Democrat Says National Guard Is Suspect For Being White Men, DC REMOVES Guards Fearing Inside Attack
Democrat Says National Guard Is Suspect For Being White Men, DC REMOVES Guards Fearing Inside Attack. The men were said to be connected to fringe right groups but the groups were not identified.A Democratic rep said that based on their identities they were more likely to be in the demo that put Biden and Kamala Harris at risk and thus needed to be vetted. The National Guard was singled out over race and gender resulting in two guards being removed.The fear is that Trump loyalist members would stage some kind of inside attack on the inauguration.Regardless of the veracity of the claims and fears the fact that the rhetoric has reached this level, with even CNN saying we can't trust our military shows we really are in uncharted territory
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
is currently under some kind of military occupation.
And that's not hyperbole.
There's checkpoints basically everywhere.
You have to show your papers to prove you're justified in conducting legitimate business in the area.
And there are around 25 to now 30,000 National Guard.
Many of them are holding rifles that are not loaded.
For seemingly unknown reasons, I suppose journalist Michael Tracey asked some National Guardsmen and they said they're just doing what they're told.
No one really has any idea why DC is facing such a strict lockdown.
I know that many will say we just had the riots at the Capitol and there's concerns over maybe some mass unrest, but does it really warrant this massive of a presence?
Something strange is going on.
And it may turn out to be nothing.
There may just be an inauguration tomorrow and we carry on with our lives.
There's probably going to be political tensions escalating in the near future.
Or something entirely different is happening.
Maybe it's a show of force.
Maybe they're trying to say, if you mess with us, this is what we will do.
I honestly have no idea.
But I can tell you, there is fear among Democrats.
One Democratic rep said, because these are mostly straight white men, well I think he said white men, and they're military so they tend to be conservative, they are suspect and must be vetted.
Here's the breaking news.
In the vetting process, they found two Army National Guard members tied to right-wing groups who have now been removed from the mission to secure the Biden inauguration.
Maybe it's the right thing, maybe it's the wrong thing, maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place, but why is a Democratic rep coming out and saying the risk is because they are white men, and we know that white men really didn't vote for Biden, therefore they are suspect?
That's the name of the game, huh?
Things are getting weird, to say the least.
I mean, D.C.
is under this military occupation, and now we have this strange article from Vice that says Parler GPS shows people posting from military bases.
What is happening when you have Democrats coming out telling us not to trust the National Guard?
When they're saying it's a problem that someone was using Parler from a military base, so what?
Or when Cuomo goes on CNN and says that we can't trust our own army.
That is insane.
I know a lot of people wanted to claim that nothing like this was going to happen.
And they would tell me all the time that I was being hyperbolic for just bringing up the possibility of some kind of conflict.
But you tell me this.
What do you call it when there is a fear among Democrats that members of our armed forces will attack the incoming presidential inauguration?
And thus, several members had to be removed and all have to be vetted.
Loyalty tests to make sure they're not suspect.
This is crazy stuff.
Tensions are getting way too high.
And there's real concerns that members of our own National Guard would turn on our presidential inauguration.
Well, my friends, there were active duty armed service personnel arrested following the riots at the Capitol building.
One, I believe, was a National Guardsman.
Trying times.
And I can't tell you what we'll see tomorrow, but the conspiracy theories once again are a-flying.
Let's take a look at what happened with these National Guardsmen and why, and what this Democrat is saying, why he's pointing out that it's, you know, about being white men, but also point out the National Guard is being deployed, and I believe 30 cities, maybe even states, over fears of some kind of action to take place on Inauguration Day.
I hope tomorrow goes off... You know, look, I talk about how life is boring.
I hope it stays that way.
We want a little bit of adventure.
We want a little bit of conflict.
But for the most part, we want to just get by and have everything stay calm.
No violence.
So I hope tomorrow goes off without a hitch.
Let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you would like to become a member and support my work.
We are trying very hard.
To get as many people as possible to become members because the real risk of censorship is here.
I mean, look.
We're at the point now where the Democrats are targeting military personnel.
They're targeting Parler.
They got Parler pulled.
My Facebook is already under restrictions.
It's effectively shut down.
I can post, but it's pointless.
It's only a matter of time.
That's why we must build up a core membership base.
And it's something I should have done a long time ago.
We had a couple members-only posts that are up right now.
We just launched about a week ago.
We got some silly stuff with Richie McGinnis, who was defamed by the New York Times.
We got Ian Crosland talking to our previous guest about About certain issues I'll leave out of this channel.
You can check it out at TimCast.com, but please do it.
Become a member.
Let's get back to the news.
Before we do, though, smash the like button, subscribe, notification bell.
Here's the story.
Military Times reports two Army National Guard members are being removed from the mission to secure Joe Biden's presidential inauguration.
A U.S.
Army official and a senior U.S.
intelligence official say the two National Guard members have been found to have ties to fringe right group militias.
No plot against Biden was found.
The army official and the intelligence official spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity due to the Defense Department media regulations.
They did not say what fringe group the guard members belonged to or what unit they served in.
Contacted by the AP on Tuesday, the National Guard Bureau referred questions to the U.S.
Secret Service and said, due to operational security, we do not discuss the process nor the outcome of the vetting process for military members supporting the inauguration.
The Secret Service told the AP on Monday it would not comment on if any National Guard members had been pulled from securing the inauguration for operational security reasons.
Such a move is not without precedent.
They say over the summer, an Ohio National Guard member was removed from the mission in Washington, D.C.
after the FBI uncovered information indicating they expressed white supremacist ideology on the internet prior to the assignment.
The individual was a soldier from the Ohio Guard's Company C 1st Battalion, 148th Infantry Regiment, based in the northwest part of the state.
The soldier was a private first class who had been a member since May 2018, said Ohio Guard spokeswoman Stephanie Bower in a statement.
Threats external and internal.
Sunday night, the AP reported the U.S.
defense officials say they are worried about an insider attack or other threat from service members involved in securing President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration, prompting the FBI to vet all of the 25,000 National Guard troops coming into Washington for the event.
And while the military routinely reviews service members for extremist connections, the FBI screening is in addition to any previous monitoring.
National Guard troops are filling the Capitol, as well as many around the nation, because of threats by right-wing extremist groups still loyal to President Donald Trump in the wake of the deadly January 6 Capitol siege and ahead of the planned Biden inauguration.
But let me stop you right there.
The Boogaloo boys who came out at many of the state capitals don't like Donald Trump, criticize the Proud Boys as bootlicking statist cucks.
I don't think those that are actually coming out for protest, these anti-government types, I don't think that they're actually pro-Trump.
There are a lot of people who are pro-Trump, but I've not seen anything to suggest they're actually going to go out.
In fact, if you actually look at the Donald Trump forums, they're telling people to stay home.
That's the core message.
They say, with one Virginia National Guard soldier and many veterans among the scores of arrested in the wake of the Capitol siege that saw five people die, including Brian Sicknick, an Air Force veteran and Capitol Police officer, the military was taking no chances with who was coming to protect the inauguration.
Quote, all incoming National Guard members supporting the DCNG, local and federal authorities, go through a credentialing process.
Said Air Force Major Matt Murphy, a National Guard Bureau spokesman.
Murphy would not elaborate on what kind of screening, but said the information is shared with the requesting federal agencies and added to their database.
We cannot speak for those agencies and how they use information.
On Saturday, Defense One reported that all Guard troops coming to D.C.
go through a screening that is about the same as the standard background check that Guardsmen go through when they initially enlist.
The Commanding General of the D.C.
National Guard told Defense One in an interview on Saturday, it is intended as another layer of security on top of continuous monitoring of the force, he said.
Now, we saw this story from the AP, that the FB was going to be vetting all of these troops over a fear of an insider attack.
And let me stress that for you.
They're actually scared, though they have no actionable intelligence, that active-duty National Guardsmen would, what, turn on their fellow Guardsmen?
I think that's absurd.
The real issue is whether or not, in my opinion, a commanding officer tells these people to do something.
Some people have messaged me saying, Tim, you don't understand how, you know, the Guard works, you don't understand how the Army works.
I've had a lot of people tell me in superchats on the IRL podcast saying things like, you know, if I was given unlawful orders, I would disobey them.
Some people have told me they have.
Here's my question for you.
If you were ordered to stand guard on a street corner with an unloaded rifle, would you do it?
The answer is, yes, of course they would.
Here's a tweet from Michael Tracy.
He says, Ask the guardsmen why they are standing around with unloaded rifles.
Quote, I don't know.
I'm just doing what I'm told.
Now, I can't expect all of these guardsmen to know exactly what's going on and why.
But I think this shows exactly what I've said in the past.
If they were really given an unlawful order, but they weren't given the context around that order and it sounded lawful, they would do it.
It's that simple.
Now, there's probably challenges in, you know, trying to tell them to shoot at somebody, for sure.
Their rifles are unloaded.
They're standing around, they're standing guard.
Why?
What's happening tomorrow?
The inauguration.
Does it really warrant 25,000 or more, like, technically armed National Guardsmen?
I don't know.
Maybe there's some intelligence we don't have access to and the government's really scared.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps they just will do what they're told.
The issue I often bring up is that, for all we know, this is the military coup.
It would look exactly like this.
And these guardsmen are standing around D.C.
shutting down the federal jurisdiction.
It's the federal jurisdiction.
And they don't know why they're doing it.
I'm sure some do know why.
And I'm sure some are satisfied with the answer they've been given.
To guard the inauguration.
These guys don't know what they're doing.
They're just doing what they're told and that's typical.
But what if the orders coming are nefarious or malicious?
They wouldn't know.
And that's a real challenge, because should they?
I mean, there are certain circumstances where you don't need to know more if there's nothing else to know.
Hey, there's some threats we're concerned about, we don't know what's going to happen, but just stand guard here and vet people to make sure only approved people who live and work here are coming in.
That's a good enough reason for most people.
But what if the real reason was that they're trying to lock down and stop the inauguration from happening and basically take D.C.
for Donald Trump?
I'm not saying that's going to happen.
I don't think so.
I think tomorrow will go off without a hitch, and I hope so, certainly.
But they wouldn't know.
If Donald Trump put in a secret order and the Pentagon said, stand here and don't let anyone through, anyone, and that helped Trump, these guys would not know.
That's the big issue.
But I'm not saying it's their fault or anything.
I don't know exactly what you do and how you deal with a situation like this.
I can only point out the absurdity of having 25,000 guards in D.C.
Now I'll tell you what really freaks me out.
This story from Yahoo News.
Democratic rep says pro-Trump guardsmen are suspect, should be vetted as potential threat.
Yahoo News reports, Representative Steve Cohen suggested on Monday that Trump-supporting
National Guardsmen should be vetted as potential security threats.
Thousands of National Guard troops are currently stationed in D.C.
We know this.
The FBI is concerned about an insider attack, they say.
Cohen said that Trump-supporting Guardsmen should be screened to prevent potential assassination
attempts, comparing the threat to the assassinations of Egyptian Prime Minister Anwar Sadat and
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who were killed by members of their nation's armies.
Tom Elliott tweets, Rep.
Cohen, on his concerns with the National Guard securing the inauguration.
The National Guard is 90-some-odd percent male, and only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden.
There are probably not more than 25% of the people there protecting us that voted for Biden.
You've got to figure that in the Guard, which is predominantly more conservative than the general population, 75% are in the class that would be in the large class of folks who might want to do something.
There were military people and police who took oaths to defend the Constitution who didn't do it and were in the insurrection.
Or do they believe they were defending the Constitution?
You see the problem there?
The left says, you're in violation of the Constitution.
The right says, no, you are.
So naturally, these people storming the Capitol thought they were literally defending it.
I happen to think they weren't, mind you.
While Cohen clarified he had no evidence that National Guardsmen were plotting to disrupt Biden's inauguration, he added that Trump-supporting Guardsmen would still be suspect.
You draw a circle first, and the first circle is people who voted for Trump and not for Biden, as far as the zone of people who you'd suspect of.
The suspect group is large, Cohen said.
As part of the heightened security measures, the National Mall will be closed to the general public throughout this week, and at least 10,000 National Guard troops will be deployed to secure the inauguration.
Well, we're hearing 25,000 now, but it's beyond that.
Check this out.
National Guard activated in 30 states, as wrong as 30 states, over fears of inauguration violence.
Are you kidding me?
They're scared the National Guard's gonna go rogue?
And they're deploying them in 30 states?
I don't buy it.
I don't think they're really worried about the National Guard, though they did remove two of them.
Maybe they are.
Newsweek reports at least 30 states across the country are activating National Guard troops with the FBI warning armed protests are being planned at all state capitals this week.
As of this morning, Tuesday, Thirty states have activated National Guard troops, totaling at least 6,675 across those states.
675 across those states. In support of DC, there are more than 25,000 in and around the Capitol.
The preparation comes days before President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration,
and almost two weeks after the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Capitol that left five people dead.
Last week, the FBI warned that armed protests could take place at state capitals across the U.S.
ahead of Biden's inauguration on January 20th, according to an internal FBI bulletin reported by the AP.
They could take place.
No actual evidence that any will.
Quote, as of 10 January, armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitals from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the U.S.
Capitol from the 17th of January to the 20th, the bulletin said.
Law enforcement say they have identified a number of threats from pro-Trump extremists who are preparing to storm the state, local, and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings over false claims the election was stolen.
From California to Michigan, dozens of states will be bolstering security, including some declaring states of emergency and summoning the National Guard in order to subdue any potential violence.
Now, I've not heard of any of these protests.
And like I mentioned, I've only seen Trump supporters disavowing them.
But if there really are fringe, crazy people who are planning on some kind of violent assault, then I hope the National Guard is prepared.
I hope we have security.
And it's a shame that people have taken this this far.
Sometimes you lose, and sometimes there's strategic retreat.
If your goal is to convince people or to do right by this country, it is peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful.
The solution to the crisis is not insurrection and violence.
None at all.
All that we'll do will bolster the security state, give them more power.
But, you know, I think a lot of people just don't care.
They think I'm wrong.
They tell me I'm wrong.
I'm not wrong.
I am not wrong.
Look at what happened with the Capitol.
And look at the result.
25,000 National Guardsmen locking the whole place down.
Fat load of good that did.
Taking a building won't change anything.
You need to win over the hearts and minds of the people through peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful rhetoric and discussions.
And it's tough.
It's not easy.
A lot of people are saying, yeah, but we're being censored and things like that.
I know.
You have to.
It's an uphill battle.
It's difficult.
But that's why discipline and strategy are so important.
If people really are planning this stuff, all they would be doing is hurting themselves.
But you know what?
The Trump supporters, I think, have recognized this, and that's why if you go to, like, say, thedonald.win, they're saying, we're not going to these things, we won't fall for it.
Because they know it would be bad for them.
It's like, it's counterintuitive, I suppose.
But you've got a lot of people who think that's their only path, and it's not.
We are no longer living in the 1700s.
It is fifth-generational warfare, it is propagandistic, it is information, it is culture.
I said it a million times, but you get the point.
California Governor Gavin Newsom last week announced that he was deploying 1,000 California National Guard troops to help protect the state capitol, in addition to the already large numbers of law enforcement officers and security measures expected to be in effect.
Quote, In light of events in our nation's capitol last week, California is taking important steps to protect public safety at the state capitol and across the state, Newsom said in a statement.
Our State Operations Center is actively working with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners in assessing threats and sharing intelligence and information to ensure those disgraceful actions are not repeated here.
And you know what?
I'm glad they're doing it.
I am.
I do not believe the National Guard is going to turn.
There's going to be an inside attack.
There may be some crazies.
Okay, fine.
They're vetting them.
I think the National Guard's going to come out.
They're going to do their duty.
They're going to follow orders.
And I think, for the most part, nothing will happen.
At least I hope so.
Because sometimes people plot some crazy stuff thinking it helps, and all it does is make everything worse.
And the last thing we need now is instability and chaos.
So I certainly hope.
I hope nothing happens.
But take a look at this.
Not the Bee.
Welcome to Fort Biden.
Photos of our nation's capital turned armed encampment.
Not the Bee is a site.
It's basically saying it's so absurd it should be considered satirical, but it's not.
They say there are certain moments that simply cannot be adequately captured by a photograph.
A visceral emotion that refuses to be confined within a rectangle and two dimensions.
A sunset.
A child's first smile.
You pass out in the bathroom floor your sophomore year in college, which totally did not happen as far as anyone can prove.
Haha.
What is going on in our nation's capital is one of those moments, and I expect our national hangover is going to be a doozy.
As I was riding home on the metro, excitedly flipping through the shots I'd taken to note which ones I'd like to use for this piece, I began going back and forth looking for the ones I thought I had taken.
Oh, they were all there.
The pictures I took were faithfully rendered to my phone's onboard memory, but much of the impact remained behind.
Or I'm just making elaborate excuses for not being a very good photographer.
It didn't help that there wasn't much to see other than fencing.
So much fencing.
I could not get close to anything.
Pretty much the entire government complex, the whole mall, the Capitol, side buildings, roads, everything was fenced off.
We've all seen the media shots we've been provided.
Soldiers milling about the steps of the Capitol and the like.
I'm going to show you the periphery, what regular people see, and try to give you some idea of the scale of what is going on.
Because it goes far beyond protecting a few buildings.
This is looking west towards the Washington Monument.
I did not walk all the way to the Lincoln Memorial in part because so many side streets were fenced off.
I wasn't even sure if it was practical, but I understand the fencing went the length of the National Mall about two and a half miles in all.
These photos are shocking and unprecedented.
They're really scared about something.
Look at this picture.
For those that are listening, I'll just describe it.
It shows all of the roads around D.C.
blocked off.
Massive portions.
Homes.
Businesses.
Offices.
Closed.
If you want to enter this area, you have to provide evidence that you're doing legitimate business there.
In D.C.
An occupation.
And the media's cheering for it.
You know, if only Donald Trump invoked the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd riots, then I guess the media would have defended him too, right?
No, obviously, of course not.
Michael Tracy writes, Media cheers DC under military occupation.
He goes in one photo shows TV crew saying TV media has clearly settled on a dramatic backdrop image.
And he says, Question, does anyone with a media job find this situation to be worthy of some further inquiry?
Or in other words, worthy of questioning the premise of why such an extravagantly intensive military presence is allegedly necessary?
Is it appropriate to the scale of the purported threat?
Has the nature of the threat itself, whatever that might be, exactly, been adequately probed to determine whether it is grounded in reality?
Already a bunch of purported threats initially trumpeted across the media with the usual five alarm fire hysteria have dissipated in short order.
So there is perhaps some reason for doubt in that regard.
I think it's media hysterics.
Security theater.
They're panicking and they're scared of their own shadows.
And so now they're wasting our resources in panic over what?
I have no idea.
Michael says, instead of applying a modicum of skepticism to this gigantic show of military force, much of which appears to be security theater in its purest form, our vaunted media is doing little other than cheering it on.
I made a joke on Twitter about trusting the government in times of emergency to keep us apprised to the current nature of the threat and to give up emergency powers when the threat is averted.
But there's something else we need.
It's a media.
A news organization.
A media class to inform the people of what the government refuses.
Why would the government give up power?
Why would individuals in the government ever give up power?
They don't.
We've been under a state of emergency in this country for decades, in one form or another.
There's been like five, I believe.
Granting the president powers that he probably should have given up a long time ago, but they don't do it.
They never do.
The media then is supposed to come out and call out the abuse.
They don't.
And right now, there's very few voices ringing the alarm bells about the absurdity of what's happening in D.C.
with this military occupation.
Instead, what do we get?
More media hysterics.
Instead of saying, maybe we should calm down and we don't need this many, you know, this size of force, they're saying, we have to remove them.
They're Trump loyalists.
They're white men.
That's what we get.
Paranoid hysteria.
And we get in other forms.
Here's Vice.
Parler GPS data shows users posting from military bases.
The analysis comes as Congress wants to know how much white supremacy has penetrated the military.
You see the game.
I was on Parler.
I'm not a white supremacist.
In fact, I despise them.
To a great deal.
To a great degree.
I also don't like white nationalists.
I despise the ideology as well.
It is overt identitarianism and it's archaic garbage.
Yet they would say everybody on parlor is white supremacy?
Is that the implication?
Yes.
That's the name of the game.
To associate all of the ideologies and ideas they don't like, like classical liberalism, with white supremacy.
That's why they talk about multi-racial whiteness!
That's their plan.
And you know what?
For the most part, it seems to actually work.
Or, I should say, there's enough people who have no idea what's going on who just believe it.
Who eat it up, hear these stories, and roll with it.
I gotta ask, man.
At what point do people just snap and say, what is this?
Wake up!
I'm not here to play the game of the left saying, wake up!
Trump is a billionaire!
Or the right saying, wake up!
Hillary is a crony crooked blah blah blah.
I'm here to say, wake up.
There are 25,000 National Guardsmen occupying D.C.
Ask some questions.
I don't care if you're on the left or the right.
If you're on the left, you should be worried that Donald Trump still commands the National Guard.
And if you're on the right, you should be concerned that they've deployed 25,000 armed National Guardsmen to occupy D.C., which is terrifyingly authoritarian.
Security state is not something that you're going to appreciate.
And that's where we're at.
We've been there for some time.
The ramping up of surveillance, which now the establishment left is calling for.
There's good reason for either populist tribe to call this out and raise questions.
Before it's too late.
Unfortunately, I think too many younger leftists just praise and support the machine.
Indoctrination works.
It takes time, but we're getting there.
If you want your authoritarian regime to take over, be it communist or fascist, you gotta go after the kids, and that's what they do.
Now you have these 20-somethings who are indoctrinated to the left supporting Joe Biden.
You have to be a certain kind of special.
You want to talk about Donald Trump?
By all means.
Tell me all of the really bad things about him.
And I'll probably say, yup.
And guess what?
He was in office for one term.
For all his faults, for all his problems, there were some things I liked about it.
You want to bring up Joe Biden?
47 years.
He is the architect of much of the systemic racism you've been complaining about the whole time.
But I'll stop right there.
Okay, okay.
All right, all right.
Let's olive branch for a minute.
By all means, you supported Biden.
How would you like to tell me about why you support a military occupation in Washington, D.C.?
I'll take it.
Make your point.
Leave your comments.
It could be there's a legitimate security threat.
It could be that we need to show force to prevent anyone from doing anything.
Or it could be that they now have the opportunity to deploy 25,000 National Guard to D.C.
and leave them there and keep the federal jurisdiction under this kind of lockdown.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think that if the Trump supporters didn't storm the Capitol, they would have used COVID as an excuse for locking down the inauguration, but it's still not good enough.
They needed a good reason to say no one can be on the National Mall.
Why?
How many people do you think would have shown up for Joe Biden?
I'd be willing to bet not a whole lot.
Because people voted against Trump, not for Biden.
And it would have been, well, it wouldn't have been confidence building to see an empty National Mall when people had the choice to attend.
Now, of course, they were saying maybe they won't do it at all because of COVID.
OK, fine.
Now they're saying, well we gotta lock it all down and people can't be here for both COVID and the threat of insurrection.
Congratulations.
Joe Biden will now have an inauguration with no audience in attendance.
Remarkable.
We won't actually get to see how many people were really there.
Now don't forget, I mentioned Cuomo.
On CNN, Cuomo says, quote, we must be suspicious of our national, that's the quote, and then says, of our National Guard troops stationed in DC, quote, to ensure that none will turn on their country and pose an insider threat.
We used to have to do that in Iraq, by the way.
Bashing the troops, this is CNN.
And there they are, standing around as Michael Tracy documented, saying, I'm just doing what I'm told.
Those are the people you're worried about?
I'm more worried they'll just do what they're told by a corrupt official and then who knows what'll happen.
I'm not worried about them randomly just targeting our government.
That's crazy talk, man.
Maybe I'm the crazy one, though.
Maybe I'm the one who's wrong.
Maybe Cuomo's right.
Maybe we should be suspicious of each other.
We should be suspicious that members of the National Guard will try and stage a military coup.
Is that what you want?
That's what CNN wants.
You know, I've said repeatedly, you do not want civil conflict.
You do not want civil war.
But I watch CNN, I see these clips, and boy does it sound more and more like they desperately want it.
They desperately want the conflict.
So they will tell you to be suspect of your own National Guard, the men and women who swore an oath to the Constitution to protect you.
What's that?
They did the same thing with the police.
Now, I understand there's police brutality, there's problems with cops, and we need reform.
But these are the people who work And they're supposed to uphold the Constitution.
I'll be the first to criticize the police when they violate the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong.
But isn't it odd that they're coming out now saying, don't trust the National Guard?
We called them out!
The government!
But you can't trust them.
They're suspect.
So they removed two.
Just two.
Not too many.
Still weird nonetheless.
I'm not excited about tomorrow.
I mean, I don't like Biden, but I'm worried about actual threats.
I hope everything goes well.
I hope everybody stays home.
Watch it on your TV.
And I hope we move forward calmly and peacefully.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Come hang out.
We're doing a live show at 8 p.m.
as we always do.
And don't forget to subscribe.
Hit the like button.
Hit the notification bell.
Check out TimCast.com.
Become a member today to help support the show.
We are expanding.
We are building more.
It's going to be fun.
Thank you all so much, and I will see you tonight at 8 PM.
It would seem that for whatever reason it is currently being reported Donald Trump does not have the spine to stand up for free speech and pardon Julian Assange.
Perhaps the reporting is wrong.
Tucker Carlson recently came out and said Donald Trump must pardon Julian Assange.
I am coming out and saying the exact same thing.
There are concerns among Donald Trump's supporters, not all of them, mind you, but many, that Trump will be leaving the office in an undignified way.
Of course, the left already feels that way, and they've hated Trump since before he even got elected.
That I get.
There's a lot of things to criticize Trump for, and I'm sure the left will say, what do you mean he's leaving undignified by not pardoning Assange?
He incited a riot, blah blah blah.
Look, I'm not talking about that.
I don't think Trump incited a riot, mind you.
He said peacefully march, but I digress.
If Trump leaves, and he pardons some, you know, I don't know, white collar fraud guy, Lil Wayne, and whoever else, and that's fine if he wants to pardon them.
But he doesn't.
Pardon Julian Assange.
Then I believe that shows the man truly has no idea what's going on, and would have no spine.
And I'm not trying to be mean, because I think if, you know, if I was really expecting someone like Trump to see this, I would just say, do the right thing, be strong, and pardon Julian Assange.
But for whatever reason, the current reports say that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not expected to receive a pardon from Trump.
Why?
Because Trump has a problem he's had the entire time.
He listens to morons.
That's right.
You know, Trump's famous for being that boisterous bragger.
You're fired!
But for some reason, when he becomes president, he defers to other people as they burn it all down around him.
Remember that thing that happened with, what was it, Tulsa?
When they did that big overflow for the million people who never showed up?
Well that was a mistake, and Trump did end up getting like 12 million more votes this election cycle than the previous when he first got elected.
Which, I understand why they would do that, but they really underestimated COVID, and plus they were encouraging people to RSVP whether or not they were coming.
They've just made so many mistakes, so many mistakes.
It was reported that in January of last year, it's about a year ago now, I believe it was January.
Brad Parscale told Donald Trump to sign up for Parler.
And Trump asked Jared Kushner, who said, no, don't do it.
What an idiot.
And now where is he?
Well, Trump could still sign up for Gab, but you know what?
Trump doesn't care.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't know.
He gets bad advice.
Honestly, I think it may be that a lot of what Trump was doing correctly, I mean, look, to Kushner's credit, The Abraham Accords, my understanding, is largely the result of Kushner negotiating with other countries and trying to bring peace to the Middle East.
I can respect that.
But I think a lot of what Trump has done has been from watching Fox News and has been from, you know, the advice of others.
For whatever reason, he hired people like John Bolton, who then turns around and knifes him, figuratively, in the back.
Donald Trump has just not made good decisions.
But, with Tucker Carlson coming out right now, Or just the other night, I should say.
And telling Donald Trump that he must pardon Assange.
Maybe Donald Trump will do it.
Maybe.
The current sourcing, I guess, reporting is that they won't because Donald Trump has been talking to neocon national security individuals who are like, no, you can't, you can't, pardon this man.
Julian Assange is not an American.
He didn't spy on anybody and he didn't hack anything.
WikiLeaks receives information and publishes it.
You want to know what the real threat, the real problem that the elites have with WikiLeaks is that they actually do journalism.
That's it.
WikiLeaks is one of the last remaining independent journalistic organizations on the planet.
There are some small ones, mind you.
Look, many of you might say I'll watch, you know, TimCast because he gives an honest assessment.
Well, let's be real.
What do I do?
I read existing news for the most part.
I would say only about 20% of what I do is actual journalism.
It's a small percentage.
I'm not gonna lie and pretend that everything I do always is hardcore journalism, but The base fact-checking I do for a lot of stories, as well as, yes, I do call people and email people for quotes.
If you watch my content, you probably would know that.
Because it's only a small percentage of what I do that's actually sourcing the news and fact-checking and verifying.
Now, what I do when it's a derivative of existing sources like the AP or Fox is totally fine for the elites in the establishment, because my reporting is within the confines of what they view to be acceptable.
There are a few things I can't say, and I've had videos deleted because of it, which is why we set up TimCast.com to create a proprietary space, you know, where we can't get banned from our own website.
I mean, you can still get banned, mind you, from your hosting provider or whatever.
I digress.
Wikileaks takes information from people and then publishes it.
We know recently from a Project Veritas release that when some State Department cables were being released unredacted, it wasn't because of Wikileaks.
Wikileaks didn't release it.
Someone else did.
And they actually called to warn the State Department.
So it seems like not only is WikiLeaks just publishing information like an actual journalistic outlet, but that they actually tried to warn the State Department to prevent loss of life or, you know, harmed individuals.
They don't want you to know that.
Why?
Right now you have the likes of CNN, you've got MSNBC, you've got these big tech companies, and they want you silenced.
They don't want DNC emails released.
You know that Donald Trump may not have even been elected were it not for WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks put out emails from the DNC that exposed corruption and probably helped Donald Trump.
Now, maybe Trump would have won with or without it, but listen, Trump may have had an Electoral College, you know, big victory.
But it was only 77,000 votes in three different states.
Between the three, you know, break it down, it was very, very slim margins in many states.
But people saw, they saw these emails, and what did CNN tell you?
You can't read them because it's illegal, but we can read them, and we'll tell you what's in them.
You see the name of the game?
Julian Assange is one of the last real journalists, and he's been locked up for nearly a decade for challenging the establishment.
Now, I'll pause for a second, and I'll read you what Tucker said, and we'll get into some of the censorship stuff, but let me just say, I'm not even the biggest Julian Assange fan.
I've criticized him in the past.
Famously, Wikileaks put out something called Collateral Murder that shows a helicopter shooting at a group of people, which includes some Reuters journalists.
Very, very bad.
I'm glad we learned about it.
But it was editorialized.
They want to claim they're just leaking things, but they function much like many news organizations.
Selectively publishing, choosing what they write.
I should say, they don't write things.
Choosing what they report, what they send out, what gets highlighted.
So I'm not criticizing them saying that they're all bad for that.
I'm just saying nobody's perfect.
And I'm not a radical transparency activist.
I think sometimes the U.S.
government needs to keep secrets for legitimate national security reasons.
But, I digress.
Journalism must be protected.
And the machine wants more and more to make sure you can't hear me, you can't go to my site, they want to ban social media outright, although I've joked about it, because they don't like the idea that the rabble out in the streets can actually research and learn information.
And Wikileaks would never be allowed to run a network or be involved in CNN.
They're not going to bring out a science show.
Tell us about your new report showing the U.S.
military committing war crimes.
They'll never happen.
Well, to be fair, many networks did have Assange on when he did publish that, so I'll walk that one back a little bit.
But here's a story from the Daily Mail.
We'll get Tucker Carlson's comments on this.
He says, Lil Wayne?
Some Medicare fraud from Florida?
Don't degrade your voters on your way out.
Tucker Carlson urges Trump to reconsider his commutations as Pamela Anderson pleads for the president to pardon free speech hero Julian Assange.
They said the president is expected to, on Tuesday, issue up to 100 pardons for people including white-collar criminals, rappers, and friends.
The White House held a meeting on Sunday to finalize the list of pardons, two sources told CNN.
Trump and his family are not believed to be on the list.
Yet on the eve of the pardons, Tucker Carlson, urged him not to grant the full list of rumored recipients,
among them rapper Lil Wayne, who pleaded guilty to gun charges, and Dr. Solomon Melgen, a
prominent eye doctor from Trump's hometown of Palm Beach, Florida, who was in prison after
being convicted on dozens of counts of health care fraud.
Pardoning Lil Wayne?
Some Medicare fraud criminal?
Well, you know, I don't know a whole lot about the Lil Wayne thing, but I'm actually, it's a gun charge, so I'm kind of like, maybe you should pardon the guy.
I don't know exactly what he did.
I think it was because he had a gun and he's a felon or something like that.
But, you know, I don't know exactly what happened, but I don't care if Trump pardons anybody.
I don't care who he pardons.
I don't care if he pardons the Medicare fraud guy.
Fine, sure, whatever.
But if he pardons them and he doesn't grant a pardon to Assange, well then, That shows you, man.
You know, maybe Trump never had any real power in the first place.
Maybe he never... he was always just sitting there.
And they just placated him, they pretended like he was doing something, and he wasn't.
There are certain things they couldn't stop him from doing, but boy did they try to jam him up.
Maybe they're not gonna let him.
Pardon Assange.
Maybe, maybe, who knows?
I can't believe it when I heard that the White House said they would not do it.
How stupid and weak do you have to be to say no to this?
Take a look at this tweet from Eric Bolling.
Eric Bolling, of course, you might know, host of America This Week, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox, Bolling with Favre.
He tweets, White House sources telling reporters WikiLeaks Julian Assange won't get a presidential pardon.
Should Assange be granted a pardon?
Well, of course, I voted yes.
91.4% of Eric Bolling's audience, as it went out, said, oh, that's 48,787 votes, yes.
He responded, I voted in favor of a pardon for Julian Assange.
Okay, Donald, do you have the strength and the spine to say yes to what clearly most people want, even on the left?
Not the Democrats, mind you.
The establishment crony types.
The never-Trumpers.
The establishment.
Those who would sit atop the ivory tower, sipping their tea, pinkies out.
Oh, he can't!
Don't pardon Assange!
That's what I imagine it's like, you know.
That's my stereotype view of these people.
When the regular people down there are like, yeah, we're all pretty much on board with this.
Who will Trump take the back of?
Will he support the people who want this to be done?
Or will he cower in front of the establishment begging, please spare me?
We'll see.
They say early on his show, Carlson heard a plea from former Baywatch actress Pamela Anderson on behalf of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
He has been charged with conspiring to hack government computers and violating the Espionage Act by obtaining and releasing confidential documents in 2010 and 2011.
It's freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and if we don't have that, we don't have a democracy.
Well, we have a constitutional republic that uses a democratic voting process to elect representatives, but you get the point.
He needs to do the right thing.
This is one of those moments in history, in his lifetime, where he can make the right decision.
He would really gain a huge following and a huge sigh of relief and gratefulness for so many people on the planet.
Julian is so important to free speech.
He's a free speech hero.
Carlson, speaking with only one full day left of the Trump presidency, also expressed his anger at what he described as the militarization of Washington, D.C.
ahead of Joe Biden's inauguration on Wednesday.
Which, yes, it says our capital is under military occupation.
It's all very, very strange.
But I wonder now, does Donald Trump have the strength to stand defiant and represent the people?
Or is he just going to bow out, give up, and be scared, and not do what needs to be done?
Julian Assange, if he pardons him, it will be historical.
It will be in the history books.
You know, I'm thinking about it, it's kind of funny.
At least if Trump doesn't pardon Assange, the Q people will be confused for quite a bit, but I don't understand.
Julian Assange is challenging the establishment elites and exposing them with these emails.
Why wouldn't Trump support him?
Why wouldn't Trump pardon him?
It's all part of the plan, right?
No, he needs to do it.
I mean, actually, if he does, then it would just confirm their biases and they would believe it for sure.
Glenn Greenwald tweets, the two cable personalities arguably more responsible than anyone on TV for Trump becoming the GOP nominee, by endlessly promoting him, are now demanding that Facebook be shut down, and they apparently want Biden to do it.
Just listen.
Okay, well, the quote is, you need to be shut down.
Nobody needs what you have to offer.
You have destroyed this country.
I'm not completely in disagreement with that statement, though.
Facebook's garbage.
You know, as much as I can complain about Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and other platforms, I use them.
Obviously, you wouldn't be watching this if it wasn't for big tech, so there's still some benefit.
But what they're doing is shaping public opinion in creepy ways to protect themselves.
So, I'm in favor of regulation and antitrust laws and things like that.
But I do find it funny.
Glenn's right.
They want Facebook shut down.
They don't want Julian Assange to be pardoned.
It's really interesting to me.
Tucker Carlson, when he was talking about Assange, said he didn't... He was talking to, I think, Jimmy Dore.
He said he didn't used to think that Julian should be released or pardoned, but Jimmy helped change his mind, among other things.
And look at that.
Tucker Carlson heard some opinions, Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and realized what it meant and what was going on with Julian Assange.
And then he did the right thing.
And Trump supporters recognize it too.
Why?
Because Trump supporters aren't elitists.
They're populists.
They believe in helping the people, not the establishment cronies.
Tucker is far from perfect, mind you.
But look at the other personnel.
Look at CNN.
They'll lie to you.
They don't want you on social media talking about this, and they sure as hell do not want one of the last remaining journalists to be able to continue working.
Assange had a victory recently where he wasn't going to be extradited from the UK, but I believe they denied his bail.
Donald Trump needs to do this now.
If he can't stop, you know, if he can't beat the Democrats or the establishment elites, at least he can unleash Julian Assange back onto this world to start doing some of the last remaining legitimate journalism.
Uncovering, you know, stories and speaking truth to power and all the stuff journalists were supposed to do before they became woke lunatics Who just posts about, I don't know, the... You get it.
Russia.
It's the easy default.
And complaining about gender diversity, the diversity, inclusion, and equity cult.
That's what media has become.
Look at the New York Times.
Abolish the police.
They're not even writing news anymore.
They're giving us cultural think pieces.
And that's fine to a certain degree.
But where's the hard reporting?
Where's the exposing of the criminals at the highest level?
We don't see it.
And I tell you this, it's been a long decade, and WikiLeaks, even with Assange locked up in that Ecuadorian embassy, was able to publish DNC emails, and boy were they pissed!
The establishment elites probably fainted in their chairs, fanning, you know, having the servant run up and fanning them with the tray.
Oh, heavens!
Oh, heavens, they fainted, aghast.
Julian Assange published information that hurt Hillary Clinton, disrupted their plans.
And for that, will Donald Trump do the right thing?
I'm not entirely convinced, to be honest.
Now, Glenn Rheinwald talks about how, you know, they want to purge social media.
He goes on to say, meanwhile, for any of you who doubt that Dems are 100% planning the
total importation of the war on terror onto US soil to be used domestically, just listen
to NBC's Jeremy Bash, formerly of the Obama CIA and Pentagon.
Just hear the words.
He said, we're going to have to reset our entire intelligence approach.
We're going to have to look at the greater surveillance of them.
The FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.
Here we go.
They are repeating the big lie.
That's their big lie.
They say the big lie is Donald Trump and the election.
No, I'll tell you what their big lie is.
That the silly absurdity at the Capitol building was an attempt to overthrow the government.
Sure, I guess technically that's the truth.
But are we really concerned about that?
A new video emerged showing a man in a Trump hat walking up to cops screaming, call for backup, what are you doing?
They're storming the building like, you need to stop this!
They're destroying the Capitol!
And the cops are just like, I don't know.
Eh, don't care.
There you go.
I wonder about all that, you know?
I wonder if the Democrats are ecstatic because now they can shut down the National Mall.
I bet they—you know what I think it is?
I think the Democrats knew no one would show up for a Biden inauguration, and it would look really, really weird.
Come on.
You do have COVID.
I get it.
But nobody wants Biden.
They were voting against Trump.
Well, now they have the perfect excuse to shut it all down.
Shut down the National Mall.
There will be no one there.
And that's it.
You know, Tucker brought it up, too.
D.C.
is under military occupation, and it's very, very weird.
We have more troops in D.C.
right now, armed, authorized to use lethal force, than we do in Afghanistan.
I believe Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not entirely sure.
Anyway, I digress, you know, you're gonna get me slapped on all the war stuff.
Reason writes, why purging social media of extremist speech might not make us safer.
Law enforcement will have an easier time arresting and prosecuting criminals on Parler than on Telegram.
I'm not super concerned about, you know, look, if someone commits a crime and says something, you can arrest them.
My concern, and why I agree with this, is that hiding, well, and it's the same point, Having these people go on to private networks on Telegram, masking what they're doing, means we won't know.
But here's the thing.
I think they want it.
They want to be able to hide this from the public, that way they will have a perennial threat.
Always!
A new network has emerged!
And you'll not hear about it.
They came out and said there was going to be 50 mass protests armed at all the state capitals.
What happened?
A small handful of Boogaloo boys showed up and they issued a statement.
There was one guy who issued a statement.
I respect it.
Saying that the people of this country are tired of the crony, you know, politicians and all that stuff.
It's true.
But did anything actually happen?
No, it just showed up and protested, and that's fine.
It was funny, some guy said it was an armed protest and it's antagonizing, and it should be illegal, and I was like, armed protest is literally the first and second amendment.
Right through their head, right?
But anyway, look, I digress.
Back to the main issue at hand.
They're clamping down on free speech in every possible way.
That's where this comes together.
They're trying to censor and shut people down.
They don't want you communicating.
And they sure as hell do not want an actual threat.
A real organization willing to expose secrets.
They probably tried to pay off WikiLeaks.
I wouldn't be surprised if they went and said, you know, play ball and we'll invest in your company or we'll make donations.
It ain't gonna work.
Not with someone like Assange.
And you can see how they've tried to destroy the man.
Dude needs to be freed.
I am really scared that Trump won't do it.
And if Trump doesn't do it, then I believe he will have given up a massive opportunity.
I'd like to be angrier than I am now and say that it would be one of the worst moves made by a president ever.
It would be, but let's be real.
The past presidents are just horrific and monstrous.
And at least Trump did some stuff, I guess.
Tried to get out of the Middle East.
If Donald Trump pardons Assange, he will truly solidify himself as a great president.
And the left, the democratic establishment elites and the never-Trumpers will do everything in their power to smear and defame him.
But at least populist leftists can say, well, that was a good thing.
He must do it.
I hope Tucker Carlson's message got to him.
I hope Trump listened.
We'll see.
This is the last full day.
We'll see how it plays out.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
There are some truly evil people in this world.
Hate-filled monsters who seek only to cause pain and suffering.
They hate you based on what you look like, on what your identity is.
How dare these people?
Well, there's good news, my friends!
The D.C.
police are on it.
In this story from the Daily Mail, D.C.
police investigate vandalism of Bernie Sanders' mural as a hate crime after it was defaced with alt-right Pepe the Frog.
This is a real story!
Okay.
It's true that there are nasty people who hate you just for who you are.
DC police confirmed their investigation into the vandalism of the mural in the Navy Yard area.
They said that it was not clear exactly when the mural was defaced, with a police report listing December 15th, 2020 to January 14th, 2021 as a possible time period.
Okay, so here's a photo of the original mural.
For those who are listening, I'll just describe it.
It says... what does that say?
Burn the system.
It's B-E-R-N.
Burn the system.
And it's Bernie Sanders raising a fist.
You know, the communist fist-raising thing, right?
And behind him, I guess, is like a city and the mountains and a sunset.
And that was the original mural as they painted it.
Oh no!
Now someone painted over Bernie Sanders' face to make Pepe the Frog.
After the mural was vandalized that Pepe the Frog had, which has risen the digital ranks via the alt-right as a symbol of white supremacy and white nationalist hate.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm laughing a lot.
It's funny.
I hope you're all having a good time.
But this really is insidious, isn't it?
It's a joke.
It's Pepe the Frog.
It doesn't mean much of anything, really.
It was just someone making a joke, painting Bernie Sanders' face as Pepe the Frog.
How is this racist or white supremacist?
You see what they're doing.
I know it's funny, I know we laugh, but it really is dark.
Because in the future, they're gonna start going after anybody for hate crime.
This is the true insidious nature of hate crime laws.
And it's not just about hate crime, it's identitarianism.
If they can say it's a crime based on our interpretation of what we think you think, well, that's only a matter of time before you could fart and they'll be like, you farted because you're racist!
Hate crime, right?
And just put that motivation on it.
They say police were called to investigate the vandalism on Sunday by one of the artists who felt, quote, that the defacement may be motivated by hate or bias of political or religious affiliation.
Okay, okay, okay.
All right, all right.
Now I understand.
Actually, yeah, it could be a hate crime.
In D.C., their human rights law protects political ideology, interestingly.
And so, by painting over Bernie's face with Pepa, I guess, they're saying it's a political thing, and then it would fall under the hate crime statutes, would be investigated as such.
I don't think it quite meets that threshold.
I think the purpose of the law is like, if you see a guy with a MAGA hat, and you hit him because he wore a MAGA hat, that would be a hate crime in D.C.
They go on to claim that Pepe the Frog is alright, blah, blah, blah.
Members of such groups co-opted the image.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
So there's a quote here.
We're going to transform this country.
And finally, create an economy and government which works for all of us, not just the 1%.
The underlying principles of our government will not be greed, hatred, and lies.
This campaign will be based on economic, social, racial, and environmental justice.
That's the original quote from Bernie Sanders on the wall.
They say, obviously, Pepe was created in a very innocent way, says the ADL.
I don't care.
However, he said that the cartoon has become synonymous with the rise of the alt-right.
The appropriation of that symbol?
Okay, yeah, I think we get it, right?
And they go on to explain the origins of Pepe.
My friends, this is how insane things are getting.
Okay?
It's just- it's just a gag.
I don't- I- that's it.
There's really a news story.
Why?
Why am I even reading about this?
Well, I'll tell you why.
It's actually part of a bigger issue that's getting freaky, especially with the inauguration of Joe Biden coming soon, the woke intersectional left.
Joe Biden is going to be doing the complete opposite of what Donald Trump did.
You see, Donald Trump...
Signed an executive order that stopped critical race theory in government trainings and prevented the government from signing contracts with companies that did critical race theory-based trainings.
Why?
Critical race theory, as we know it, is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I believe Title VII of it, which basically states you can't discriminate on the basis of, you know, race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc.
Doing trainings where you say that white people are this or that violates that law.
So Trump said, yeah, you can't do that.
Joe Biden plans to sign an executive order affirming the opposite.
I imagine it will be sued immediately, but I'm not confident the Supreme Court's going to do anything because they seem to be fairly spineless.
Everybody is spineless.
They are such whiny, egotistical losers.
All these politicians, all these Republicans, they're like, but I don't want to put myself at risk.
Okay, go cry then.
We need leaders in this country.
We need people willing to take risks and call out the insanity.
We don't have that.
We do not have that.
We get egotists and maniacs, for the most part.
People who are like, don't look at me, I'm not sticking my neck out, I want a paycheck.
And there you go.
Take a look at this story, and I'll show you how crazy this is getting.
White is a state of mind.
NYU professor is slammed for claiming black and Latino voters who supported Trump have multiracial whiteness, and that it was unsettling so many voted for him.
Yeah.
Trump actually gained ground among Latino voters, especially in Texas, right along the border where people thought it wasn't going to happen.
Serious swing from Democrat to Republican.
I'll tell you why this is so insidious and how this connects with the Pepe thing being a hate crime and the absurdity of it calling it an alt-right symbol and all that.
They're saying whiteness.
They are associating things they don't like with a race of people.
They are psychotic, despotic identitarians.
That's where we're headed.
You know, we just had MLK Day.
And I love how they've appropriated everything he said.
Everything that we hold dear in this country now, that we believe in.
That one day, he says, I have a dream that my four little children will be judged on the content of their character, the color of their skin.
And now these sick, twisted people, identitarians, are claiming Martin Luther King for their sick and disgusting ideology.
As they go out and then say, we must get rid of civil rights law.
That's what they're trying to do.
They're trying to get rid of it.
I tried to get rid of it in California.
They failed.
They're trying to do it now.
Daily Mail reports, an NYU professor has been slammed for claiming in a Washington Post op-ed that black and Hispanic voters supported Trump because of something called multiracial whiteness, which separates them from their own race.
Not only is that racist to Latinos and black people, you're operating under the assumption they can't have their own opinions, You are taking everything you hate and you are painting it a race.
And then saying, this race is these things.
That's insane!
These people are disgusting.
How is this allowed?
Really gross.
Kristina Beltran, who describes herself using the gender-neutral term Latinx, wrote last week that it was a surprise to see Latino and black faces among the MAGA mob that stormed the Capitol, and that it was also unsettling that a quarter to a third of Latino voters voted to re-elect Donald Trump.
No, I think people have opinions, and I think people vote how they want to vote.
She rationalized their preference for him with the idea of multiracial whiteness, which is the idea that white is more than a race or racial identity.
Quote, What are we to make of Latinos, Latino voters, inspired by Trump?
And what are we to make of unmistakably white mob violence that also includes non-white participants?
I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness.
The promise that they too can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion, and domination, she wrote.
Isn't that exactly what they're doing?
Choosing who is or isn't allowed?
Well, they say they're all about inclusivity.
They're not.
They're not.
Will they allow a white nationalist to be included in their conversations?
Of course they won't.
They'll punch him in the face.
That's not inclusion.
There you go.
Now they'll argue, we're not saying inclusion of everybody.
Thank you!
Is exclusion exclusion of everybody, then?
And who does it exclude?
It excludes the people you don't like, and you won't include the people you don't like either.
It's the same thing.
It is a political manipulation.
It is propaganda.
Domination.
Yeah, please, look in a mirror.
Here's the article.
It says, to understand Trump's support, we must think in terms of multiracial whiteness.
Ah, and now they're trying to explain Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, who is, uh, not white.
She went on to claim that being white is no longer someone's racial identity, but is also a political color, which can lead to a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
The idea, she said, is rooted in white supremacy, indigenous dispossession, and anti-blackness.
In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.
Look who's talking.
These people really just have never encountered a mirror or a large body of water, have they?
Because they certainly can't see what they look like.
Multiracial whiteness offers citizens of every background the freedom to call Muslims terrorists, demand that undocumented immigrants be rounded up and deported, deride BLM as a movement of thugs and criminals, and accuse Democrats of being blood-drinking pedophiles.
Excellent.
Okay, that is a strawman argument.
What you could really say is that the MAGA movement allows people of all different racial backgrounds to come together and be a member of the community.
Wow, I imagine a lot of people would enjoy getting to go to dinner and hang out with people, and then they show this picture of Ellie Alexander, a Stop the Steal organizer, another example given by Beltran of the unsettling number of Latino and black people who supported Trump.
Why?
Human be— You know, it's remarkable.
Can I judge Ellie Alexander on the content of his character, please?
Apparently I can't.
They're literally going after a guy based on race, using racial issues.
They're mad that he's a black man who supported Trump, and they call it whiteness instead of just saying, we don't like you.
It's remarkable.
Quote, if you want to speak Spanish and celebrate a quinceanera in your family, go ahead.
If you want to be a proud boy, be a proud boy.
Trump doesn't care as long as you love him.
He'll love you, she said.
So we have some tweets here.
We got Glenn.
This is funny.
We got a lot of conservatives, but then we actually have Glenn Greenwald leading the pack, who is fairly progressive.
Fascinating attempt to reconcile the fact that so many non-whites voted for Trump more than 2016, and that some of the key participants in the Capitol riot and related groups are non-white.
Multi-racial whiteness.
They're white even when they're not.
Yep.
That's exactly how it works.
So, as most of you know, there was a meme for a while, because when I talk about this stuff, I usually bring up my mixed-race family.
And there's a reason why.
If I agree with these people, they will blame whiteness and say, see, because of your, you know, your family didn't get to experience the privilege of whiteness.
Because I grew up on the south side of Chicago.
Working class family struggling to pay the bills, losing our home to bankruptcy, things like that.
And they'll say, you see how rigged the system is against people like you?
And then I come out and I'm like, you know, since then I've lifted myself up by my bootstraps and I've started a business and I've become very successful and they say, well that's because you're white!
Oh, right.
But you see the game they're playing.
What they'll say is, look who you pander to, look at the content you make, blah blah blah.
Tell me again about the Young Turks.
I mean, Cenk Uygur is certainly successful, and he's not a white guy.
What about the other people who work on the Young Turks network who are not white?
How did they succeed in their... Oh, it's because they're being lifted up by non-white voices, sure.
Ben Domenech says multiracial whiteness is just another term for struggling with the fact that some of the people who disagree with you are brown.
That's the only way they can do it.
Ben Shapiro said to understand Trump support we must think in terms of hot coldness.
Clever.
One Twitter user said, must everything be race?
Must everything go tribal?
How can we win fighting each other?
Washington Post panned over op-ed invoking multi-racial whiteness to explain Trump support among minorities.
Could it be that different people have different opinions?
Could it be that you don't need to be white to actually support meritocracy?
Could it be that people of all races happen to look up to Donald Trump for better or for worse?
It's almost like, and hear me out here, race isn't the deterministic factor in your political ideology and your success.
Gee, I wonder who preached that message.
What's remarkable to me about all of these stories is that Martin Luther King, you know, Junior Day, just the other day, And I see all these leftists appropriating the things he said and just mangling and then mashing it up with their sick, twisted, identitarian ideology.
The closest thing we have right now in this country, in the actual political space, to white supremacy is not actually white supremacists.
Why?
Well, the Republicans got rid of those people and Twitter and Facebook banned most of those people a long time ago.
A couple years ago, actually.
The alt-right got purged.
Most of them have been banned.
Not all of them.
But they're not particularly active in politics these days.
You had Steve King who made a statement about white nationalism, and then he was removed from all committees, and then primaried, and then he lost.
Now, I'll tell you the closest thing we have to it is identitarianism.
You see, identitarianism is this idea that laws and systems of government will be based upon your identity, which includes race, gender, identity, etc.
So you have right now, on the left, an overt demand for identitarianism.
And on the right, you have an overt rejection of it, be it from the left or the right.
Now, there have been attempts at white nationalism and right-wing identitarianism, which typically is white nationalism, not for the most part, but kind of is, and it's failed and been kicked aside because the Republicans don't want that.
That's why you end up with people like Glenn Greenwald or me or people like Mike Tracy, for instance, who reject the critical race wokeness.
Now, I will say there are some journalists who are like liberals who call this out, who still pretend like it's not a threat.
And it's only gotten worse, and likely only will get worse, because Joe Biden's going to be signing some ridiculous, I don't know, executive order about affirming racial equity in the government and stuff like that.
That's one of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump.
Because he did the opposite.
He kicked that out.
I know firsthand from my experience of what it's like to deal with racists on both the left and the right.
And I'm not saying the left and the right are racist.
I'm saying there are racists on both sides.
The left is overwhelmingly racist.
I was at Occupy Wall Street.
I got to experience the sick twisted ideology of their racist perversions as they enacted rules and laws separating people based on race.
They created voting blocks.
They were all race groups.
They are psychopaths.
They are racist, supremacist, psychopaths.
Of course, the people who segregated everybody at Occupy Wall Street were white people.
Isn't that funny?
They're the ones who point the finger at you and call you a white supremacist, when you're the one saying, I don't want none of that.
They're the ones segregating everyone based on race, and then claiming white people are the racists.
Have they looked in a mirror?
And that's part of my point, too.
John Lott on Twitter said, how does anyone take WAPO seriously when they run articles like this?
So the blacks and Hispanics support Trump are white supremacists too?
It is a manipulation.
It is propaganda.
The goal is to take something everyone hates, white supremacy, and then turn anybody they need to justify calling everybody a white supremacist.
It's how they make their boogeyman.
What was that?
You don't want to pay taxes?
White supremacy!
What's that?
You think you have a right to free speech?
White supremacy!
That way, what they'll do is, they change the definition.
Then when you, a regular person, maybe you're black, come out and say, I believe in free speech, someone will write an article saying, an avowed white supremacist, then Wikipedia will take the article, and they will write, so and so is an avowed white supremacist.
That's how the game works.
They're destroying language so that no one can understand what's actually going on.
They go on to mention that people picked it up on Twitter and were talking about it, which we read.
They say, Ben Domenech, the co-founder and publisher of The Federalist, tweeted, multiracial whiteness, another term for, you know, trying to justify why the people who disagree with you are brown.
Here we have this graph, how Latino and Asian voting changed between 2016 and 2020.
In LA, massive jump for Donald Trump.
This is amazing.
In San Jose, in many places where you didn't think it would happen.
I guess, wow, support for Democrats dropped for Joe Biden went way down in Philadelphia.
They go on to say, uh, some felt, some said they felt taken for granted by Democrats.
Others, like history professor Geraldo L. Cadava, have explained that there is no such thing as the Latino vote because Latino voters differ in backgrounds so much.
In a November 9th article for The Atlantic, Cadava wrote, Latinos are not a uniform voting bloc.
We are spread across the country and have wildly different backgrounds.
It's remarkable, isn't it?
Do you think people in Florida who fled Venezuela and Cuba are going to vote for socialism?
You were wrong.
There was one district, I think maybe it was a 22nd, I'm not sure, which was considered to be safe Democrat by all the polls, and it flipped Republican, shocking many people.
Why?
Because these people understood completely what was going on in their home countries and why they left, and they sure as hell would not vote for it here.
We saw in southern Texas on the border, blue areas that were blue because of Latinos turned red.
But there are also Latinos in cities like Chicago and in California who still overwhelmingly, or I should say still very much so, vote Democrat.
It's not the same thing.
A Latino who lives in Chicago is not going to have the same experiences, on average, to someone who fled Cuba.
They're going to be very, very different.
They say over the years, Latinos ourselves have struggled to articulate what unites and divides us.
We are so diverse that we often say the Latino vote doesn't really exist.
And that, I think, is fair to say.
I'm not surprised to see the expansion of the absurdities.
We're starting to leave the political realm now that the elections are over, which means we're going to go through another year of cultural debate, and some politics, and then in, so that's 2021, and then 2022 is going to be all politics again.
They say that the Republicans will reclaim the House in 2022 due to typical political cycles.
You see, what happens is the Democrats will gain power, go nuts, people will react and say, ah, and then vote for Republicans.
And then the Republicans will get power, go nuts, and the Democrats will go, ah, and then vote for Democrats.
Or the, you know, middle of the road voters will switch back and forth.
This year is going to be very heavy on cultural politics, I bet.
I'm telling you.
The people who want to talk about, you know, Trump and Trumpism are going to have to find reasons to do so.
But because there's no big election cycle, they're going to start shifting into movies and games once again.
And it's really simple.
This story about Pepe the Frog.
It's ridiculous.
It's nothing.
It's a frog picture.
It's nothing.
But the media, the artists, need something to shock you.
And so they find the most abhorrent things, racism, and they slap that sticker on it.
Got your attention now, they ask?
That's the plan.
If they just said someone, you know, defiled our painting of Bernie, people would be like, so what?
Okay, it's graffiti, grow up.
Well, can we call it a hate crime?
Ah, there you go, now you get a headline.
That's what they do.
I think it's true for how this all started, the culture war with things like GamerGate.
If a video game comes out, you write your guide.
You write about speedruns and developments and updates.
But you don't have recurring news every day.
So what do you do?
You need to find something to write about every day to justify your job.
So they found politics.
And cultural issues.
And that's why many of these stories were nonsensical.
Like complaining about stupid nonsense just because it's something to be mad at.
Otherwise no one's gonna click the articles.
There you go.
We'll see what Joe Biden does his first day in office.
