a podium with the fire, which looks like Donald Trump's orange hair, and he's giving a speech to a bunch of angry cartoon bombs.
That's the point they're trying to make, that while Trump himself doesn't explicitly say, do something, they know that he's lighting the spark which will eventually trigger that explosion.
The danger there is that the big tech companies who are unaccountable now have the authority to remove politicians from the public sphere and from the conversation.
And they can do it on the pretext of, but what if what you said causes harm?
And that's where we're heading.
Beyond what Manchin said, Michelle Obama wants social media companies to permanently ban Trump.
And as I already noted in the New York Times story, as much as I don't trust this individual writer, he's saying that Twitter and Facebook is talking about permanently banning Trump, and we all seem to think that will be the case.
I know, I've gone back and forth a little bit.
I've said it's entirely possible that come the 20th, they nuke his channels.
But I'm not entirely convinced because Trump is making money for these platforms.
Before Trump came around, Twitter was losing money and it was really, really bad.
But I'll say this, at this point, considering what happened in the Capitol, I think they're going to nuke him permanently.
Outside of the president, we're seeing the severity.
Brandon Strzok runs the walk away campaign.
The goal of the campaign is to convince people to walk away from the Democrats.
He's now been permanently banned.
He tweeted this.
Facebook has removed the walk away campaign and has banned me and every member of my team.
Over half a million people in WalkAway, with hundreds of thousands of testimonial videos and stories, is gone.
Facebook has banned everything related to WalkAway.
And he posted a screenshot.
Your account has been disabled.
They say for more information, please visit the health center.
The help center, your account was disabled on January 8th.
If you think your account was disabled by mistake, you can submit more information. Maybe
he will get things back, we'll see. They say in an email he posted a message from
Facebook. Hello, your page WalkAway Foundation has been removed for violating our
terms of use.
A Facebook page is a distinct presence used solely for business or promotional purposes.
Among other things, pages that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed.
We also take down pages that attack an individual or group or that are set up by an unauthorized individual.
If your page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated.
Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in the permanent loss of your account.
Well, as we now learned, it has been.
Elijah Schaefer tweeted, Facebook and Instagram have permanently suspended me from their platforms without explanation.
It was mostly just pictures of my wife, dog, and memories of my mom who recently died.
Big tech is relentless.
Reporting the truth is now illegal.
Elijah Schaefer was smeared in many stories where, this one for instance, YouTube reportedly let Trump supporter profit, as he tweeted from the Capitol.
They say.
The world watched years of toxic Trumpism come to a terrifying head Wednesday as Trump supporters stormed the U.S.
Capitol in a bid to undermine free and fair elections.
People have profited from fanning the flames of violence, as Nandini Jami, who runs CheckMyAds, an agency that helps brands avoid supporting harmful content, pointed out on Twitter.
She said, this man's YouTube channel is fully monetized by YouTube.
He's making money off this.
They go on to say that Schaefer is a right-wing personality on the Glenn Beck-founded outlet Blaze TV.
In a now-deleted tweet Wednesday, he posted a photo he said was taken in Nancy Pelosi's office and called the rioters revolutionaries.
Schaefer has since claimed he was not directly part of the group who stormed the Capitol and was covering the events as a member of the press.
Elijah Schaefer is.
A member of the press.
But he does have his own political opinions.
This is another area where they start to mix the line.
Elijah Schaefer says that he is credentialed.
To the extremely dishonest slanderers, I have a federal congressional press license and police did not have a problem with me reporting on the events.
How else do you think I wasn't arrested and allowed to leave and cross police lines?
Some of you guys don't get how this works.
Like I said, in fifth generational warfare, in order to actually be involved in the propagandizing, the sharing of information, the persuasion, you need the accounts to do it.
Elijah Schaefer is a journalist.
He may be an opinion guy and a pundit in some capacity, but he does go on the ground and report from many different places across the country.
The left doesn't like the way he frames things.
Surprise, surprise, the right doesn't like the way the left frames things.
The left is now trying to argue that he is somehow not there in the capacity of a journalist, but he was.
Nandini Jamie says, confirmed, Calm is no longer sponsoring the YouTube channel of the guy who broke into Nancy Pelosi.
Thanks, I guess, too little too late.
But is it fair to say he broke in when he's a media personality with press credentials?
I certainly don't think so.
And this is where we're heading.
Now, initially, in this tweet, Barry Weiss, formerly of the New York Times, said that she had lost around 4,000 followers.
Christopher Ruffo says, I'm down 2,000.
I think it's partly a dramatic moment with a lot of crossing opinions.
It could also be that Twitter is deleting a lot of accounts.
I believe that when we're seeing these, Elijah and Brandon Strzok being purged, but more importantly, why I would call this a mass purge, because Strzok had, Brandon Strzok, He had half a million people following that.
They've all been wiped out from this channel.
It's just gone.
So that's a massive purge.
Now, I don't know if all of the people associated with it have been banned.
He said they did.
So again, maybe it'd be a little hyperbolic to say mass purge for now.
My response to Rufo was, I'm betting it's tons of people cheering on what happened getting banned, but also a mass purging of accounts in general.
For now, we don't know exactly what's going on, but it's going well beyond just social media.
Tom Elliott tweeted about CNN.
Tom is the founder and editorial of Grabian Media and Newslist.co.
He tweets, CNN's Oliver Darcy is going after cable companies for carrying Fox News in a newsletter.
I believe this is the newsletter that comes out from reliable sources on CNN.
Tom says, Oliver Darcy writes, Somehow, these companies have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation.
That should not be the case anymore.
After Wednesday's incident of domestic terrorism on Capitol Hill, it is time TV carriers face questions for lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories.
After all, it was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump's supporters into not believing the truth—that he lost an honest and fair election.
Yes, Sean Hennedy and Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin and others are responsible for the lies they peddle to their audiences, but the TV companies that beam them into millions of homes around the country also bear some responsibility, and yet we rarely, if ever, talk about them.
Tom says, This is why I posted that supercut yesterday of media personalities endorsing violence.
Oliver is trying to use Wednesday's events to deplatform conservative media outlets, despite CNN and MSNBC doing far more to contribute to today's charged political environment.
In another post, that came presumably from reliable sources, They write.
I asked all of these companies for comment on Thursday.
I asked them if they have any guidelines governing the content that they carry on their platforms.
I asked them if they have any regret over carrying right-wing channels that were in many ways partly responsible for what took place in our nation's capital.
Only CenturyLink provided a comment saying it was committed to providing a variety of broadcast channels covering thousands of topics, and that as a company does not endorse specific media or outlets.
He says, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, and Dish did not.
They chose simply to ignore the questions.
At least Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and others have acknowledged they have some responsibility for the content they host, and they have very clearly posted community guidelines on their websites for all to see.
Why do we expect any less of TV companies?
More is coming.
More is coming.
The censorship will affect the chain links.
It's not just about whether or not Twitter will ban you.
I believe they'll come for Parler very soon.
On Parler, there are many people saying things that are, in my opinion, very crazy.
Conspiracy theories.
They think Trump hasn't conceded.
It's deepfakes.
He did.
It's over.
Like I said, man, 99.99%.
It's going to be Joe Biden.
He's going to be sworn in.
They're going to count the votes.
It's going to happen.
In order to prevent something like we saw yesterday, I believe there needed to be sort of some kind of reconciliation.
Like Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz objecting and calling to hear the evidence.
That was obstructed by the Trump supporters who actually made their way into the Capitol.
In many instances, storming through the doors.
In some instances, the doors being opened.
Don't ask me why that happened.
The double standard is real, however, and I'm not convinced that we're going to see any change.
And I'll tell you what I think comes next.
Just because you ban people doesn't mean they cease to exist, which I said.
But just because you shut down companies doesn't mean people will give up.
What's happening now is if these networks ban, say, Fox News or OAN or Newsmax, is that people will find other ways to communicate.
You can't just shut it down.
Eventually, the establishment and the mainstream media, corporate media, will lose access to those who may even disagree with them.
I mean, even Fox News lost half their viewership when Tucker Carlson challenged Sidney Powell, yet Darcy wants to claim that Fox is the worst, when the biggest problem with Fox is maybe a couple hours of opinion content out of 24 hours of, you know, news content.
Well, they do rerun, so let's say, you know, 18 hours of news content, if that.
Ultimately what happens is, different networks will be formed, different means of communication will exist, and the establishment will continue to lose their ability to influence the masses.
You need to give space on your platform to attract people to come in, so that you can de-radicalize and debunk.
The mass purges, the banning of people, will do the opposite.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Gravel Institute.
And I've had good words for them, and I'm sorry to see them tweeting something of this nature.
The Gravel Institute produces YouTube videos, and they're trying to be like a left-wing Prager University.
I posted one of their videos, supporting it, because I agree with the marketplace of ideas.
That's the idea, right?
And that's what the Fifth Generational Warfare means.
That you will watch a video from Gravel, you will watch a video from Prager, and you will decide which one you think made the right argument and persuaded you.
It's really about persuasion.
Gravel says, quote, "...but if leftists had stormed the Capitol, you'd support them."
And they said, yes.
They are fighting for a good cause.
Fascists are fighting for a bad cause.
This should not be difficult.
One person who has got the socialist rose and the black flag said, I am not anti-revolutionary.
However, such would need to come with overwhelming support from the masses and partial government support.
The insurrection did not meet that criteria and actually hurt its own cause.
I do not think we should perform apologetics for such tactics.
Warren, the real W. O. Neal on Twitter, is 100% correct about what happened.
They hurt themselves, they had very little support, and ultimately it was bad.
Gravel responded saying, obviously we're not.
The people who did it are goons.
But the tactic itself isn't the problem so much as the fact that people doing it are fascists.
Wrong.
Many people on the left slammed the Gravel Institute for this.
And with my respect to all of you who responded, Well, I give you my respect.
It's wrong.
It doesn't work.
We are not in a world where taking a building does anything.
A cop died.
A woman died.
Three other people died.
Five people in total lost their lives.
What was accomplished, other than they hurt their own cause?
Why would Gravel tweet something like this?
Well, I don't know.
Ultimately, they did end up removing it, and good.
I'm glad they did.
But think about this.
I want to know they believe this.
I was giving them credit and praising them.
I'm not going to do that ever again.
Because they think what happened yesterday was a good thing, except the wrong people?
No, I'm sorry.
Storming the Capitol was wrong.
Man, when I saw... Look.
When I saw what happened to George Floyd, okay, my heart was broken.
Even though, and even after, that's the body cam footage comes out, showing us what happened, and it changes the context and there's nuance, and even after the riots, my heart is still broken because I value life.
I don't like seeing people get hurt.
I don't care if they're dumb people.
You know what I mean?
I've often said the problem with social media censorship is that you're telling people who are stupid they're not allowed to be here.
Like conspiracy theorists.
Just because you're not smart doesn't mean you don't get to participate.
But I don't care who dies.
I don't like seeing that.
So the same goes for all the Black Lives Matter stuff.
I don't want the violence because it leads to more death.
And following George Floyd, we saw more death.
And when I saw that video of the woman dying in the Capitol, my heart was broken again.
It is nightmarish.
I don't want to see this stuff.
Anywhere.
In other countries or here.
And then when I heard this cop lost his life, that made me even angrier.
Somebody hit him over the head with a fire extinguisher.
Psychopath.
So stupid.
To take, to get into a building, to do what?
To do what?
People have to die for this.
I am upset with police who violate their oath to the Constitution and oppress the working class and the people, because I believe in the people, not the elites and the establishment.
I believe in freedom, peace, and I don't believe violence works, and I think the evidence shows us this based on everything we're seeing.
The backlash to Gravel, they deleted this.
So good, I'm glad they did and I hope they reconsider why it's a bad idea.
Now the last thing I'll say is that I am not an optimistic person after all of this, okay?
Ars Technica reports.
I'm not going to show you the tweet.
They say, Chinese tweet on Uyghurs not against Twitter rules.
Twitter bans the dehumanization of a group of people based on ethnicity.
China tweeted about what's going on with the Uyghur Muslims.
Concentration camps.
Horrifying stories and reports.
Video footage.
And it is one of the greatest tragedies of our generation.
Atrocities that is happening right now.
And it seems like nothing's being done to stop it.
And it freaks me out.
Twitter allows it.
We're not talking about a president, I guess, making a statement or whatever.
We're talking about the praising of concentration camps.
And it's sickening to me.
But I'm gonna tell you my principles.
I am glad China posted this.
I am glad.
Verified account said it.
You know why?
We need to know they're doing this.
If they keep it a secret, or those who would talk about it are silenced, we would never know they were doing it.
Now Twitter says, you can post it.
The banning of certain individuals for their political opinions is wrong.
And this is exactly why.
I am grateful that Twitter would allow this to exist so we can see it and be shocked by it.
To know what they're doing and why, what they're calling these women.
But they shouldn't be doing it to other people.
They shouldn't be doing it to American citizens.
We need to know what people are saying and what they think so we understand who to avoid and who's trying to sneak past our safeguards with crazy ideas.
I got one final tweet for you and it comes from Mike Cernovich.
He posted a poll.
Do you believe that Trump's speech from earlier today was a concession speech?
Around 20-25% said no.
Trump conceded.
It is not humiliating.
It is not weakness.
I think Trump thrashed about violently and he probably should have conceded before this.
He probably should have ensured people didn't storm the Capitol.
Maybe he didn't realize it was going to happen.
He should have condemned it immediately because they obstructed the objection process, which was good for him, for his followers, for, you know, the people who support him and what he believes in.
Mike says, if you're among 25% who voted no, I love you and it's time to move on.
Go home to your families, sign off, unfollow anyone who led you to think this way.
It's all good.
People miss you.
Trump tweeted, to all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.
Trump conceded.
It wasn't him coming out and saying he was a loser or anything.
He says that, you know, there's going to be a new administration and a peaceful transition, and it's the right thing to do.
It's remarkable to me how many people on the left are attacking him and mocking him.
There have been many resignations from the Trump administration.
I think if you are mad at someone, and they do something that is good for you, you should praise it.
It's that simple.
Trump is now saying, no to the violence, no to the criminals, and I'm resigning, and I will give him credit for it.
I will not give credit to the leftists who are escalating things.
If they come out and they say, I agree, it's time for peace and unity and to heal, good.
I praised Joe Biden when he said it.
I'll criticize him for the hypocrisy, but I'll say, listen, he's doing the right thing now, so okay, all right.
I'm not perfect either.
Sometimes I get it wrong, and I'll try to do my best.
The worst thing now, I suppose, is The censorship is going to lead to that escalation.
You're not going to know what people are thinking.
They're going to hold their tongues, but they're going to be waiting, and they're going to be ready, and they're going to be angry.
When their ideas are suppressed, repressed, and the people are oppressed, eventually they will snap back.
And I fear that what we saw the other day is just the beginning.
My prediction now is that Joe Biden has said he's going to enforce new sweeping terror laws for, you know, domestic terror laws.
That's going to result in people becoming the resistance.
That force will create some kind of reaction.
You need to allow people who feel unheard their chance to speak.
And when they aren't allowed, then you get violence.
Unfortunately, the ideologies are so far apart now, it won't happen.
The left is saying, why would we want to talk to these fringe far-right individuals?
And it's like, then if you don't, then the chaos ensues next.
The institutions are controlled by the left.
They'll continue to make these moves and towards censorship, and it will result in those getting censored, getting angrier, feeling like their ideas aren't, like they themselves aren't allowed to exist.
And when their grievances are not addressed, and there is no path for the redress of grievances, then people will get violent.
I guess the saying was, those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
That's what scares me.
Because, in today's day and age, you win through persuasion.
I certainly hope we do not head down this dark path.
And I've said it time and time again.
But I'm sorry if it sounds pessimistic to say, I don't see a reason why people will de-escalate.
I'm seeing media outlets blame Tucker Carlson and try to ban him.
I'm seeing WalkAway and all these other platforms banning people.
It's gonna escalate.
And I'm not saying it because I want it to.
I don't.
I hope it doesn't.
I hope everyone goes home, signs off, goes to their families and friends, finds a hobby.
I'm just not confident.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment will be tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Well, we're going to be having a guest who specializes in social media censorship talking what's about what's going on.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all at 8 p.m.
youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Last night, there were reports that a police officer had died.
We saw an AP reporter come out and say it was not true.
A lot of these articles were deleted, but now we have confirmation that, yes, a police officer has died.
It was in the scuffle during the storming of the Capitol, and apparently, according to two law enforcement officials, someone bashed him over the head with a fire extinguisher.
Why?
Why would someone do that?
And it's the same way, it's the same critique I have of when Antifa goes out and does this.
And it is so easy for many of these Trump supporters to just say, no, this was Antifa.
These were not Trump supporters doing it.
Well, sorry, that's not true.
Trump supporters were trying to stop some people who are smashing windows.
There's a video of it.
It's being underreported, by the way.
And they're yelling, no Antifa.
And a Trump supporter actually puts the guy in a headlock and stops him.
But you cannot deny, many of the people, the overwhelming majority, are easily identifiable as Trump supporters.
That's it.
Now we do know that there is one individual confirmed to be a Black Lives Matter organizer who was arrested for rioting in the past, who did storm the Capitol as well.
Though he then later says, I was just trying to observe, but come on dude.
You stormed the Capitol, you're not a journalist, you were with the crowd, you were with the riots, and many people were asking, where was Antifa in all this?
They were supposed to clash with Trump supporters, this time they didn't.
Well, I'm particularly familiar with the antics of Antifa, and I will tell you this.
I've seen the videos, and the people who are pushing on the police line, they are older, you know, middle-aged men.
They're middle-aged men and slightly older.
That is not the key demographic of Antifa.
You have a lot of really angry people for a lot of really legitimate reasons.
And so you'll get a lot of people going out and expressing their anger and targeting a symbol.
But we are well beyond the era of being able to storm a building and then control a government.
It doesn't make sense.
But I get it.
People were mad.
And I think it was a terrible blunder on the part of everybody.
The police should have been better prepared.
Honestly, I get it.
Nobody thought this would happen, and then it did.
And I do think that there was some antifa there, and I'm going to prove it to you.
I actually got CBS A CBS affiliate showing definitively a Black Lives Matter leftist was part of the group that stormed the Capitol.
But I'm not saying everyone who did it was Antifa or that Antifa started or anything like that.
That's kind of the nuance you need to get that you're not going to get from a lot of these mainstream sources.
They'll say, no evidence Antifa was involved.
Okay, well, Antifa is kind of a catch-all term for a lot of these leftists, but I think the bigger issue here A couple things.
Trump supporters need to be aware of what happens when you're entrenched in mob mentality because a journalist got roughed up pretty bad.
It's not the worst beating I've ever seen, but they were shoving him around and they were hitting him because they thought he was Antifa.
And several journalists outright got attacked and had their camera equipment destroyed and it's on video with Trump supporters smashing it.
It reminds me of Antifa attacking my friend Luke Rutkowski, you know, you might see him on the IRL podcast, when he was in Hamburg, Germany, and they just started yelling, someone accused him of being the other, and then people started randomly attacking him.
That's what we see here, a journalist is filming, someone screams he's Antifa, and then they just start throwing him around, and I guess his cameras get damaged, someone grabs one, but then some Trump supporters are like, stop, what are you doing?
And then they're asking, are you Antifa?
And he's like, here's my press pass.
I'll tell you what really bothers me the most about all this.
These cops that are guarding the Capitol building, these are not the police who are showing up and shutting down small businesses.
Okay, for the most part.
And I'll get specific.
I don't know who outside of Antifa is going to be criticizing police for guarding our government.
That's crazy.
I think we've got a lot of problems with our government.
I think we need dramatic reform.
I think people need to wake up and start thinking for themselves, voting on principle, and being self-sufficient.
I am sick and tired of people saying, I'll vote Republican, I'll vote Democrat.
Not like I'm all that perfect this time around, but I did think that Trump was the better option.
The bigger issue I see is people complain about the likes of their congressperson.
It's because people just go in and vote D or R. See, I didn't do that.
I didn't do that this time.
I won't do that.
I don't like doing that.
To an extent, I could say, you know, I'm not super familiar with the Republicans' down ticket when I voted for them.
And so, by all means, I'll accept criticism.
I'm not perfect.
But I was vaguely familiar with them and some of the things that they had put out.
And I said, predominantly, Knowing the policies of the Democrats, I did think that this one made sense.
So far be it for me to say that, you know, don't vote Republican.
What I'm trying to say is too many people go into their district on voting day and instead of looking up the names of the people and saying, here's why I support them, they just say Republican.
And then you end up getting in, I think it was in New Hampshire, a trans Satanist anarchist ran on the Republican primary for sheriff and actually won.
Because nobody bothered to look up the names.
It's just all party-based.
So, look.
I guess, you know, glass houses throwing stones.
I'm not going to pretend to be perfect.
My criticism, though, is with people who mindlessly vote.
Now, Democrats exploit that.
Now, I get it.
So, there's the big problem we have with the system, okay?
I don't want to go too much on that because we got to talk about the bigger issue here, and that's that Joe Biden is planning to ramp up the security state.
Domestic terror provisions.
Here we go.
Here's the pretext.
The media is already lying.
It's what they do.
They're great.
There's one tweet from some story.
It's from Sullivan at Washington Post.
All of this is possible only because of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.
Oh, yeah.
The guys who are condemning violence all year are the ones who made this happen.
Yet, the likes of Cuomo, who said, you know, who went on TV and said, who said protests have to be peaceful?
No, he's okay.
Not like Trump supporters just didn't know he said it.
No, they were criticizing him for it.
Let me tell you about this cop who died.
In what world did it make sense to bash a cop over the head with a fire extinguisher?
What did you think you were doing?
I tell you, man, if you... There's video going around of the women's march.
And they took over, I think it was the Hart Building, and then the police shut the building down because there were too many people.
But there was, like, I mean, I don't know.
I'll just put it this way.
They have institutional support and there is fear of what the left will do, not so much the right.
There's also larger numbers when the women's march happened.
Now that wasn't the march on the heart building.
So there's definitely a double standard, don't get me wrong.
And the left controls cultural institutions, so they tend to get away with this.
But I'll put it this way.
If you have to use violence, you do not have the support you think you do.
You need 10 million people.
That's it.
Alex Jones came out in a video before the event and he was like, 10 million people are gonna show up and we're gonna peacefully occupy DC.
That didn't happen.
Why?
Because it was about 200 or so thousand, maybe more.
Most estimates I hear from different people, not even partisans, was like half a million, maybe hundreds of thousands of people.
Okay.
Wasn't enough.
I mean, it was enough to basically walk in, but somebody... I guess, you know what, man?
I can't pretend to know exactly how or why, you know, people do what they do.
I can just say, it was insane and wrong for someone to do this.
And so what happens when you have blind rage, innocent people get hurt.
People are criticizing me.
They're like, Tim, you've been railing on the establishment elites and the corporations and the corruption all year!
Excuse me.
And now, you're saying this is all wrong, and I'm like, yeah.
I've always said violence is wrong.
Destroying things is wrong.
Apparently, in trying to break into the Capitol, they smashed through a window and destroyed some, like, American artifact.
Like some bookshelf that contained documents about, you know, famous women in American history.
And they smashed through the window, destroying it, to climb inside.
You know, people were calling it a revolution.
This cop lost his life, and it didn't need to happen.
And I'll tell you, ultimately, why... I can say it a million times, but let's just read it.
Biden says rioters who stormed the Capitol were domestic terrorists.
President-elect says Trump supporters who attacked Legislative Complex were insurrectionists, not protesters.
Domestic terrorists.
You've heard it.
You know what happens when the President makes that declaration?
Y'all been clamoring for Antifa to be labeled domestic terrorists.
Trump wants them to be labeled terrorists.
It'll bar international Antifa from coming in the country.
And here you go.
You give that power to the government and encourage it, and now we see what happens as Biden is set to enter the presidency.
Oh, he's gonna, he's gonna, he's gonna agree.
We'll label the domestic terrorists, and that's you.
I'm not saying, you know, I think Antifa are terrorists.
I do, absolutely.
And it's because they attack innocent people, and they smash windows of private businesses, and they burn down people's livelihoods, and they do it to enforce their political gain.
I think that should be illegal.
I have often questioned, why do we need to label it terrorism when they've already broken the law?
I mean, you can call it that, colloquially, but they're breaking the law, arrest them.
Do we need special laws for this?
I don't think we do, if it's already illegal.
Here's where the fun begins.
The Wall Street Journal reports, Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremism and increasing funding to combat them.
Federal law defines domestic terrorism as dangerous and illegal acts intended to coerce a population or influence the government.
While it can be charged in some states, no generic federal crime exists.
Domestic terrorism spans extremist ideologies, but has been predominantly a far-right phenomenon in recent decades, according to researchers.
And according to Common Sense, this past year and the past couple of years, it has been a far-left phenomenon.
Oh, they're far-right, whatever you want to call far-right.
Ultra-traditionalist, I guess, extremists.
We've seen it.
We've condemned it.
But this year, what have we seen?
A hundred plus days of far-left extremism?
Laying siege, trying to burn down federal property and police stations?
At one point in Portland, they tried to barricade the doors, the exits and the entrance to a police station, and burn it to cook the police officers inside alive.
That is terrorism.
Do we get that from, is the Wall Street Journal going to mention that?
Apparently not.
It's a far-right phenomenon, they say.
So you know where this leads.
Joe Biden will say we're going to fight domestic terrorism.
Now is that going to include Antifa?
You know, to be honest, it might.
It absolutely might.
I wouldn't be surprised if Antifa is now thrown under the bus and Biden goes after them.
Actually, you know, take that back.
I shouldn't say I wouldn't be surprised.
I just think it's a possibility.
I actually might be a little surprised, because my assumption early on is that Biden is going to desperately try to placate the left, and I think that may be the ultimate outcome.
You look at how Black Lives Matter can go around smashing and destroying and get defended by all the cultural institutions, so to see Joe Biden come out actually against them would be surprising, especially when you can see that the Wall Street Journal is saying it's a far-right phenomenon.
We've heard it over and over again.
The right is evil.
It's always evil.
Tradition is wrong.
It's evil.
Look, I'm center-left, right?
I'm just like fairly moderate.
When it comes to economic policy, as much as people don't want it, the left won't admit it, because I'm for liberty and freedom, they'll say that I'm right-wing.
Sure, that makes no sense.
I am not an ultra-traditionalist, and I am not a conservative, or a free-market capitalist, none of those things.
The issue comes down to what is true and correct.
The left lies.
And the right does sometimes, but I'll put it this way.
There's a tendency among mainstream left-wing sources to have a double standard and to lie, and there is a tendency among right-wing sources to critically analyze.
There also is a very large portion of right-wing individuals who believe crazy things.
And there also is a very large portion of left-wing individuals who are thinking critically and analyzing.
But it's a tendency.
The mainstream media is broken beyond recognition.
A complete double standard where they support terror and violence against you, and then for me saying that's wrong, they will call me right-wing.
Simply by pointing out the fact that social media companies are biased against the right, they'll say, I'm right-wing because of it.
It's kind of weird, right?
It's like you're playing a soccer match, and there's a referee.
And then one team starts saying the referee is playing for the other team.
Sure.
I guess.
If you're talking about playing by the rules and the other side isn't, then they're gonna get mad when the referee is saying, y'all are cheating.
And then they'll get mad when the referee is saying, you know what, this team and this coach, they're doing the right thing, and they should be allowed to continue to play.
That's where we're at right now.
Let me show you what's going on with this Antifa guy, because I'll debunk some more of this fake news nonsense.
Utahn inside U.S.
Capitol describes chaotic scene.
Who's this here fella?
John Sullivan is the founder of the civil rights group Insurgents USA, and does not align politically with President Donald Trump, but has been in D.C.
this week for several planned protests, including Wednesday's rally at the Capitol.
He was in D.C.
for the rally at the Capitol.
He doesn't align with Donald Trump, but he was at the Capitol rally intentionally.
And he stormed the building intentionally.
And then he went on, I guess he gave an interview to Slate, who's a left-wing publication, about what was happening.
And of course, he's trying to say that, you know, he was just documenting or whatever.
Come on.
Yeah, that's what happens when you realize, uh-oh, the security apparatus is coming for me next.
I better pretend like I wasn't involved.
The media is trying desperately to claim Antifa had nothing to do with this.
Well, there's no definitive evidence that Antifa did.
So that's what you got to be careful of.
Antifa is used by many people as a catch-all colloquial term for the left-wing faction, like you've got pro-Trump and you've got Antifa.
Well, there's a bunch of factions in between.
There's Boogaloo Boys, there's Libertarians, there's Intellectual Dark Web, there's Far Left, there's Tanky, there's a bunch of different factions.
This guy is a Black Lives Matter organizer.
He is a leftist.
He is a leftist rioter.
So people will refer to him as Antifa.
They will use that semantic debate to say, no, Antifa was involved.
Okay, fine.
Call him whatever you want.
He's a leftist, not a Trump supporter.
They say he's the founder of the civil rights group.
Quote, there was a crowd of about I would say more than 50,000 people just at the Capitol base trying to get in.
Sullivan said at one point he witnessed a protester take a riot shield from an officer and started slamming the shield against the cop.
Took that, threw it down on the steps, and threw the officer down the steps as well.
Sullivan was able to get inside through a broken window.
Interesting.
Protesters weren't really like trying to burn anything down.
They weren't really trying to break anything.
Their main motive was to make it into the chambers.
And he's defending them!
Man, Trump supporters should appreciate this guy.
Not only did he help get in and storm the Capitol, he then provided a witness testimony defending them, saying they're not trying to burn anything down.
They were protesters.
Wow.
Endorsement from a Black Lives Matter activist.
Organizer of Provo protests arrested, accused of rioting and making threats, July 10th, 2020.
Now, I'm not saying this is a bad dude.
I don't know who this guy is.
I don't think he should have stormed the chamber.
And innocent until proven guilty.
Here's the story.
One of the organizers of a protest in Provo that resulted in a motorist being shot was arrested on Thursday.
John Earl Sullivan, 25, of Sandy was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief.
On June 29th, a group calling itself Back 2 Blue planned to drive around the Provo Police Department and honk their horns to show support.
Another group planned a counter-protest at the same time and place.
On Facebook, its event page was originally titled End Police Brutality, but was later changed to Marching for Racial Equality.
The Facebook pages listed the event's hosts as the group's insurgents, Solidarity for Justice, Salt Lake Equal Rights Movement, and the Salt Lake Anti-Fascist Coalition.
Sullivan is a part of the Insurgents USA group, according to a police affidavit, who marched side-by-side with the Salt Lake Anti-Fascist Coalition in Utah at an event where one of these Antifa guys ran up to a car and shot the driver.
This guy, part of Insurgents USA, showed up in the Capitol and stormed the Capitol building as well.
So I tell you, I think what we're looking at more likely, in my opinion, the Boogaloo Boys are not outright Trump supporters.
Some may be, but for the most part, they're anti-government, ANCAP types, and then ANTIFA are typically ANCOMs, right?
So you've got anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists.
Where are the anarcho-centrists at, baby?
Cooperative with a little bit of the free market with some cooperation, and I guess it doesn't really make sense because regulation would still be some kind of, I don't know.
I guess that mix is just not something that typically appears.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I did make fun of, well, I won't say it, but I was joking, calling someone an anarcho-centrist.
Hilarious.
But you have the...
The libertarian left and the libertarian right, and they tend to agree.
Now, Antifa claim to be anarchists.
They are not.
Boogaloo Boys, I don't know to what extent they claim to be anarchists at all.
Anti-government is a bit different.
They may be more libertarian.
But if you were a true anarchist, an means without, archi means authority.
Anarchy.
The root is without authority.
So typically, true anarchists have two methods by which they organize.
Free market, free trade, or cooperation.
Anarcho-communists, syndicalists, or left anarchists will sit in a little hippie circle with their drums and they'll wiggle their fingers in the air to come to a decision.
It's extremely ineffective and almost impossible to scale.
I've seen it, and that's still how, for the most part, I actually, you know, I always put it this way, I lean left libertarian, and that's why I'm not an anarchist, because there's got to be some structure, some authority, some not meaning a lot.
Anarcho-capitalists function much better in that it's free trade.
The easiest way to come to a decision is the trade of resources and goods.
The only problem is that brings about oligarchy, so there's got to be some kind of, you know, middle ground, I guess.
But anyway, I digress.
The point is, when you get groups that share an anti-government sentiment, or an anti-establishment sentiment, then don't be surprised when they show up at the same place at the same time.
I would not be surprised if the only reason Trump supporters were able to get in is because Antifa took the front line.
I have no evidence to say that's true, and I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying there were leftists there.
Trump supporters, in my experience, don't do this.
But, There's video, and you can see Trump supporters with pepper spray.
We've got the videos from the past several weeks of them stomping on the thin blue line flag, so... Look, man.
It's just this simple.
Trump supporters have been marginalized, beaten down, spat on, and are angry.
They feel like they have no voice.
Mike Pence announced he would not be supporting the president, and that's apparently when things snapped off and people just got angry and tried storming the Capitol.
I am shocked by those who would, well not really, who would claim that this was a revolution.
That I find hilarious.
A revolution?
Seriously?
You think a bunch of people just going into a building?
No leader, no organization, no plan.
Oh come on.
No one knew exactly what they were doing at all.
And it was destructive.
And it has given Joe Biden pretext to enter a new administration with an iron fist.
And he will.
And the Democrats will pass what he wants, and no one will oppose it.
In fact, Republicans will probably vote for it, too.
Congratulations.
It doesn't matter now that it's a Democratic majority, when Joe Biden plans to start passing security laws, they're gonna start banning everybody.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get Section 230 reform.
Oh, that's right.
You know, Trump was fighting so hard for it.
The only problem is now the reform's probably going to be more dramatic.
The new Section 230 reform is going to say private platforms have the explicit right to remove anyone for any reason.
Period.
It basically says it already.
But they'll ramp it up, and they'll probably just, you know, the national security laws will actually probably require them to do it.
Anyone who, you know, incites or instigates, and then how do you define that?
They'll say something like, what they've been saying, CNN's been saying, it's stochastic terrorism.
Meaning, if you said, hey everybody, I want you to show up in D.C.
to protest, they can accuse you of inciting violence, because you knew that if they showed up, they would get violent.
That's what they're saying about Trump right now.
This is the direction we're going.
Donald Trump said, be in D.C.
for the 6th.
It'll be wild.
Don't forget to show up.
I think he tweeted about it a couple times.
Did he say get violent?
No.
Not at all.
They said that was stochastic terrorism.
That Trump knew by getting all of these people angry, claiming there was fraud, and then telling them to show up, he knew what would happen.
You can't organize a protest anymore without being accused of committing a crime or being a terrorist?
I'm not saying they're going to actually do it, but that's what they're talking about now.
It's what they've been bringing up over the past several years.
Trump is engaging in stochastic terrorism.
And then how many people have died as a result of Trump supporters explicitly?
You've had, just the other day, five people die, and now one cop who was defending the Capitol has lost his life.
A woman was shot in the neck and killed, and three other people died.
Apparently one guy died because he accidentally tasered himself, which gave him a heart attack.
Yikes, man.
Maybe he tasered his chest or something and got stuck.
I don't know.
But people died in this, you know.
And that's on those who came to the Capitol and the Trump supporters who encouraged it.
And there are Trump supporters who have announced it and called it out and said it was stupid.
But there are a lot of people cheering.
And I think that's crazy because this has just given Joe Biden pretext for insane national security laws.
And I'll tell you what I think happens next.
I didn't think it was going to be under Biden, to be honest.
But what I've been saying is that if Antifa keeps this up, it will give an excuse to the American people to say, save us.
Donald Trump could then enact some kind of martial law or extreme security provision.
Here we go.
I mean, it should have been obvious, I guess, but I'm not psychic.
In fact, the media was screaming the dangers of the far right for four years over and over again, giving pretexts so that they can justify Joe Biden's lockdown, his extremist security bills, whatever he plans to do next.
And there we go, ignoring the fact that leftists were involved as well.
Perhaps this iron fist will slam down on leftists as well, but I'm not entirely convinced.
They've been an excellent cudgel to help them get what they want.
By engaging in the violence, the media then defends anti-fund Black Lives Matter, and then when Trump supporters react in anger because of the double standard, the media then points the finger and says, it's Trump's fault.
Then Trump loses the election, and there it is.
They've been saying now, how do we cleanse the country of Trump-ism?
I'm not kidding, they said cleanse.
That's creepy.
They're now going to try and dramatically escalate things.
They're already pointing their fingers at Parler.
They don't want it to exist.
And I won't be surprised if it gets shut down.
I would not be surprised if it gets shut down.
There are people on Parler that are encouraging or advocating or saying it was good, what happened in the capital.
So next, what you can probably see is domain name service, domain name servers, companies, just Google maybe, like we saw with Gab.
I wonder how long I'll last in that world, huh?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
at allowing, you know, criminal, aiding terror or some nonsense, and then there we go.
And then it'll only be Twitter, and I think big tech, I think that the elites are realizing
the, the rabble should not have been allowed to talk to each other.
I wonder how long I'll last in that world, huh? I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel. Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The mob at the Capitol may have put national security secrets at risk.
Yeah.
There's rumors that some hard drives were stolen.
We don't know for sure.
But BuzzFeed News is saying at least one laptop believed to contain sensitive information was among the items stolen from Congress.
In a deleted tweet, journalist Elijah Schaefer posted a photo of Nancy Pelosi's, I believe it's Pelosi's, email.
There was an email she received from a reporter asking her or requesting a comment on a specific issue.
Now the tweet was deleted probably because I think Elijah realized he was trying to show what was going on and he showed actual private information and private information.
But I think the tweet actually does confirm something very important.
There was a lot of sensitive information, be it national securities and private information pertaining to members of Congress, the House, and the Senate.
That was easily accessible by the group that stormed the Capitol.
With this laptop being stolen, I wonder what they may have gotten away with.
And this is really bad, man.
You know, I said the other day, there's that saying, oh, somebody mocked me for it, quoting Iron Man 2, when Ivan Vanko said, if you make God bleed, then the sharks will come, because there will be blood in the water, something to that effect.
It's like the worst time for us right now, especially with China's encroachment on Hong Kong and their beaching drills towards China.
And I've been very critical of Joe Biden's probable handling Or his past handling of China.
We had China Uncensored on the IRL podcast.
And they were saying that he's bringing in people that have praised China.
So now there's serious concerns that China may try and take Taiwan.
This could spark World War III.
You know, maybe a little hyperbolic.
Everyone's always saying something's gonna spark World War III, I guess.
But it could create serious regional instability at the very least.
And we're worried about whether or not China will be emboldened to do so.
The U.S.
Capitol building was just overrun.
Now here's the interesting thing.
How did this happen is a question many people are asking.
How was it the police were ill-prepared to handle Trump supporters?
Turns out, it was the D.C.
mayor who requested a narrow, unarmed, I believe, unarmed mission.
So a lot of cops just didn't have anything with them, and thus it was extremely easy for the permitter to be breached.
Some have suggested that the D.C.
mayor was ordering police to chill out because of the events of the Black Lives Matter rallies and riots.
I've not seen any direct evidence of that.
We might have something in the story.
My general understanding is that Muriel Bowser, the mayor of D.C., refused to defund the police, but she did have that mural painted, you know, for Black Lives Matter.
So a lot of people were... And then defund the police, I think, was added at one point, but then removed.
So I'm not sure she's ever been adamantly supporting defund the police.
In fact, there was one point in October where she was asking for $43 million in overtime payments for the police.
But, because we saw this very weak response, there are a lot of people who think that, you know, they ask the question, why is it that during the Black Lives Matter riots, there was this massive police presence, and how come now there were none?
This is the perfect example of the problem of the woke ideology.
They assume skin color, or political ideology.
That's wrong.
It's likely due to, you go out and protest, you say police are bad, you say defund the police, you say don't have the police come and clear out protests, don't be surprised when there's going to be a protest, and the police say, okay, we're drawing down our ranks, we're, you know, disarming.
They've been calling for this.
It was a viral tweet, it was funny.
I can't remember who it was from, but they said, you know, this shows us that, you know, what we should have done, what we should do now is fire all of the Capitol Police and replace them with social workers.
That's what they want, right?
Look, I understand people got issues with cops, and I understand why, and I understand that anger from Black Lives Matter people died, you know?
I'm not gonna pretend like it's as bad as they claim it is.
Their numbers are way off.
Even using Washington Post's numbers from Black Lives Matter activists, it was like 13 unarmed black men were killed in 2019.
But still bad, right?
So I gotta understand that anger for someone dying.
You gotta understand the very serious difference between a cop saying, like, I'm gonna go march, you know, patrol down the street, a beat cop issue tickets and fines that are kind of annoying, and then a cop, you know, the rare instance where a cop kills somebody.
It is relatively rare in these circumstances, you know, in these, you know, unarmed individuals who get killed.
It's extremely rare.
Thirteen people.
So, you have to understand, those cops are very different from cops guarding a building.
But I don't think they differentiate.
I don't think the left understands.
And so, when you say defund the police, replace them with social workers, have you ever stopped to think about what happens when there's a terror attack or, you know, armed robbers with armor-piercing bullets?
Or pro-Trump riots?
I love it.
They're mad at the cops because they want to riot.
They riot, and then the cops leave, and now they're like, oh no, how could this have happened?
Well, y'all were calling for defunding the police the whole time.
Alright, but let's read about the national security secrets being put at risk, and then I'll show you what's up with these police.
BuzzFeed says, when insurrectionists occupied the U.S.
Capitol on Wednesday, they did not alter the outcome of the election, but they did ransack the offices of lawmakers, rifle through computer files and emails, and steal personal electronics and documents.
Those actions could pose serious harm to the United States.
A full accounting has yet to be completed, but U.S.
Attorney Michael Sherwin said during a news briefing Thursday that materials were stolen.
We had to identify what was done, mitigate that, and it could have potential national security equities, Sherwin said, adding that a large amount of pilfering at the Capitol had occurred.
On Thursday evening, CBS News reported that a laptop possibly containing sensitive national security information was among the objects stolen.
Look, I'm in favor of government transparency, but you have to recognize absolutism isn't going to help anybody.
It's great when crimes are leaked.
There's whistleblowers who reveal, you know, say the NSA mass spying and these people were lying to Congress and all that stuff.
It's another thing when there's a general laptop that's probably got security protocol and general information on it.
This is why the WikiLeaks thing was such a huge scandal.
Happened recently.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, more importantly, was accused of basically putting out a bunch of information, and I know there's a bunch of times this has happened, but in one instance they were accused, I think it was potentially the Iraq war logs or the Afghan war logs, they were accused of putting out this information that could have gotten people hurt.
In reality, Wikileaks was actually redacting information and was seeking assistance from the State Department to make sure no one got hurt.
It's a big deal.
You see, even when it comes to Wikileaks, getting information and putting it out, they were making sure that they redacted names because they didn't want people hurt.
Apparently someone stole the information, published the keys, and then Julian Assange tried warning the State Department this was happening.
When a laptop is stolen in this manner, The people who took it, I don't think, are going to truly understand the security implications of taking a device like this and if it falls into the wrong hands.
It could be as something as simple as the schedule for, you know, Secret Service or some police.
It might not be anything crazy like confidential top-secret or military information, but enough to allow lunatics or foreign adversaries to infiltrate.
It could actually have, I mean, look, I'll tell you this.
The laptop?
Probably has all of their keys stored on it.
And it does not take very much skill for a hacker to break in and get access to what those keys are.
And that could be bank accounts, emails, phone numbers, all of this information that they're now going to have access to.
That's going to be a very... I do not envy the national security teams who are going to have to figure out what was compromised.
And then every single person at the Capitol is going to be given new instructions about how you got to reset your passwords and all this other crazy stuff.
They're going to say the chaotic nature of the mob and the short amount of time it was in control of the Capitol means it was unlikely that any foreign spies penetrated the halls of Congress.
A former high-ranking FBI official who worked in the cyber unit told BuzzFeed News it was possible, though unlikely, that spies had used the riot as an opportunity to infiltrate Congress.
saying, quote, A lot of planning goes into an installation of a bug,
even though it may only take seconds to install.
I think it's unlikely, just based on my opinion, the breach wasn't premeditated to the point where someone
could have done proper advanced planning for install, but something crude could have been left behind.
This is so dumb.
I am not concerned about whether a foreign spy went in and planted a bug,
because you can do bug sweeps.
They can do a security check.
They can screen the room.
You want to know what's more concerning?
If individuals who broke in were foreign spies and stole a laptop!
That's simple.
Let's be real.
The Capitol building is not the Pentagon, right?
So the amount of things that are going to be there are not going to be like nuclear launch codes or anything.
So I'm not worried about that.
I don't think most people are.
But there is a serious issue with Once they get access, like with any computer system, it makes it easier to get access the next time, and possibly get access to more secure facilities.
They're now going to have a bunch of information that can help anyone, particularly a social engineer, navigate Capitol buildings, Congress, etc.
I'll explain this to you.
Social engineering is the It's the aspect of hacking that relates to people, confidence building, and manipulation of the people.
So typically, most hacks you hear of, when it's like, oh, this computer was hacked, wasn't computer code.
It's usually social engineering, a manipulation of an individual into giving up private information.
It's really easy to do.
One of the simplest ways it can be done is by feigning rapport.
Actually, a really good example is Groundhog Day.
You ever see that movie with Bill Murray?
Of course you did, it's a classic.
And Bill Murray goes up to... So, the movie is about... I can't believe I'm describing what Groundhog Day is about, but I'm sure you know.
A guy who keeps waking up and it's Groundhog Day over and over and over again.
So, on one of the days, he walks up to a woman.
He says, what's your name?
Where'd you go to high school?
What was your science teacher's name?
Thank you, bye.
And she's all confused, like, huh?
The next day, when the day loops back around, he goes, Hey, it's you.
I went to school with you.
We're the same teacher, right?
The woman then immediately trusts him.
Oh, wow.
Someone I knew from high school.
I can't remember who it is.
That's social engineering.
I mean, the movie's a bit silly, but that's social engineering.
So what you get now is, check this out.
Some foreign adversary gets this laptop.
They open it up, and they see an email.
You know, it's an email to Nancy Pelosi.
And it says, you know, uh, hey, this is John.
I'm gonna be coming with Bill tomorrow for the meeting.
Hope all is well.
Hope Sally and, you know, Derek are having a good time with their new dog, Muffins.
That information is key.
Because what happens next is some guy shows up and says, Hey, it's Bill.
I was supposed to come with John.
I'm a little bit early.
Oh, that's right.
The email from Bill.
That's right.
Yeah.
You know, we were talking about muffins, the dog, and they go, Oh, of course.
That kind of information allows you trust and access.
Then the person could get in and do whatever.
More importantly, they could send an email spoofing it, pretending to be someone, now that they have access to all this information, saying something to manipulate someone into doing something, opening a door, giving them access to a computer modem, or whatever.
It's a serious security breach.
And, look, outside of the fact that they took a laptop, it's beyond a cyber security breach.
It was a physical security breach.
Check this out.
This is what we have from The Guardian, some of the latest breaking news.
Police chief and two security officials resign over capital assault.
So we have Steve Sund and the House and Senate sergeant at arms quit after criticism of bungled policing efforts.
They say the head of the U.S.
Capitol Police and two other senior security officials are resigning amid mounting criticism of the bungled police response to the assault on Capitol Hill by a violent mob of Trump supporters.
Stevenson's resignation will be effective from January 16th and follows calls by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior figures for heads to roll.
There was a failure of leadership at the top.
No, Nancy Pelosi, no, you are wrong.
My friends, we now have confirmation from the Washington Post, if you choose to trust them, because I don't, I usually don't, that this, but look, you know what, I say this, if Washington Post is going to criticize the left, well, I can only assume that's true, right?
Because they usually defend the left.
Here it is.
Pentagon placed limits on D.C.
Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests due to narrow mission.
They say the Pentagon placed tight limits on the D.C.
National Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests this week, trying to ensure the use of military force remained constrained as the Guard carried out a narrow, unarmed mission requested by the city's mayor to help handle traffic ahead of planned protests.
In memos issued Monday and Tuesday in response to a request from the D.C.
mayor, the Pentagon prohibited the district's guardsmen from receiving ammunition or riot gear, interacting with protesters unless necessary for self-defense, sharing equipment with local law enforcement, or using guard surveillance and air assets without the defense secretary's explicit sign-off, according to officials familiar with the order.
The limits were established because the Guard hadn't been asked to assist with crowd or riot control.
The DC Guard was also told it would be allowed to deploy a quick reaction force only as a measure of last resort.
Then the mission abruptly changed, and the Pentagon is now facing criticism from governors and local officials who say it moved too slowly to send National Guard troops to respond, a charge its leaders denied Thursday.
The Capitol Police, the law enforcement force that reports to Congress and protects the House and Senate, hadn't requested help from the Guard ahead of Wednesday's events.
But early Wednesday afternoon, its chief made an urgent plea for backup from 200 troops during a call with top Pentagon and city officials, according to officials familiar with the call.
On the call, Capitol Police Chief Stephen A. Sund, the guy who now resigned, was asked whether he wanted help from the National Guard.
There was a pause.
One of the D.C.
officials said, and Sund said, yes.
Then there was another pause, and an official from the Office of the Secretary of the Army said that wasn't going to be possible.
The Army official, who was speaking on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, who was de facto commanding the D.C.
Guard but was not on the call, said the optics of soldiers inside the Capitol building was not something they wanted, the two district officials said.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser confirmed that account in an interview with the Washington Post saying, Capital Police made it perfectly clear that they needed extraordinary help including the National Guard.
There was some concern from the Army of what it would look like to have armed military personnel on the grounds of the Capitol.
One concern was whether the Army had been invited by Congress.
A U.S.
defense official said the Army General on the call didn't formally deny the request, but rather reinforced the negative optics of having uniformed personnel inside the Capitol, a point on which Bowser had agreed, and later checked with the chain of command.
The defense official said Bowser agreed that if further support was necessary, D.C.
police would provide it inside the Capitol, and the Guard would backfill D.C.
police positions away from the building.
The defense officials said the military wanted to be the force of last resort, and the military officials had urged Bowser to request more support from federal law enforcement, but that she didn't do so until Wednesday.
Muriel Bowser requested limited and narrow, unarmed enforcement, and that she waited until the last minute.
Why?
I don't know.
Could it be that she painted a big ol' Black Lives Matter mural?
She's resisted the defund the police thing and said no way.
And she's asked for more money for cops.
I'm sure the conspiracy theorists are already coming out saying they think she let this happen to smear Trump supporters.
My friends, that would only be possible if Trump was a bumbling buffoon who slipped on a banana peel and fell down.
And it appears to be that Trump walked into a trap.
Not so much that I believe is a grand conspiracy.
I think it's likely that Muriel Bowser was seriously concerned about the events that happened in this year.
And so she said, the last thing we want is escalation.
No, seriously, I think she probably realized we've got a tense situation.
We don't need an excuse for Trump supporters to actually react negatively by seeing walls of riot cops and, you know, don't give them a reason to do it.
Mike Pence made the ridiculous mistake of issuing a letter saying that he wasn't going to support the president.
He didn't need to do that.
That's weird.
I think what ended up happening was a failure across the board, an inability of these individuals to understand what's going on and why it's happening, And they're all acting in self-interest.
To put it simply, Muriel Bowser said, I got roasted for what happened with the police last time.
I'm not dealing with that now.
Mike Pence says, I am getting roasted.
So I'm going to put out a statement saying I won't support the president.
It is inflaming tensions.
Now we're seeing across the media landscape and the political landscape, AOC's like, Ted Cruz, you're a traitor and sedition and all this other nonsense.
A top trend saying, Ted Cruz killed a cop or whatever.
Insane and ridiculous.
But nobody wants to just say, we are all in this.
You'll hear it from me all the time.
I fully understand.
I just ragged on AOC right now.
And I understand that calling them out for perceived wrongdoing is contributing.
And there's no way around it.
But it's really simple.
We just all need to condemn the violence.
That's what we need to do.
AOC should have been condemning outright all of the Black Lives Matter violence, the same as conservatives did.
And now we are seeing it's conservatives, many, not all, who are actually condemning this as well.
But what do we still get?
The Washington Post puts out a story.
Where they say that without Tucker or Hannity, you know, this wouldn't be happening.
Why?
They condemned the violent riots.
They said they were wrong.
Greg Gutfeld went on a rant about the manipulation, the lies, and the deception, but said these people who storm the Capitol make us look like the barbarians.
The Fox News pundits have been against this the whole time.
So it's broken.
The system is breaking.
The left will not back down.
The right has no problem criticizing their own, and self-reflecting sometimes, not every single right-winger, but the left will latch on to any, any person on the right who believes stupid things and says dumb things, to use that as a blanket sweep of all Trump supporters.
Now, many Trump supporters will do the same to the left.
So, you know, I look at AOC, who won't stop, who won't back down.
Ted Cruz, he came out with a statement saying we need to put down the anger.
AOC's reaction is Hawley and Cruz should resign or be expelled.
Simon & Schuster, the book publisher, cancelled Josh Hawley's book.
Because he was following the constitutional process.
I love it.
The left does not care, in my opinion, or they just don't know.
Do you know why I have been saying the whole time that we need to have a hearing on the evidence?
Because Trump supporters feel like their voice has been silenced and the courts won't listen.
Josh Hawley said, OK, let's get the evidence to the floor and have people hear it.
The likely outcome was going to be Joe Biden certification.
We all knew it, but they didn't let it happen.
Mike Pence, in my opinion, cowardly and desperate to prevent people coming after him, issued a letter saying, I will not be supporting the president.
Or more importantly, I don't have the power to support the President, so I'll just follow the Constitution.
And that's fine.
But you have to understand, optics do matter.
When they say they wouldn't send in the Army into the Capitol because of what it might look like, that's not a bad reason, to be honest.
We need federal law enforcement in the Capitol.
Posse comitatus.
The army's not supposed to be going in.
The National Guard should have been better equipped, but I don't think Muriel Bowser wanted to accept responsibility for what might happen.
And now she won't.
It's the police who have resigned when they were the ones who were told what to do.
Isn't it amazing how that works?
It's a cop who got killed.
It's a woman, Ashley Babbitt, who got killed by Capitol Police.
It's a failure across the board, and this is what we're suffering through right now in this country.
It is all entirely and completely self-interest from every single person.
Okay, not every single person.
There's a handful of people who care about others, who are fighting the good fight, but for the most part, it's, what do I have to say to hold onto my assets and keep my net clear from, you know, from what's going on?
That's what you'll get.
You'll get the mayor being like, I'm not going to be the one to call this in.
Could you imagine what would happen if she's thinking to herself, I call in these riot cops and then they start clashing with Trump supporters.
Not going to happen.
Not going to be my fault.
Then the Trump supporters break through the door, get in the building.
It hurts everyone.
It helps no one.
People lose their lives.
And then Muriel Bowser can pass the buck off to the police.
They don't look at me.
Well, here we are looking at you because it was you who made the call.
You know what, man?
The only thing I can end off this segment with is by saying, escalation is happening.
Because nobody wants to be the one to say, let's all recognize our own faults in this.
AOC demands Ted Cruz self-reflect.
The dude literally said, let's all simmer down and put aside the anger, and you come out with finger-pointing and accusations.
I'm not seeing, for the most part, Democrats wanting to reconcile.
The truth is, I don't see a whole lot of Republicans either, but there are some.
And that's the point.
When you look at who voted for the omnibus, even though almost everyone hated it, it was 56 Republicans, and I think it was 2 Democrats.
Maybe.
Maybe it was 6 Democrats.
I don't know.
The point is, AOC complains about it falls in line.
Ted Cruz complains about it and says no to the omnibus.
The Democrats just play the game.
Some Republicans stand up on principle, but most Republicans play the game too.
And that's going to lead to escalation.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com forward slash timcast.
