S527 - Democrats Elites And Media Are PANICKING Without Trump, Cry About Trumpism As CNN Ratings TANK 44%
Democrats Elites Are PANICKING Without Trump, Media Cries About Trumpism As CNN Ratings PLUMMET 44%. Somehow even with Trump out of office he still dominates the media cycle.Democrats need the boogeyman, the specter of Trumpism, otherwise what little unity they have with progressives dwindles. Now Democrats are demanding the removal of Marjorie Taylor Greene and in response Republicans say they want Ilhan Omar removed.But this just seems to be an easy way for the establishment to remove the outsiders.As for media its about to get bad. Ratings are plummeting and interest in non Trump news is very low. This is all grounds for optimism in the end.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Believe it or not, today's main segment is Grounds for Optimism.
The media is completely desperate, calling out Trump-ism, trying to explain away the GameStop rebellion as Trump-ism, because there's no Trump anymore!
They got nothing to write about!
CNN's ratings have tanked 44% because they got nothing to write about without Donald Trump.
Well, they're trying, my friends.
So they are screaming about Trump-ism.
The Democrats, however, are targeting QAnon and demanding that Marjorie Taylor Greene be removed, which brings me to more information that is grounds to be optimistic about.
You see, in response to the demand that Marjorie Taylor Greene be removed, because in the past on social media, she said some pretty outrageous and bombastic things.
Well, the Republicans are saying, OK, well, then we want to remove Ilhan Omar.
And I'm just sitting here like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, guys.
If we're gonna do this, alright?
If the Dems are gonna say, remove MTG, and then you tit-for-tat back with Ilhan Omar, and then they tit-for-tat back with another Republican, and the Republicans go back, this is good news.
Eventually, maybe, all of Congress will be forced to leave because no one will- I'm kidding, by the way, but this is what we get.
They're so desperate, the Democrats, to have some kind of boogeyman that they're targeting a freshman congresswoman.
And I have to ask myself, you know, I have to ask everybody, why do Republicans play this game?
I'm sorry, man.
They are such pathetic losers.
This is a freshman congresswoman of, look, with all due respect, OK, there's a lot of things to criticize Marjorie Taylor Greene for.
She said some pretty outrageous and ridiculous things.
But come on, she's not of particular consequence in that capacity.
She's not the party leader.
She's just one rep out of, what, we have 435 in this country?
And the Democrats are using this when we look at the screams and cries of Trumpism and the scourge of Trump, long gone but not forgotten.
We can see exactly what their play is.
Making people angry at Donald Trump worked really well for them.
And you know what?
Fine.
You don't gotta like Donald Trump.
But to now try and make up this scourge and play this game, we know exactly what they're doing.
They need to retain the specter of Trump without Trump.
And the media is doing the same thing.
My friends, welcome to the era of Trumpism.
I talked about it months ago.
I said, once Trump is out, this is what we're gonna see.
But I gotta tell you, watching CNN's ratings tank is grounds for optimism.
That's the important takeaway.
Why?
Because regular people don't care.
Regular people were tuned into The Apprentice in the White House, Donald Trump's reality TV political show, and all the news outlets were just so happy to get on board and play the game too.
Well, now Trump's gone.
And Trumpism doesn't work.
Without Trump as the central mass of which everything orbits around, there's nothing to talk about.
So I think we're going to see a figurative bloodbath in media.
It's a quote from Shane Smith, the former CEO of Vice, when he said digital media was going to collapse.
Then Trump came along and saved it all.
The Democrats don't have unity.
The progressives don't like Joe Biden.
But they had Donald Trump.
Without Donald Trump, you can see their desperate play.
But there's nothing at the core of it, so I think it's all gonna fall apart.
Let's take a look at what's going on first with this tit-for-tat, and then we'll talk about Trumpism.
But before we get started, my friends, you must go over to TimCast.com and become a member, because we got a whole bunch of exclusive members-only content, and we have two full bonus episodes.
Now, let me be real with you.
The reason for TimCast.com is because I think It's very likely that censorship will come for channels like mine.
I don't know if I'll get censored.
My Facebook has already been essentially destroyed.
So we set up TimCast.com so you could become a member.
And in the event I do get banned, I'll at least have some kind of presence remaining.
And we also have these exclusive episodes.
We have a full hour-long podcast about Netflix claiming there's proof of life after death, exorcisms on the rise, and talking about God and religion with Seamus of Freedom Tomb.
So check it out at TimCast.com, but don't forget to like, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's first get started with the congressional tit-for-tat, and what's the point of this and where it leads us.
The New York Post reports, GOP Democrats in tit-for-tat over removal of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ilhan Omar.
They say House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy met privately with fellow Republican Rep.
Marjorie Taylor Greene to discuss her litany of controversial political stances, as Democrats ramp up pressure to have her removed from her committee assignment, and the GOP seeks to have Rep.
Ilhan Omar stripped of her committees in a tit-for-tat effort.
The Tuesday night meeting between McCarthy and Greene lasted about 90 minutes and took place in his Capitol office.
Afterward, the No.
2 GOP lawmaker summoned members of the House Republican Steering Committee for a late-night meeting to discuss the matter.
Let me stop right there.
First, here's the bad news for Republicans, I guess, and conservatives.
The Democrats are winning this fight.
It's true.
Republicans are more than happy to play the game.
When Steve King of Iowa said some stupid things on Twitter, they stripped him immediately of his committee positions, and then he eventually got primaried.
I can respect that about Republicans.
Not a big fan of the feckless Republican Party, but I can at least respect they're willing to acknowledge the bad things.
When Ilhan Omar said a series of things that were described—well, I would describe as crop-dusting anti-Semitism.
What I mean by that is, she didn't make overt statements that were anti-Semitic.
She pushed a series of tropes about Jews in Israel, which were people going like, yo, you know crop-dusters?
The planes get, like, really close to the ground but don't touch it?
That's what I mean, right?
Very, very close.
But the Democrats didn't condemn her.
They condemned all hatred.
They defended her.
When Antifa burned down entire cities, we saw Kamala Harris fundraise for them.
And when Marjorie Taylor Greene says a lot of really dumb and detestable things, things I think are worthy of criticism, they're now demanding her outright removal.
But come on, what about Kamala Harris?
You see, that's the problem with Republicans.
When the Democrats complain, they go, oh jeez, I'm so sorry, I'll give you whatever you want.
The Democrats are screaming and ripping out their hair.
But like I said, grounds for optimism.
At least in this effort they're calling for tit-for-tat.
Now we're hearing that the Democrats will vote to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from both her House committees after turning down Kevin McCarthy's offer to kick her off just one as she slams the hate America Democrats.
Okay, well, I'll tell you what.
They're targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene, not because she's a threat to anybody.
And the Republicans are bowing down and giving in because they've always been particularly pathetic.
They don't fight for causes, they just kind of slow the Democrats down.
And the Democrats end up winning.
Well, with Trump gone, there is a very real fear among media and Democrats they will not be able to keep that boogeyman alive.
So they need Marjorie Taylor Greene to be in office, even though she's just a freshman congresswoman and not of particular consequence.
Again, no disrespect.
I'll criticize the things she said, but I'm just saying she's not McCarthy.
She's not McConnell.
She's not Trump.
But they need something to replace Trump, so now they're trying a few ideas.
For one, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who they say supports the QAnon conspiracy.
They're saying QAnon itself is the scourge, and the Republicans are conspiracy theorists.
A clever play.
I don't think it'll work, and I think... I think it's clever in the sense that I see what they're trying, but I think it will ultimately backfire.
And they're trying, my friends, I love it, Trumpism.
They were talking about Trumpism for some time.
They were prepping us, okay?
So before the election, we saw a ton of articles saying Trumpism is the real threat, and I'm like, here we go.
This is what they're gonna do.
Trump is a powerful unifying force.
Now they claim Trump is a fascist and Trump is American fascism or whatever.
what they're really doing, especially with this article from CNN. Check this out. Let me show you
this one. How Trumpism explains the GameStop stock surge.
Chris Saliza explains the politics at work.
In his op-ed, he's a video and his op-ed, he basically says that challenging the elites
and believing that the establishment is ripping you off is a sign of Trumpism.
It's really amazing, though, because progressives believe basically the same thing.
You see what they're doing?
They're saying populism, essentially, is Trumpism.
Now, there's an actual, like, academic definition of Trumpism.
It has to do with bombastic, loudmouth politics.
But what they're doing is trying to take Trump's name, which is considered bad, and attach it to general populism.
Of course, there are a lot of people on the left that are scared already of the word populism.
But my friends, populism surely is being smeared, but it's basically the inverse of elitism.
Elitism is bad.
Let me tell you about elitism.
This idea that people born into wealth, connections, privilege, and access should be in charge makes no sense.
Meritocracy is what we want.
Populism is a government for the people.
Now, there's negatives, of course.
Sometimes there are people who are elite, who have a better understanding, and their access allows them to do good things.
Sure, it's not all bad.
And sometimes there are populists who just say whatever the population wants to hear in order to get elected, and then it actually causes problems.
If everybody started screaming, print more money so we're all rich, give everyone a million dollars, it would destroy the economy.
So that kind of populism could be bad.
What they're doing, though, is they're attaching this disdain the working class has for the Wall Street establishment to Trump's name in an effort to destroy it.
Here's the story from U.S.
News.
Trump is gone, but Trump-isms not forgotten.
Donald Trump has left Washington, but the shadow of the former president looms large over an increasingly conflicted party.
I love this.
This is from today.
Look at this.
They say, uh, the division will come to a head Wednesday as Republican House members decide what to do with colleagues representing the two sides of the GOP.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California is under pressure to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia from her committee posts because of wild conspiracy theories Greene has espoused and comments she has retweeted calling for violence against her Democratic colleagues.
McCarthy met with Greene on Tuesday night, jogging away from reporters who asked him how it went.
Meanwhile, other Republicans are looking to remove Rep Liz Cheney from her leadership post, angry that the Wyoming lawmaker voted to impeach Trump last month.
A verdict could come as soon as Wednesday, when the GOP caucus holds its weekly private meetings.
But please tell me, what is Trumpism?
They say the Senate is preparing to hold a trial of Trump.
Look, I don't care.
They say when Trump was president, a nasty tweet or threat to endorse a primary opponent was enough to send a down-ticket GOP-er into a tailspin, followed by a pledge of allegiance to Trump.
But can Trump-ism endure with the man himself out in front, uh, rallying his troops?
He's a man who is deeply wounded, marred by the dubious distinction, blah blah blah blah.
Here we go, here we go.
What is Trump-ism?
If you define Trumpism as a strong border security, economic populism, and a sort of unilateral approach to global affairs, I think you'll see more of that.
If you define it as governing by hate tweet, I don't think you're going to see much more of that, says Michael Steele, a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, the former spokesman for GOP former House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.
Trump loves the spotlight and the adulation.
Okay, you know what?
I'm over this article.
My friends, Trump is gone.
Trump is the former president.
The only reason he's in the news right now is because they're trying to impeach him, and I think the only reason they're trying to impeach him, well, the main reason, is to prevent him from running again.
Regardless, if Trump wants to be, he could be a kingmaker.
But take a look at this desperate bid.
February 1st.
Trumpism is American fascism.
The Washington Post says it is revealing how a political movement that claims to be dedicated to the recovery of national greatness has so readily and completely abandoned many defining national ideals.
Donald Trump's promise of American strength has involved the betrayal of American identity, sure.
One of the most important strands of our founding ideology is civic republicanism.
In this tradition, the common good is not automatically produced by a clash of competing interests.
A just society must be consciously constructed by citizens possessing certain values.
A democracy, in particular, depends on people who take responsibility for their communities, show an active concern for the welfare of their neighbors, demand integrity from public officials, defend the rule of law, and respect the rights and dignity of others.
Without these moral commitments, a majority is merely a mob.
You know, I see these stories.
They talk about Trumpism, a desperate attempt to claim that anyone who now carries on this idea of populism challenging the establishment is a remnant of Trump, is somehow fascism or a bad thing.
It is a desperate play from Democrats who are just trying to make sure they can have their boogeyman.
White supremacy is not just for white people, says Vanity Fair.
Trumpism, the Proud Boys, and the extremist allure for people of color.
They're even trying to now claim that there are white supremacist people of color.
Because it's a boogeyman.
It's not a real thing.
Trump was easy to make people hate.
I'm sorry, it's true.
I tell the story a lot, but I was in an Uber going to Glenn Beck's studio, and the cab driver said he voted for Trump, he likes him, but man, he just wished Trump wouldn't tweet.
Even the people who liked Trump, the regular people, recognized the bad things about Trump they didn't like, and that made it very easy for the media to manipulate.
In the end, it was easy to create an us-versus-them, a Trumpism-fascism, or whatever you want to call it.
It's not going to work the same.
Sure, they can go after Marjorie Taylor Greene, but in the end, Is Marjorie Taylor Greene going to be enough?
No.
Which brings me to the big story, the next big play from Democrats.
How to maintain their power without Trump.
If they get Marjorie Taylor Greene removed, or people start to recognize she's not all that powerful or significant anyway, will they have to target the entire GOP and claim they are QAnon?
Politico reports, House Dems move to yoke GOP to QAnon.
They can do QAnon or they can do college educated voters.
They cannot do both.
Now, this story immediately sparked outrage from the left, which was actually kind of funny.
Why did it spark outrage?
You see, the left said, yo, there are college educated QAnon supporters.
Stop disparaging people who didn't go to college or, you know, trying to claim that you're better than them.
Many of these people on the left recognized you gotta win over the working class and trying to claim that everybody who's non-college educated and working class is somehow more likely to be QAnon or not smart enough to get past it.
Well, that's going to hurt the Democrats.
You see, as more data comes out, what we're learning is something very interesting about the election.
Trump lost.
The states that Trump lost, he lost because he didn't get the vote from white working-class voters, people without college educations.
He didn't do as well.
He improved greatly among minorities.
The left is recognizing this.
So they're roasting the Democrats' attempts to paint Republicans as QAnon, but more importantly, as not college-educated.
As if QAnon people, you know, are exclusively among the non-college-educated, or if going to college makes you invulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Politico says, House Democrats are preparing to center their strategy for the far-off midterm elections on a simple, aggressive message.
Republicans are the party of QAnon.
Making an unusually early move to protect their narrow majority, House Democrats' campaign arm on Tuesday launched its first TV ad campaign, spotlighting supporters of the fringe conspiracy theory, including those who stormed the Capitol.
It is the first step in a larger plan, orchestrated by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's new chair, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York.
to exploit the growing friction between Trump hardliners and establishment Republicans in the
GOP base, which Maloney sees as a major weak point for the party. I want to point something out to
y'all. Google, I believe the number is $57 billion in ad revenue last year.
I'll be completely honest, ad revenue for political content was insane last year.
No joke, insane.
Absolutely insane.
I'm talking just, my jaw hit the floor seeing some of the ad rates that were coming in on YouTube.
Yeah, my business was doing well.
It's definitely way, way down now.
The expectation from a lot of people, Was that after 2020, and this happens all the time, when all these politicians are dumping billions, yeah, believe it or not, into political ads, that you're gonna make a lot of money off ads for political content and news content, and then in the next year, with the election over, everybody chills out, kind of forgets about it, and then it wanes, and the ads go down for politics.
That's, uh, it happened, but already starting to be reversed.
Why?
In January, a lot of the ad budgets aren't finalized, but we are seeing something really, really crazy.
There's no rest.
The midterms aren't for two years, and already the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is ramping up their ad campaigns.
It is going to be two years of nonstop escalation.
If you think it was going to end with Trump leaving, you were wrong.
And we have been warning all of you, all of like the people in media, I've been saying over and over again, and most of you probably know this, there is no back to normal.
So many people made the mistake of voting for Joe Biden thinking, I just want it to stop.
The media, stop, shut up.
I don't care anymore.
They wouldn't shut up about Trump and Q and Republicans and Trumpism and fascism.
So they said, just give me good old Joe Biden and bring it back to normal.
It was a mistake.
There is no return to normal.
They already started their midterm ad campaigns, and we're two years- the election just ended!
We literally just inaugurated Joe Biden, and now we're already doing the midterms?
Y'all are crazy if you thought this was gonna stop.
No.
The whirlwind is speeding up.
The political escalation is going to get crazier and crazier.
And so I joked early on that maybe in this tit-for-tat they'll say, OK, we'll get rid of Marjorie Taylor Greene if you get rid of Ilhan Omar.
And the Democrats will be like, OK, well then we'll raise Tom Cotton.
You get rid of Tom Cotton and then we'll get rid of Ilhan Omar.
And the Republicans go, OK, but we want to see Bernie Sanders out.
And it goes back and forth forever.
Is that what's going to happen?
It's a cudgel, and the Democrats need it.
Without Trump, there is a hollow space, and nothing unifying their party.
Now don't get me wrong, Republicans are fracturing down the middle as well.
You know, they want to get rid of Liz Cheney, but then you got some Republicans who want to get rid of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The Republicans are in for a civil war themselves, between those who are Trump hardliners, like, you know, the previous article said, and those who are establishment crony Republican I gotta be honest, the crony Republican types, the McConnells, the Lindsey Grahams, they may as well be Democrats as far as I'm concerned, and Nancy Pelosi and Biden may as well be Republicans.
It's the Uniparty.
But now we can see, the Democrats have long had this fissure, this fracture.
The progressives don't like Joe Biden.
I was talking about Graham Elwood, a YouTuber, a progressive, who was very critical of Joe Biden, and he got demonetized on YouTube.
You see how this works.
The point is, the progressives are absolutely roasting Joe Biden.
And you can see that both parties now have their fissures.
The Democrats desperately need a unifying force for establishment and progressive alike.
And they'll try and use QAnon and Trumpism and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
But my friends, what do you do when Marjorie Taylor Greene is gone?
Here we go.
Manu Raju on Twitter, he is verified and the chief congressional correspondent for CNN says, amid the Marjorie Taylor Greene controversy, on a caucus call this morning, DCCC chairman Sean Maloney told his colleagues that Democrats plan to stay relentlessly on offense against Republicans, according to a person on the call.
And he said Democrats would try to tie GOP to QAnon and go after Boebert.
That's the name of the game, my friends.
First, they're going after Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You see, they're not Donald Trump, so they're not that big, and they're probably easier to remove, right?
Okay.
They go after MTG.
Next, it's going to be Lauren Boebert.
They're going to keep trying to associate these freshman populist, you know, politicians with Trump.
So they have their lingering boogeyman.
It's remnants of the Trump era they're trying to excise.
And how much do you want to bet the Republican Party establishment is going to go, oh, no, I guess we have no choice.
Think about it.
The Republicans say, OK, you can get rid of Marjorie Taylor Greene, but then we want Ilhan Omar removed.
And the Democrats go, oh, oh, no.
Oh, geez, not Ilhan Omar, the progressive upstart that doesn't play the establishment game enough.
Look, I'm not a big fan of Ilhan Omar.
I'm not a big fan of AOC.
I'm actually starting to become a fan of Rashida Tlaib, no joke.
Her calling out the security state and calling out Robinhood was done with passion and legitimacy.
I like that.
Now, I would say that makes me a fan, but I really disagree with her on policy.
I think Ilhan Omar is a bit duplicitous, though she also, I believe, called out Robinhood, and I'll give them respect when they deserve it.
AOC, I think, is just a celebrity who tries to pander to people to generate press attention.
But I don't think the Democrats like AOC.
I don't think they like the Squad.
Well, AOC actually kind of helps them, and it's starting to play ball with the establishment, but... Ilhan Omar?
If they had the opportunity to get rid of the progressive upstarts that, you know, the Squad, Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to deal with these people.
They want the Uniparty back!
Isn't it convenient?
Who's going to be removed?
Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ilhan Omar, AOC, or Rashida Tlaib?
Yeah.
That's... It's kind of obvious, right?
The establishment players love each other.
They don't care about you.
Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell may as well be Democrats.
Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Biden, whatever, they may as well be Republicans.
And the left calls them Republicans.
And, well, the conservatives don't call McConnell a Democrat, but, you know, he's part of the Uniparty, I suppose.
When both parties are like, fine, you forced my hand, we're gonna get rid of the upstart populists from the party and strip them of power.
I'm like, uh-huh.
It's the establishment recoiling to defend itself.
That's the game.
Well, I'll tell you this, Cassandra Fairbank's coming in with the hot take that I agree with.
Scott McFarlane says, House Republicans, including former Trump doctor Rep.
Rodney Jackson, draft amendment bill to remove Rep.
Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committees.
The amendment calls for removal of Rep.
Ilhan Omar from her committees, too.
Cassandra, she's a friend of mine, full disclosure, says, I'm going to get S for this, but neither of them should be removed from committees.
I like Marjorie Taylor Greene and don't like Omar, but like it or not, people voted for them and they won.
Neutering them is just neutering their constituents.
Cassandra's right.
You know, I've seen a lot of people complain about Marjorie Taylor Greene saying they didn't realize what she was saying and posting when they voted for her.
There was even some local conservatives said if they had been aware, they would have called it out.
Well, you got two years, my friends.
This is how the country works.
She got voted in.
That's it.
Stripping her of her committees, and Ilhan Omar as well, I think is wrong.
This is a country of many different jurisdictions, and the goal of having people like Ilhan Omar in is because she represents her district.
You don't have to like her.
You can actually detest the people who voted for her.
You can believe all those opinions.
You're allowed to.
But she won.
She won for a variety of reasons.
I don't think politics is a fair game.
I think it's a dirty game.
But she did win, and that's how the game is played.
Now she's going to be in office.
You want to remove her?
I don't think that's right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene as well.
They're not being removed for doing anything wrong.
That's the issue.
If Marjorie Taylor Greene came in, you know, throwing, I don't know, rocks at people and screaming, and they're like, okay, time to get rid of her, I'd be like, all right.
With Steve King in Iowa, he was actively on these committees when he started tweeting certain things, and they were like, we can't have that.
In fact, there's even an argument about a potential for lawsuits or civil rights action for the things he was tweeting.
Not that I think they would have actually gone anywhere, I'm just saying there was grounds for concern when a sitting member of Congress tweets things about, he tweeted something about white nationalism not being bad, and that was, you know, a ridiculous statement.
So he got removed and he got primaried, he's gone.
Ilhan Omar did nothing.
I mean, she's said offensive things in the past.
And okay, fine, maybe that's grounds then.
But now it's being used as a tit-for-tat.
Marjorie Taylor Greene said things years ago before she got elected.
Now she's in, tell her the rules, she follows the rules, then she didn't do anything wrong.
If you don't like her, you can't remove her.
She was elected.
The same is true for Ilhan Omar.
I will defend both of them because I think this is stupid political garbage, and I gotta tell you this.
You know, I'd honestly rather have Ilhan Omar than Nancy Pelosi.
I really, really have grown to despise Nancy Pelosi, and I can't wait for her to go.
Look, I think AOC, you know the squad for the most part, I think AOC is a careerist.
I think she uses social media to maximize her attention, and she is really good at it.
Really good.
It's really bad for our politics, but she is really, really good at it.
I don't like it.
I don't.
I'd still rather have her than Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi is a manipulative, sociopathic, just you name it, the worst of the worst.
She's worth hundreds of millions of dollars along with her husband to be fair.
I think her net worth was in like the tens of millions but her husband was in the hundreds and so she knows she got married.
And what does she do?
What does she do?
She plays the same stupid game as everyone else, she is a corrupt crony establishment player, and she gets nothing done.
You then have Chuck Schumer, he's just awful.
AOC, there's rumors that she might primary him.
Good, bring it on.
I don't like Ilhan Omar.
I think she's very much like AOC, but...
Not nearly as bad.
I gotta be honest, I don't think Ilhan Omar is as bad as AOC.
I just think she's also a careerist, and I got questions about, you know, the money she's spent and her new husband and things like that, but... Look, that's an investigation that probably should happen, and if she's gonna be removed, it's gonna be for doing actual things wrong.
But I've looked at Rashida Tlaib as of recent, as I mentioned, respect.
She tweeted that we shouldn't expand national security powers.
She tweeted we should look into Robinhood.
And I don't agree with her policy positions.
I don't agree with her saying impeach the MFR and things like that.
But...
I don't see her as the same as AOC.
She also voted no on, I think it was, the omnibus spending bill.
And so I've just been like, dude, you know what?
We may not agree on policy, but I think the left and the right, more libertarian populist type individuals, challenging the establishment machine, have more in common than what they don't.
And so I would humbly disagree with, like, minimum wage laws with Rashida Tlaib, but then be like, but you know what?
I'd much rather have her than Nancy Pelosi, because Pelosi's the kind of person who's gonna ramp up the security state, ramp up the wars, and she is just a crony, manipulative, awful individual.
So long story short...
I think what we're seeing now, with the threat and the fear of Trumpism and all that stuff, is establishment Democrats' desperate bid to keep the progressive left aligned with them, using Marjorie Taylor Greene.
It's a really smart play.
It is.
I can already see these populist leftist progressive types, or the grifters, the one who claims to be, now cheering it on.
Saying, yeah, yeah, okay, you realize a tit-for-tat gets rid of Ilhan Omar.
I am a firm believer that for the most part... Actually, let me tell you this.
I'll put it this way.
There are grifters.
There are QAnon grifters.
There are people who post ridiculous, insane things.
I don't know why.
Maybe they really believe it.
Maybe they're just making up fake news to make money.
There was a period several years ago where there literally were people who would just write fake stories and then get them shared on Facebook, and they were making tens of thousands of dollars per month.
Literally, just make something up.
Fake news was a serious problem.
They all got banned.
A lot of these Q channels, they all got banned.
And so I'm not a fan of these people, the grifters and the conspiracy, you know, nuts who are telling people that right now Donald Trump is still president.
They believe it.
It's just not true.
They keep moving the goalposts.
It's not true.
But on the left, the grifters are in front of plain view.
Why?
Because they're supporting the democratic establishment.
You know, I'll tell you one thing.
Donald Trump did not denounce Q. And at the time when I kept hearing, you know, Trump get asked about it, I didn't know a whole lot about it either.
I'd heard about it, I'd heard some things, I'd seen some tweets, but I didn't care!
It wasn't a big prominent story for me.
Now that Trump is out, they're making it more and more prominent, and thus I ended up learning more as, of course, time went on.
But Trump probably should have denounced QAnon in... he should have done it in the right way.
And the right way is, I respect that you're concerned about potential nefarious groups and things like trafficking, but a lot of these conspiracies are just not true.
If you want to trust the system, you should be listening to what Trump has to say.
You know, I find it interesting when I look at the Donald.win, now Patriots.win, the Donald Trump forum, And Donald Trump said, no violence and go home in peace.
And the Trump supporters said, you heard the man.
But there were still a lot of cute people saying, no, no, Trump secretly meant this and believing things he didn't say.
Anyway, look, I digress.
It's an excellent boogeyman for the left because it's going to make sure the left-wing grifters keep attacking the right.
So I'll tell you one thing.
I'm not a fan of what Marjorie Taylor Greene has posted and what she said, but she's done it.
It is what it is.
How about we all just say, here's what we do.
From now on, y'all chill out, don't do it, and if you do, then we'll remove you, right?
The main issue now is there's going to be a lot of left-wing grifter channels who will take segments from this video out of context to claim that I'm defending Marjorie Taylor Greene or what she believes and things like that because their real goal is to make sure we're constantly fighting each other.
I don't want to fight each other anymore.
I'm sick of it.
I don't mind arguing.
I don't mind having the debates.
That's fine.
But I don't like how bad the escalation has gotten.
I don't like that we're at this point now where people are literally at each other's throats, and AOC is claiming Ted Cruz almost had her killed, even though she wasn't even in the Capitol building.
You heard that story she told?
Sure, it's the Capitol Complex.
Her building was across the street.
But it wasn't even the same building.
So please, spare me when you think that Ted Cruz almost got her killed.
They want us fighting.
And what AOC says helps.
Alright, well, maybe you want to defend AOC.
Look, I respect her telling her story.
I got no beef with it.
My issue is the media manipulation.
My issue is them taking what she does when she promotes herself and then turning it into drama to make sure that instead of talking about the establishment elites who are screwing us over, we're complaining about each other.
And here we are.
I don't want to see MTG removed, but I'm not a fan.
And I don't want to see Omar removed, and I'm not a fan either.
I think this is the establishment trying to seize back control, and it may work, so long as there are grifters on the left who are uncensored.
Because, like I mentioned, you got the right-wing grifters, you got the conspiracy channels whipping people up into a frenzy, but they're mostly shut down.
On the left, you have prominent, high-profile personalities that waste their time talking about me.
Why?
If you watch my videos, you're going to hear me talk about the establishment elites ripping you off, be it the left or the right.
The easiest way to make sure that the left doesn't listen is to poison the well.
And there it is.
The specter of Trumpism will not go away.
However, as I mentioned earlier on, I'll end with this.
I'm optimistic.
I don't think they can maintain orbit around Trumpism without Trump himself.
I think the media companies are going to start failing, their staffers are going to get fired off, and they won't be able to sustain themselves.
They won't be able to pay the salaries because the genre of Trump articles is done.
You can only write about Marjorie Taylor Greene so much before people stop caring.
You can only write about AOC so much before people stop caring, but I guess I'll be honest, people really love talking about AOC.
Because she's like Trump.
She's almost the same as him, just in a different way.
She's like the inversion.
It's the same strategies, the same social media, the same complaining, but instead of old, she's young.
Instead of a white man, she's a woman of color.
Instead of a conservative, she's a progressive.
The tactics are similar.
So the conservatives will certainly have something to talk about for some time.
The left won't.
We'll see if that fractures things.
The GameStop rebellion may be winding down.
We'll see.
But it was truly a gift.
Because now you could just tell the left, dude, let's stop fighting.
Right?
Stop fighting.
Let's just chill.
Look what they're doing.
Don't get distracted by this stuff.
We'll see how it plays out.
We got more important stuff to talk about later in the day.
Check out YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL live tonight, 8 p.m.
It's going to be a whole lot of fun.
We are going to be talking a whole lot about this stuff and probably a bunch of other stuff, too.
Like I mentioned, over at TimCast.com, we have a full hour episode about life after death.
We've got some reincarnation in there, we got near-death experiences, Netflix claims to have proof of this stuff, so we're talking about a lot of stuff.
You can find that at TimCast.com, but stick around.
8 p.m.
tonight.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all that.
On his opinion piece for Fox News, it says billionaires fund their own studies and they get the conclusions they pay for.
A study came out by NYU claiming that conservative censorship doesn't exist!
There's no evidence.
Which is an outrageous lie.
I say it every time I talk about censorship.
Gizmodo, not a right-wing publication, first broke the news that employees at Facebook were deleting trending conservative stories from their news trending tab.
That's a fact.
And from that, it's only gotten worse.
And more importantly, As most of you know, I'm sure, because people kind of bring it up all the time, I was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey and Vijay Agade some time ago, and ultimately, when I called them out for pointing out their definitive bias, which is clear as day and exists, the response was, thanks for the feedback.
To put it simply.
There is absolutely censorship of conservatives, predominantly.
But censorship goes further than just conservatives, my friends.
They're going after the anti-establishment individuals.
Now, for the past several years, this was typically the conservatives who were challenging the media and the cultural institutions.
That's who's getting banned.
To simplify my Jack Dorsey, you know, Joe Rogan episode, The misgendering policy on Twitter is of a very narrow, left-wing, dogmatic perspective that most people in this country don't agree with.
Conservatives are the ones who speak out against it, and thus, they're the ones who end up getting banned.
The defense I hear from the left is, so you think conservatives should have the right to misgender people?
No, I'm saying conservatives don't agree with your perspective on what misgendering is.
I'm not condoning or condemning, I'm just pointing out you have 75 million people, I suppose, or more.
Now, Tucker Carlson calls this out because it's BS, but the big news here is actually Florida Governor Ron DeSantis declaring war on big tech cartels, says he will protect politicians from being banned with a $100,000 a day fine for companies that exclude candidates.
My friends, you want to know how someone's honest?
They're agreeing with this.
You can be on the left, the right, up, down, left, whatever, religious, non-religious.
Recognizing what Ron DeSantis is saying is very important.
He's saying we don't want Mark Zuckerberg promoting politicians or blocking them.
For the longest time, we've heard from the left that Facebook's algorithms are promoting conservatives.
We see it all the time from these personalities.
They put out this list of the top 10 stories on Facebook this week, and it's all Ben Shapiro, Ben Shapiro, Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson.
And they complain about it.
Okay, well, if that's what people want to share, that's what they want to share, right?
How about this?
As Ron DeSantis proposes, one of the things he says, you can opt out of the algorithm.
I'm just like, yes, brother.
Preach.
Absolutely.
Censorship is a very serious and real problem.
And I am extremely impressed with what Ron DeSantis has proposed here.
And I think it makes a lot of sense.
And I agree with it.
But let me read the story for you to break down what's exactly going on.
They say, Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis has declared war on big tech cartels, proposing a new law targeting firms who deplatform candidates for office.
Now, before I read, I want to point out, Laura Loomer, Most, I think most people know who she is.
She's a very prominent, and I don't know what the right way to describe Laura Loomer is.
She's very good at generating press for herself.
She's very controversial, and she was running for office in Florida, but she was banned from social media.
I believe she sued for this, but there was an argument that by Twitter banning her, but not her opponent, they were essentially giving free public platforming, which is akin to running ads.
To her opponent, which may have hurt her.
Now, Laura won the primary and ultimately lost the race.
But the big challenge here was whether or not she had a right to be a verified user on Twitter running for political office.
Under Ron DeSantis' new rules, she would be.
Here's what he says.
Here's the story.
In a press conference on Tuesday, DeSantis issued a series of recommendations that are expected to be included in the legislation this year, as the Transparency in Technology Act announced on the same day.
Quote, Today they may come after someone who looks like me.
Tomorrow they may come after someone who looks like you.
DeSantis warned towards the end of his address to reporters at the state capitol, during which it aimed at big tech companies.
DeSantis said that Florida would fine social media firms like Facebook and Twitter $100,000 per day if they ban any candidate running for elected office in the state.
The Republicans' proposed legislation would also require firms to give notice of changes in the terms of service, allow people to opt out of content algorithms, and create a cause-of-action pathway for legal action against tech firms.
Florida's proposed Transparency Technology Act aims to protect privacy from the expanding powers of big tech firms because the system is rigged, he claimed.
And it is.
Twitter, Facebook, and other similar platforms have changed from neutral platforms to enforcers of preferred narratives.
DeSantis said, adding, I'm committed to addressing what may be one of the most pervasive threats to American self-government in the 21st century.
Now you may be thinking to yourself that he's certainly wrong, Ron DeSantis is incorrect, and this is just conservatives whining.
My friends, I would like to introduce you to Graham Elwood.
Grant Elwood tweeted, Well, YouTube censorship has hit me again.
This time really hard.
Was it the JFK talk with Lee Camp?
Or calling out people with Epstein ties?
Anyway, America is not a democracy and hasn't been one for decades.
Hear, hear, good sir.
Graham Elwood is a progressive, but he's challenging the establishment.
My response was, soon YouTube will have to change its name to Tube.
The only thing left will be mainstream personalities.
And I want to show you what this is really about.
Ron DeSantis said, it's about the narrative.
It's not necessarily about conservatives.
Conservatives are the ones who are predominantly getting, you know, smacked down and getting censored.
Why?
Because they're the ones challenging the cultural establishment.
But there are many leftists who do it as well.
Notably, Graham Elwood, Jimmy Dore, for instance.
And there are certainly many personalities who just kind of skirt around it or toe the line on YouTube, as it were.
But there is a preferred narrative.
They want a unified narrative that they control.
The establishment elites, the corporate media overlords, all these people, and I've met some of these people.
They want to be able to unify everything into a single, easy-to-condense message.
They want control of the media back.
I want to show you why I think Graham Elwood got... Well, so let me show you.
They say your channel is no longer eligible to monetize.
They took his money away.
I'll tell you why.
In my opinion.
Take a look at Graham's YouTube channel.
Look what we got here.
He's got 76,000 subscribers.
He is a progressive political commentary with live streams five days a week.
Let's see, what was his last video?
Hundreds deported under Biden, including witness.
Okay, all right.
Critical of Joe Biden.
Critical of deportation, right?
Presumably.
Presumably.
I'm not watching the video.
Yes, Graham is a progressive, but he's criticizing Biden.
Ignoring Biden's mental decline is bad for democracy.
I completely agree.
Here's another one.
The same thing.
Ignoring is better democracy.
How about this?
JFK assassination video?
Life is very hard for billionaires.
Janet Yellen paid $801,000 by the firm paying Robinhood.
$60 billion housing grab by Wall Street.
Firing union workers.
Has Twitter censorship gone too far?
Does Twitter have the right to block people?
Wall Street gets owned by GameStop buyers.
There it is.
Now you can clearly see that Graham Elwood is progressive, but he has every right to run his business, provide his commentary, and I don't even find it to be that controversial!
Like, look, talking about the JFK assassination, that's like ancient aliens and History Channel stuff.
What about his channel has become so offensive they've stripped away his right to monetize?
Well, I'll tell you what I think is going on.
They don't want small creators the ability to rise up and gain prominence.
A couple years ago they altered the algorithm to make sure people like me don't succeed.
No joke, they tried.
I guess I broke through.
I will add that there are some people who helped boost my reach, notably Steven Crowder and Joe Rogan having me on their shows.
And I actually went on Jimmy Dore's show as well.
That probably gave me enough reach to where it became very difficult for YouTube to censor.
I talk about some of these similar things.
Joe Biden's declining mental health and Wall Street.
Why are they taking down a progressive?
Ron DeSantis is right.
But it's not just about conservatives.
It's about those who would challenge the establishment narrative.
Which brings me to the most important point I can do in this segment.
Go to TimCast.com, become a member, because I just showed you what Graham was talking about.
He should have his channel fully reinstated.
I think it's complete BS they took him down.
And it seems like we talk about similar things, granted from different political opinions, for the most part.
In fact, I'd probably just argue my political opinions aren't that strong, and I actually agree with a lot of things he's bringing up.
Joe Biden's mental health, Wall Street.
That's why we set up TimCast.com, because I think we're on the chopping block next.
Now, if you become a member, we've got a bunch of members-only content.
We're expanding.
And we recently, last night, did a full bonus episode, an hour-long discussion of Netflix claiming proof of life after death.
Exorcisms are on the rise.
It's kind of creepy stuff, huh?
It's crazy.
And we talk about God and religion.
And full disclosure, there are no atheists in the room.
I guess, maybe, Ian.
But it was an interesting discussion.
This is set up specifically because of what's happening to other YouTubers and people like Graham.
So, I'll tell you this.
I can't get Graham his partner program, Monetization, back, but y'all can check out his content.
Seems like there's an overlap between what we're concerned about.
Anti-establishment.
So, Ron DeSantis made a very correct point.
It's about those who support the preferred narratives and those who go against it.
Jimmy Dore, Graham, they're against the preferred narrative.
People like me, Steven Crowder, absolutely against it.
They tried going after Ben Shapiro, but Ben Shapiro, Crowder, they're way too prominent.
They can't do anything about it.
Graham, on the other hand, 76,000 subs.
It's a big channel.
It's, you know, relative to the average person, but not big enough to generate enough press to stop the censorship.
I want to show you what Ron DeSantis is proposing.
His comments come weeks after former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, this we know.
After the ban, many of Trump's supporters moved on to Parler, a right-leaning competitor to Twitter, which was later shut down by Amazon Web Services and removed from the smartphone application stores of Google and Apple.
It was against the rules of Parler in the first place.
Parler was banning these people.
I guess Amazon said they didn't do it fast enough.
Here are some messages they didn't remove.
But were they removing them when they were reported or requested?
You see, there's the big challenge.
And this is the defense Jack Dorsey used.
When I brought up, look at all these things that aren't getting banned.
Look at Antifa organizing these violent riots and calling people to show up and bring weapons and all that stuff.
And he goes, well, if it's not reported to us, we can't.
No, no, no, that's a lie.
That was his defense.
It's got to be reported to us.
There was one post we brought up on the show.
Where you could see this one tweet talking about getting violent had a whole bunch of responses that were banned, but the main thread, the initial tweet, wasn't.
It was like, this one has been removed, this one has been removed, removed for violation.
And I'm like, so clearly people are reporting this.
I have people telling me that they reported it, dozens of people reported it, and you didn't remove it.
Why?
Because the game is rigged, my friends.
They needed Antifa.
They liked what Antifa was doing.
It was destabilizing.
You see, all of these bad things were happening under Trump because they wanted to blame Trump for it.
Now where are we at?
Now they don't like Antifa.
Now they're arresting them.
Now they're smearing them.
Now they're starting to ban them from Twitter.
No joke.
They're starting to ban Antifa from Twitter.
Well, I'll tell you this.
If you go on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, whatever, call, organize, or incite violence, I'm not going to defend you.
I'm going to say, good riddance.
Those things are not legal.
That's not free speech.
Telling someone how to commit a crime, where and when to do it, and just to do it, that is not expressing yourself.
Expressing yourself as saying, like, I don't like this, and I don't like that.
But let me make one thing clear.
Twitter doesn't ban hate speech.
Twitter bans the hate speech against people they choose.
Diversity and inclusion does not mean inclusion of everyone.
They're very clearly people of varying identifying features or characteristics that will not be protected and will be absolutely shut down.
You can go on Twitter and find racial slurs like crazy.
Now, obviously, I know the left is going to be like, Tim's talking about reverse racism.
No, I'm not.
I'm talking about racism against Asian people.
I know, I bring up the racism against Asian people, and a lot of white people are like, yeah, but there's racism against white people too.
And I'm like, you're right.
Absolutely.
The left is changing the definition.
Twitter says you can't disparage people on the basis of race, right?
Well, when you try and bring up the fact that people post all these nasty things about white people all day and night, I think it's wrong.
Twitter doesn't do anything about it because it doesn't, it's, their narrative is that but privilege and power.
Okay, Asian people!
They're a much smaller minority in this country than the black community and the Latino community.
Why are people allowed to disparage them?
No joke, why are they allowed?
Uh-oh, that one doesn't fit their narrative.
That's why I bring it up.
And don't get me started on mixed-race people.
Twitter absolutely allows the most insane and disgusting comments.
What they really don't want is for you to challenge their narrative.
That's what it's all about.
Check us out.
They say Transparency and Technology Act.
We cannot allow big tech companies to operate in darkness while manipulating social media, a kind of 21st century public square.
Hear, hear.
The bill protects users by giving them the power to opt out of post-promoting and shadow-banning algorithms.
Dude!
Shouldn't everyone be cheering for this, the left?
You don't want Ben Shapiro, leftists, on the front page of Facebook for everybody.
Wouldn't you love it?
This is not about politicians yet.
They have a politicians section.
No, no, this is about people saying like, yeah, I don't want to see this.
I don't want to see the promotion of this content.
Wouldn't that be great?
That sounds like something good, right?
terms of use, and requiring communication and consent for terms of use changes.
That sounds like something good, right?
Don't you want the people to have the power and not the corporations?
Requires large-scale social media companies to notify users within 30 days if they are
censored or deplatformed.
The bill creates enforcement tools by letting users sue social media platforms if they don't
consistently apply their standards or don't give required notice.
I've heard a million and one times the left says conservatives are actually being benefited by these platforms.
And again, they reference that list of, like, the top shared posts from Ben Shapiro and, you know, the Daily Wire, etc.
Okay.
Wouldn't you like to see a report, a notice explaining their standards and why, that is?
We should be in agreement on this one.
giving the Florida Attorney General tools to combat big tech anti-competitive practices.
The bill holds social media companies accountable by stopping them from arbitrarily censoring and
deplatforming users, requiring them to publish and consistently apply standards for users
censoring, shadowbanning, and deplatforming. And it protects political candidates by exempting any
post by or about a candidate from being promoted or shadowbanned during an election, requiring the
Elections Commission to find a social media platform for deplatforming a political candidate
seeking office in Florida starting on the date of qualification through the election.
I agree with it.
Because I believe in free speech.
And I don't believe that Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gade should have the right to tell you what you are or are not allowed to hear in terms of political opinion.
Right now, as I've shown you, Graham Elwood, a progressive, challenging deportation, Joe Biden, and Wall Street banks is being deplatformed.
They're not doing it outright.
They stripped away his monetization.
Now, to be fair, I don't believe monetization is a right.
YouTube acting as an ad sales agency is like... That's them doing you a solid, okay?
He's not been banned or removed, but you can see how this negatively impacts his channel.
The point is...
When you get people who are challenging Wall Street, and YouTube says we can't allow this, we need to take away their ability to function, to work, and to monetize, and that's something they grant to many other people, especially in politics, you can see the problem.
I don't believe everyone has a right to monetization, but I do believe that if YouTube is going to grant monetization to the likes of me or, say, David Pakman, then certainly Graham should have the right to monetize as well, and so should Luke Rutkowski if we are changed.
YouTube is playing favorites by granting monetary access to me and say, David Pakman, because, you know, I reference David because he's more of a, you know, left Democrat kind of personality, traditional liberal.
They're saying these are the opinions we allow on this platform.
When they take down Graham and say, you know, we are changed, Luke Rudkowski, they're saying these opinions will struggle to succeed.
We can't have that.
So I think we absolutely need to protect individuals in this capacity.
And I'll tell you one thing.
Now is the time for conservatives, people like Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, to look to the progressive personalities who have been banned, because many have been.
And I'm not talking about Antifa.
I'm not talking about people who get violent.
I'm talking about people like, you know, Graham Elwood, who's had his monetization stripped.
For what?
Seriously, for what?
That's what we need to make sure doesn't happen.
But I'll tell you, the establishment, in my opinion, is working overtime because what they really don't want is the populist message.
Which is why...
Well, David Pakman's doing really, really well.
He runs a very traditional, you know, Democrat-Liberal line.
It's his opinion, he's entitled to do so, and it plays really well.
The reason it plays really well?
Well, for one, David's really good at what he does.
Full respect.
But it's safe.
It's safe for YouTube, and it's safe for the establishment machine.
I'm not trying to disparage David in any way.
I'm just saying some people have opinions that they like.
My opinions are pretty tepid most of the time, and it's safe.
Ben Shapiro.
His opinions can get a little controversial, but he's still fairly safe.
Crowder?
Well, Crowder's demeanor, his comedy, can offend many people, so YouTube's been kind of freaking out, but still relatively safe.
Graham Elwood, a progressive challenging the machine in Wall Street and Joe Biden's mental health.
He is a progressive, left-wing, populist type.
Now they can't have the rabble watching this stuff and sort of, you know, rising up.
And more importantly, that's why I've been stressing TimCast.com membership, because it's only a matter of time before they say, Tim's doing the same thing.
I have been hammering away at the GameStop Rebellion story as a real opportunity to strip value from Wall Street and give it back to the working class.
They cannot have that.
No, they need me talking culture war.
They prefer it when Tim Pool says, Orange Man's not that bad, let's argue with each other and each other's tribes.
Well, now we have some kind of unity, and I want more of it.
I don't want to be sitting here complaining about AOC and saying how bad she is.
I do think there's issues with her, but I'm trying to pull that back a little bit, because I need AOC to rally the people who support her to go after the big tech corporations and Wall Street, who are even shutting down progressives.
That's what we need to talk about.
Just by saying that I'm like, oh man, they are gonna ban me for sure.
I don't know, it might be difficult though.
I don't talk about crazy, you know, conspiracy stuff for the most part.
It's pretty run-of-the-mill news commentary.
But I am starting to hit them in a sore spot.
So I do think it's only a matter of time.
I mentioned it before, Facebook has effectively shut down my page.
They shut it down.
They've booted me from monetization for no reason, simply for covering what happened at the Capitol.
And I didn't say it was good or bad.
I said, here's what's happening, here's what's happening.
Wow, this is crazy.
And that was it.
They didn't give me any real reason why it broke any rules.
It didn't.
They didn't tell me, hey, in the future you can't post this stuff.
Didn't say anything.
They just nuked my channel.
Nuked my page.
It's gone.
I don't care for Facebook anyway.
But it's entirely possible YouTube will do the same thing at some point, and we must be aware of it.
So again, Tucker Carlson roasts this NYU farce of a study on big tech censorship of conservatives.
And I'll tell you what the game is, alright?
They are overwhelmingly banning conservatives.
But what they're saying is, we're not banning conservatives, we're banning people who defy the narrative.
It just so happens that's mostly conservatives.
You see how the game works?
So this report can come out and say, the largest group of people who got banned were those who challenged the establishment.
Then they fail to tell you that we can see it's mostly conservatives.
But we need to make sure that we're, you know, talking with progressives, moderates, and conservatives about those that are being shut down and why they're being shut down.
And the reason I put emphasis on Graham's channel is because he's not a conservative.
The real issue here, as Ron DeSantis pointed out, whether the progressives like the guy or not, is that it's about the preferred narrative.
That's what we're fighting.
Do you have a right to express yourself?
To challenge Joe Biden and Wall Street and the lobbyists and the war machine?
Because if the big tech companies have their way, the answer is no.
And now that Trump is out and Biden is in, and many of these populists and progressive leftists are pointing the finger at Joe Biden, just you wait.
They're going to start getting nuked one by one.
Now, most of the conservative figures are gone.
They banned, like, Milo and they banned Alex Jones, Laura Loomer.
But what about the left personalities?
They're going to start bringing them, you know, getting rid of them next.
They needed to get rid of those who supported Trump because they helped Trump win.
But they needed the support of the progressives who were cheering on Joe Biden.
Now that these people are now targeting Joe Biden, they're next.
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 Proud Boys are officially a terrorist entity in Canada.
The story from the Toronto Star, Canadian government to list Proud Boys as terroristic group, and my friends, of course, it is coming here to the U.S.
There's a lot of interesting ramifications for the designation of the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity.
Will the U.S.
now consider them to be a foreign terrorist entity, or are they going to be a protected group in this country?
Donald Trump tried going after Antifa and it was because Antifa exists in other countries.
There was a lot of speculation that Trump could designate Antifa a terrorist group because of their foreign affiliation.
Essentially looking at countries like Turkey or whatever and saying that Antifa group is a terrorist entity, therefore anyone in America supporting them is supporting terrorists.
Theoretically, the same thing could happen now with the Proud Boys, and we are hearing from good ol' NPR.
Former CIA officer says, treat domestic extremism as an insurgency.
It's coming.
These people on the left.
You know, AOC does this viral livestream where she talked about the mob coming for her and she was hiding in her office or in someone else's office.
Another rep has come out and said, the rioters never came anywhere near our offices.
What is she talking about?
AOC claimed that she was scared and hiding in her office and then eventually hiding in her bathroom.
But in her story, she mentions that her staffers were in the office lobby, I guess.
And when the cop came to bang on the door to figure out where she was to save her, her staffer was there Like, unprotected Gartinger?
You see, look.
They're treating this like some kind of 9-11 style event.
Now, I'm not trying to equate the severity of the Capitol with what happened on 9-11.
I'm equating the reaction and the news cycle.
But this country, we're seeing a hard political divide.
You've got a ridiculous split between left and right.
The good news for the Democrats, however, is that Republicans are pathetic, spineless losers who are already crying on their knees and saying, we'll give you whatever you want!
The Republican Party is just so pathetic and spineless.
I mean, look, shout out to, I guess, Rand Paul and, you know, like, maybe Ted Cruz and Hawley and Thomas Massey.
I mean, there's a handful.
Matt Gaetz.
There are Republicans who are, you know, who do have a spine.
But man, is Mitch McConnell, like, the weakest spineless turtle man ever.
And that guy wins?
Yikes.
All right, let's read the news and talk about the Proud Boys and then see what's going to happen here in the U.S.
They say it, the Toronto Star.
The Canadian government will list the far-right Proud Boys movement as a terrorist group, the star has learned.
The loosely organized Western chauvinist group is expected to be formally added to Canada's terrorist entity list later today.
The Proud Boys came under increased scrutiny after the January 6th storming of the U.S.
Capitol building.
News reports identified several Proud Boys members among the mob of Donald Trump supporters.
But sources told The Star last week that Canada's intelligence agencies have been probing white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups for several months.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair's office said last month that intelligence and law enforcement entities were very actively monitoring far-right and white supremacist groups.
We strongly denounce ideologically motivated extremists, including groups like the Proud Boys, white supremacists, anti-Semites, Islamophobic and misogynist groups, Blair's office said in a January statement.
Intolerance and hate have no place in our society.
But the Proud Boys listing will come as a surprise to anti-hate and anti-fascist groups in Canada.
While created by Gavin McInnes, a Canadian far-right media personality, the group's Canadian chapters were believed to be disorganized and not particularly effective.
The government's move to acknowledge it as a terrorist group alongside the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda suggests the group is perceived as more threatening than previously believed.
The terrorist designation comes with significant consequences for the group's members and supporters.
It will allow financial institutions to freeze assets, empower police to seize property, and make it illegal to knowingly participate or contribute to the organization.
My friends, a wave is coming.
It is coming here to the US.
Now we have a constitution.
But let's be honest, both parties, whatever parties, have just taken huge dumps all over the Constitution for generations.
You know, I was talking on the IRL podcast about the right to keep and bear arms, and I'm like, how is it that they literally say in the Constitution, you have the right to bear arms, it shall not be infringed, and then all of these states literally ban carrying a weapon?
It says you can bear the arms, and then they pass laws saying you can't.
Yeah, the Constitution is meaningless because they keep eroding, chipping away at it, And that's it.
So why should I sit here expecting the Constitution to be my shield?
At least forever.
The Constitution does afford us wonderful protections, the Bill of Rights specifically, and I respect this.
It's brilliant.
I'm glad it exists.
But listen, like with any shield, eventually it erodes, and if the shield is not being repaired and protected, eventually it falls apart.
And that's where we're going now.
In the U.S., it's particularly difficult, if not impossible, to label a group a domestic terror organization because we have a right to freedom of speech.
So long as you're not advocating for people to commit crimes, telling them how to do it, where to do it, when to do it, or to do it, you're typically fine.
So the Proud Boys are allowed to exist.
The issue now is with the foreign designation.
I believe it's entirely likely we will see Democrats, Joe Biden, the House, the Senate
move to place very serious restrictions on the Proud Boys.
But more importantly, censorship and restrictions will come from the private sector.
Due to this designation, it is extremely likely that anyone who has ever associated with the
Proud Boys will probably get banned from Facebook, from Twitter, from YouTube, etc.
And they will keep doing this.
Think about how stupid and absurd it is to list the Proud Boys alongside ISIS.
Are you kidding me, dude?
ISIS literally took over a large portion of the planet.
They were kidnapping and raping women.
They were beheading people and filming it.
The Proud Boys go around and get drunk and then complain about SJWs and get into fights with Antifa.
Sure, not an ideal circumstance for anybody, and there's a lot of problems and a lot of things you can criticize the Proud Boys for, but come on.
If anything, you could call them, I guess, rabble-rousers.
That's about it.
But terrorists?
Don't be surprised when you now hear this rhetoric expanding.
Because the Republicans are pathetic, spineless losers, they're not going to defend anyone on the right.
You know what, man?
I saw this really great, this really hilarious post.
It was a meme where somebody was like, there was a post about Medicare for All, and someone said, but Republicans won't fight for gun rights.
And then there was a response where they were like, what does, you know, so you don't want healthcare, you don't think the government should pay for healthcare?
And I said, no, no, no, no, I think the government should pay for healthcare!
And they should pay for my gun, too!
If having a gun is a right, and healthcare is a right, and you think that healthcare should be paid for, then my gun should be paid for!
I like the logic, it makes sense.
But regardless of whether or not you actually want to entertain the idea that the government should be buying everyone guns, maybe there should be a Department of Gun Services, where when you turn 16 or whatever, you go and get your first gun or something.
Where are the Republicans to actually advocate for anything the right wants?
They don't.
Because Republicans tend to be sitting down in their rocking chairs, sipping their sweet tea, saying, well, slow down there, Democrats.
And that's it.
That's, for the most part, it.
Now you end up seeing, you get people like Matt Gaetz, who is a young upstart, younger, you know, youngish, and he's fighting for what he believes in and actually advocating for certain things.
Still, you're not seeing him present the mirror image to what Democrats are doing.
The left says the taxpayer should cover the cost of health care for everyone.
Okay, the taxpayer should cover the cost of guns for everyone.
Because that's actually in the Constitution as a right.
But that never happens.
And again, I'm not actually advocating for that.
I'm saying, the point is, it never happens.
You do not have the right countering.
So what's going to happen is, you're going to get good old Mitch McConnell sitting in his little turtle rocking chair, sipping his sweet tea, saying, well, they want to list the Proud Boys as terrorists.
Why don't you slow down there, Democrats?
We'll do it next year.
That's about it.
Is he going to say, no, this is a problem?
Are the Republicans going to reject this dude?
I really don't buy it.
Here's a story from NPR.
They say when it comes to domestic extremists, such as those who stormed the capital, a longtime CIA officer argues that the U.S.
should treat them as an insurgency.
This means using counterinsurgency tactics similar in some ways to those used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I hope you're talking about Antifa, right?
Who went around burning down cities?
You know what, man?
There's no point in even saying it right now, because we all know we're watching it happen.
Unfortunately, there are a bunch of mindless morons who sit there drooling in front of the TV, not paying attention to what's actually going on.
And then when Joe Biden basically backtracks on everything he promised, now they're like, what's happening?
I thought voting for Biden would mean shut up.
Voting for Biden.
These faux progressives on YouTube saying, we have to stop Trump.
Then they were shocked to see it was Trump advocating for 2K, not Joe Biden.
He's advocating for 14.
Congratulations.
You voted for it.
Maybe you're too stupid to realize you were voting for Goldman Sachs and the war machine.
Not like Trump was perfect or all that much better, but he was still better.
They say, Robert Grenier served as the CIA Station Chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001.
He went on to become the CIA's Iraq Mission Manager, and then Director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2006.
Quote, We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen, Grenier wrote in the New York Times last week.
And without national action, he argues, extremists who seek a social apocalypse are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.
You see...
A lot of these people, these thought leader types, you know, former CIA, they're not smart, okay?
They may be storied and they may have worked a long career, but being smart is something different.
They don't know how to do any independent research, so when Antifa allies go in media and then start saying dumb things and defending the extremist organizations, and I'm talking about the multiple cells of Antifa, you then end up with these morons not understanding how much of a problem the far left is.
Now, I can already hear the screeches of the leftists saying, like, the far right is the biggest threat, they tried to stage an insurgency!
The Gravel Institute tweeted, they supported the effort, the tactic, but not the group.
They said they believed it would be good if Antifa stormed the Capitol, so shut your mouths.
They're lying, and if you can't see they're lying, well then I'm sorry, you deserve to live under their boot, I guess.
You get what you vote for, you get what you deserve.
And I don't mean that in a retribution kind of way.
I mean it in, if you keep voting for politicians that support extremists smashing your windows and burning down your city, then why am I going to come to the defense of you when you asked for it?
I'm not going to do it.
Now, what we're seeing is the security state, the apparatus, they are going to do everything in their power to crush anyone who dares oppose them.
And it won't just be the right.
They'll definitely come for the left.
It's like that old poem.
I know it's a bit cliche to bring up, but first they came from the socialists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a socialist.
That is not about socialism.
It's about those you don't agree with or those who are not in your periphery and you're not in your worldview.
What they're saying, and I did not speak up for them, is that When Antifa gets banned or censored for BS reasons, I do speak up for them because I understand what comes next because I paid attention to history lessons.
They don't.
They cheer for it!
And then you end up seeing the progressives themselves get banned and we go, oh no, who could have seen this coming?
But I'll still defend them and their right to free speech and challenge the censorship.
Here we go.
In an interview with All Things Considered, Grenier discusses what the national action would mean.
Question.
As someone who has watched many violent insurgencies unfold in various countries around the world, what felt the same to you?
What felt different?
He said, I don't want to be the one to suggest that somehow the U.S.
is going to in any way resemble Iraq or Afghanistan at the height of violence.
But what I think is useful is to have some way of thinking about the problem and thinking through the elements of the solution.
So I think, as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small portion of the affected population, but what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support.
And that's what I'm primarily concerned with here.
I think what is most important is that we drive a wedge between those violent individuals and the people who may otherwise see them as reflecting their interests and fighting on their behalf.
Like journalists.
Like all the media outlets that defended Antifa.
Or how about Kamala Harris, who literally fundraised for rioters.
Let me remind you, 19 people died in the George Floyd riots.
But Joe Biden's staff supported it, and Kamala Harris herself tweeted out fundraising support for overt, literal terrorists.
Grenier says, I think the most important element of the struggle, if you will, is information.
We're not talking about an alien population here.
There are friends of mine who believe the election was stolen.
There are members of my family who have very strong doubts.
And I think there are a great many people whom don't trust you.
Mary Louise, I hate to be the one to break it to you, who don't trust NPR or the New
York Times.
I wonder why.
What would make anybody not trust the New York Times?
Could it be the Iraq War and 20 years of foreign excursion?
Are you seriously that daft?
The New York Times lied.
They put, okay, maybe it's a little harsh.
Let's put it this way.
Their sheer incompetence and their inability to do their jobs helped lead us into a 20 year long ridiculous war.
For what?
And I'm supposed to trust the New York Times?
I'll be honest with you.
I typically do.
Not always.
I fact check them.
But I don't think the New York Times is all bad.
I think you just have to watch out because they're willing to pull the wool over your eyes.
They're willing to trick you.
So heaven forbid someone doesn't trust them when they run a story, NPR, saying we need these domestic insurgency tactics.
Yeah, like I'm gonna believe you, you authoritarian wingnuts.
He says, but again, I think this is the work of a nation.
I mean, it's trite to say that we need a national conversation, but in fact, that's what we need.
And so it's people.
It's all of us who really need to be engaging with one another in a very sincere way.
Admitting that we don't know, admitting what we don't know, and trying to seek out the truth together.
Because without that, I think there's a level of distrust that is not only unfortunate for the politics in this country, but will also provide a basis for sporadic but endemic violence in this country.
Let me tell you what the problem is, my friends.
It's very simple.
When I tell you there are far-right extremists and they've committed atrocities, very horrifying acts, what we tend to see from the far-right, whatever that means, to be completely honest, because it's not clearly defined by many of these news organizations, is extremely acute actions.
Someone with a gun going into a place and then, you know, killing lots of people.
What we see from the left is flattened out and blunt.
Substantially.
Substantially more instances, but low-level violence.
Now, we as a society can tolerate Antifa maybe punching someone in the head or throwing fireworks at them.
It happens all the time, though, because we tolerate it.
We shouldn't do it.
When one person goes out and commits a mass atrocity, like Vegas or something, It is what we cannot bear in any capacity.
Now, they're much more rare, but we must make sure we stop them.
So when law enforcement says they're going after the extremists, I say, by all means.
When you have Antifa for over a year, for years, engaging in escalating violence, terrorizing, beating people, smashing windows, starting fires, the terrorism is sustained, and we must stop it.
But see, these people in media don't know or care, because they don't know how to do their jobs anymore.
They really don't.
The news industry is collapsing, and they're not being honest with you to tell you about what the problem really is.
And the problem is, it's fair to say extremists on all sides.
It is.
The right would say, yes, but Antifa does it way, way, way more.
It's just not as serious.
That's a fair point.
The left would say, but who cares about someone getting hit in the head?
I care about the extremists with the machine gun.
Okay.
Well, we haven't seen a machine gun, but, you know, using like a bump stock or something.
You're right, those are bad.
It's all bad.
It's all bad.
The problem is, they're ignoring one of it.
Everyone condemned.
Okay, almost everyone condemned what happened at the Capitol.
But where is the left's condemnation of the 19 deaths in the George Floyd riots?
I'm still waiting.
No, instead, they smear Michael Tracy, a journalist, for criticizing AOC.
Meanwhile, he's one of the only journalists who actually traveled around this country showing us the devastation from the far-left George Floyd riots.
But they defend it.
That's the name of the game.
They say, is there anything that you think could be done with a sense of urgency?
Part of it is simply setting the proper national tone.
But another, I think, very important element that we haven't talked about yet is what I would refer to as insurgent leadership.
The fact of the matter is that the most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see the former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol.
75 million people.
Is that who you're referring to?
He is their charismatic leader, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not.
You know, just as I saw in the Middle East, that the air went out of the violent demonstrations when Saddam Hussein was defeated, and seemed to be defeated.
I think the same situation applies here.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Trump has lost.
It's very important that people see that he has lost, as a private citizen, but I think it's extremely important that his potency as a symbol for the most violent among us is somehow addressed.
The most violent among us.
What does that mean?
Are the Trump supporters violent?
No.
Have there been instances of violent violence with Trump supporters?
Absolutely.
But as a whole, on a general statement, they're not violent.
The far left, on the whole, they are much... I think it's more fair to say, but I would withstand the argument.
There are a lot of far leftists, you know, overt socialists that are extremely violent.
But Antifa is massive.
They're a decentralized network of various organizations that fly the Antifa flag, and they're in every major city.
They're powerful in certain regions.
They have thousands or tens of thousands of adherents.
So you want to talk about who's more violent?
75 million Trump supporters, of which a few hundred actually stormed the Capitol, And that was bad, don't get me wrong, or the tens of thousands of Antifa who for years have been going around destroying things and those who would defend them and those who would ride alongside them killing 19 people or resulting in the deaths of 19 people.
Listen, you want to stop far-right extremism?
You have my blessing and my support.
If you say you want the FBI to go after these far-right extremists, I say, bring it on, baby, let's make sure these people don't hurt anybody.
And then when I say, now, we should also make sure we're focused on the lower-level terrorism that's more widespread, like Antifa, and then you plug your ears and start screaming at me, you see, now we got a problem.
Republicans don't know how to deal with it because they are spineless and pathetic, and all they do is play the game of the left.
The left pouts and screams and says, violence and terror, and Mitch McConnell goes, okay, okay, Democrats, we'll get right on it.
Meanwhile, Antifa runs amok, and nothing happens.
Nothing.
So I'll tell you what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see balance in politics.
I'd like to see actual justice for those who would commit crimes to be punished.
Instead, in Portland, all of these rioters were cut loose.
Their charges were dropped.
And now they're screaming, white privilege!
Because some woman, who was being charged with misdemeanor trespass at the Capitol, was given permission to go to Mexico for vacation.
She's not being charged with a felony!
She's being charged with walking onto the Capitol property.
She's gonna get a slap on the wrist, they're gonna say, stay out of D.C., and she's gonna say, okay.
That's it.
She's going on vacation.
They're screaming, white privilege!
Meanwhile, you literally had people murdered.
In Portland's autonomous zone.
Has anybody been brought to justice for the deaths in the autonomous zone?
Has that guy Raz, who was on video giving out a gun to, I believe it was a minor, giving out a gun to somebody and then going and patrolling.
Has he been charged with anything?
So spare me.
But my friends, I tell you this.
It's obvious what's coming.
Look, I got a lot of criticism for the Proud Boys, for sure.
But terrorists?
That's insane.
Don't be surprised when this rhetoric, combined with what Canada's doing, results in banks shutting down all of their accounts, banning all of them, and don't be surprised if the interviews even I've done with Enrique Tarrio, or the interview we had him on the IRL podcast, gets taken down.
Because he mentions his store or whatever.
Don't be surprised.
It is expanding.
It will get worse.
There's barbed wire barricades around the White House.
They're saying we'll be permanent.
The D.C.
is under military occupation.
It's here.
It's happening.
Did you think the dystopia would come with no excuse?
Did you think one day you'd wake up and there would just be a totalitarian government?
Like you're reading 1984 and it just happens?
There would always be an excuse.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast, a different channel from this one.
