S539 - Democrats And Media Advocate For Executing Republicans And Treating The GOP As Enemy Combatants
Democrats And Media Advocate For Executing Republicans And Treating The GOP As Enemy Combatants. The Website The Root is one of the top leftist publications on Facebook and the people interviewed are Democratic politicians and MSNBC personalities.The statements made against Republicans and Trump are so insane and absurd it makes me question whether these people are mentally fit.But its just another escalation we have seen before. Previously MSNBC personality Nicole Wallace advocated drone strikes against republicans and American citizens
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A writer for the left-wing website The Root has essentially called for the bombing of Republicans in a particularly viral tweet, saying, National security experts told me the Republican Party is functioning like a terror cell.
One said, quote, If they were in Afghanistan, we would have hit them.
Either a raid, drop a bomb on them.
Thanks.
He goes on to say that Pam Keith told me that Democrats need to give up bipartisanship and that we need to treat the Republican Party as enemy combatants because they have embraced white supremacy over equality.
Now, the writer of this tweet and article later went on to clarify that no, no, no, no, not Republicans in general, just the insurrectionists.
However, an MSNBC contributor said this is true in reference to the tweet calling for the bombing or raid of Republicans in general. And the article itself
is actually pretty insane, calling the entire Republican Party essentially extremists
and, yes, literally advocating for them to be bombed. My friends, it's not the first time we've
heard this. We also had a woman on MSNBC not too long ago call for the drone or I should say
advocate for drone bombing people on the right.
We've also heard Nancy Pelosi, according to Ken Cuccinelli, wanted crew-manned machine guns in D.C.
Now, my understanding is they're crew-serviced machine guns is the proper terminology, but all I can really say is that the rhetoric is getting absolutely insane.
I mean, people, y'all need to calm down!
This is nuts.
What really happened on the 6th?
Yeah, it was a riot.
Yeah, there was some people doing really bad things.
Arrest them.
The law already exists to stop them.
But a lot of the people who were there were bumbling and confused.
It's not even extreme.
It's not in question.
There's videos of cops opening the door for these people.
Some of these cops have now been suspended in breaking news for effectively letting these people in and taking selfies with them.
These older folks who walked through doors confused when cops opened them up do not deserve to be bombed!
How insane is this?
That we can look at the decades of failed foreign policy in the Middle East and actually have individuals right now, for some of the most prominent left-wing organizations, say, do the same thing.
Blow them up.
It's insane.
I know a lot of people might say, Tim, why do we care about this one guy, this one article, these individuals?
The Root, according to Newswhip, is the most prominent, is the top left-wing publication.
And while this article itself might not resonate with many on the left, I'm sorry, this is the rhetoric that is being espoused over and over again.
Now, I didn't want to do a segment on this because I think it's stupid and insane, but it's the second time now we've heard from people on the left, notably MSNBC, advocating for this kind of behavior.
What happens when you call the political opponent the evil other, the enemy, the enemy combatant?
They are ramping things up.
It is getting worse.
And I warned, and many others warned, that once Trump is gone, they come for you.
See, Trump was the big baddie.
Trump was the boogeyman they could use to rally people.
Then it became Trump-ism.
But Trumpism is fractured within the Republican Party.
Or I should say, Trumpism isn't a thing.
But the Republican Party is fractured.
So how do they then deal with the lack of a unified boogeyman?
They just go after everyone.
They say, you, you're the enemy.
And they ramp up the rhetoric to a point where they're saying psychotic things.
We need to read through this.
I want to show you what they're saying.
YouTube may actually punish me for reading an article from what is considered to be one of the top left-wing publications on Facebook.
So before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member.
We've got a ton of exclusive members-only podcast segments, including, recently, an exclusive full-hour episode with James O'Keefe of Project Veritas.
If you're a member, you can watch all of this content, and in the event we get banned for calling out what needs to be called out or for saying things the big tech machine does not like, we will have this website up and running.
So don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell, Let's read this story, and I'll break down for you why it's so important.
From the root, Democrats are stuck with a Republican party rife with conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and terror sympathizers.
Now, this story is from yesterday.
The article itself doesn't seem to have too many comments on it.
I'm not going to pretend like it's the most prominent article ever written.
But I do want to show you something that stood out to me, the reason why I decided this is something we should talk about.
In a report from NewsWhip, this goes back a couple years.
I don't know where TheRoot.com stands now.
But among partisan publishers, we can see TheRoot.com is number one with nearly double the amount of traffic as RawStory.com, the second place top left-wing publisher.
Now, to be fair, if we look at the right-wing publishers, Daily Wire, Western Journal, Breitbart, IJR, Daily Caller, they do substantially better.
Interestingly, louder with Crowder, with 12 million interactions or engagements.
On the left, The Root has 25.8 million engagements.
Raw Story at number 2 with 15.3.
While it is not Bigger than right-wing but then moat that the top right-wing
publications. It was at one point I believe is 2018 the number one left-wing publication
Stands to reason this is going to reach many ears and this rhetoric is going to rapidly
Radicalize individuals I bring you now the article From Torell Jermaine star he writes
I'm not sure if people have completely wrapped their minds around this but we have an entire political party that has
converted into an authoritarian I'll be an Americanized version style of politics that
cares nothing about US democracy or anyone who is not white With the exception of a few dissenting Republicans, he goes on to say, they acquitted Donald Trump of inciting insurrection he clearly incited.
But they told Republican voters that the lies Trump told were true.
The election was stolen, you have a right to be angry about it.
And it's working.
During the impeachment trial last week, his defense lawyers reinforced those lies, and Republicans basically sat by and said nothing to counter them.
They, in effect, are a party of turncoats.
What makes their behavior so terrifying is that Democrats who hold control of the Senate by only Vice President Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote are left with no choice but to negotiate with the very people whose leading members encouraged the coup and instigated supporters to undermine American institutions.
He says, Pam Keith, a U.S.
Navy veteran who ran out of Florida's 18th congressional district as the Democratic nominee, told The Root that Democrats should give up on working with Republicans as if they're operating in good faith, and have shown that they will be as corrupt and obstructionist as Trump.
Quote, what they're saying is that we don't care that he broke the law, said Keith.
He's our guy, and we're with our guy, and there's nothing you can say to make us turn on our guy.
He's above the law.
He's above the Constitution.
He's above the well-being of the United States.
He's our mechanism to retaining power.
That is the absolute definition of totalitarian dictatorship.
We don't care what he does, especially if what he does hurts you.
Now I'll stop there.
I want to make sure I highlight the tweet from Terrell where he says,
Pam Keith told me that Democrats need to give up bipartisanship and that we need to treat the
Republican Party as enemy combatants because they have embraced white supremacy over equality.
Treat them as enemy combatants. Malcolm Nance tweeted this in response to Terrell's main tweet
where he said if they were in Afghanistan we would have hit them.
Malcolm Nance, an MSNBC pundit and contributor, said, this is true.
Read my quotes.
This is true.
Okay.
Now, there's some quotes from Pam Keith, but I want to move forward.
There's a quote here from Kyle Bibby.
They say Kyle Bibby, national campaign manager at Common Defense and a former Marine Corps
infantry officer, told The Root that had a foreign entity engaged in attacks similar to the January
6 coup attempt on or rallied the support of the main culprit thereafter, the U.S.
military would have responded with an offensive strike or at the minimum stiff economic penalties.
But he added that the militias and Trump supporters who were there are ultimately not so much the issue as is the Republican Party that empowers them.
Let me just slow down a second.
Let me read that again.
Kyle Baby said that had a foreign entity engaged in an attack similar or rallied the support of the main culprit thereafter, He is basically saying it is the Republican Party.
Now, they do go on and try and clarify it's insurrectionists.
Bibi said, if they were in Afghanistan, we would have hit them.
Either a raid, drop a bomb on them, whatever it is.
But the organizations that are funding this, and who are backing this, that are creating the political movement behind this, organizations like Fox News, Breitbart, One American News Network, And the Republican Party.
If these organizations existed in another country, we would be sanctioning them.
We would be seizing their assets for inciting terroristic threats against an American ally or against U.S.
interests.
I'd like to bring you now to this update.
At the bottom of the article they say, Update.
A quote by Kyle Bibby was clarified to reflect that he meant that the insurrectionists would be bombed, not the GOP.
Let me make that clear for you.
This article from one of the top left-wing publishers that Facebook has, has explicitly stated the people who entered that Capitol building, American citizens, should be killed without charge or trial.
That they would be bombed.
Okay, maybe not without charge or trial, but considering what we did to people in Afghanistan, that's what they're calling for.
Barack Obama killed American citizens without charge or trial.
The idea that we would advocate for the execution of people who stormed into the Capitol building is absolutely insane.
Many of these people are getting misdemeanor charges for trespassing, and that's it!
And you think those people should have been killed!
I'm sorry, this is some of the most insane psychobabble I have ever seen.
And I mean, it gets worse.
It really, really does get worse.
Let me read some stuff.
Let me make sure I can find the most shocking part of this, or one of them.
He brings up Malcolm Nance.
Let me make sure I can find this.
He said the reason why these threats aren't being taken seriously is because white people do not take white terror seriously.
He brought up post-election appearance on Bill Maher, where he was a guest with an expert from George Washington University, who said his analysis was over the top.
She's all tone it down, kumbaya, and I'm telling her what I've seen for the last six months, which is the alt-right transformed into the paramilitary arm of the Trump campaign.
Now that Trump has lost the election, they are going to be the Iraq insurgents.
The Republican Party will view themselves as Sinn Fein, and the Republican base will view themselves as the white Catholics who think they've got to support the IRA.
He says black evidence is never believed until a white person confirms it.
Democrats introduced a resolution calling for an investigation into white supremacy earlier this month.
This week, the NAACP civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and Rep.
Benny Thompson, Democrat, are suing Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and two white nationalist groups over the coup.
While these are promising steps, Democrats have few options to get to the heart of white terror because their Republican colleagues in Congress benefit from it politically.
Here's a quote.
We have to view the GOP as enemy combatants because for years they have proven that Democrats are theirs.
As far as Keith is concerned, Democrats have to go hard.
So I believe that's actually not a quote from Malcolm Nance.
Sorry, I could be wrong.
He's referencing, I believe, earlier on, because it starts with Malcolm Nance and I'm not sure where he breaks and starts referencing another individual, Keith.
He says, that means going as far as pressuring Democrats who support the filibuster into changing their mind or face a primary challenge.
The days of compromise are dead.
Obama should have taught us that much.
The GOP went to war with him for eight years and Democrats, along with much of America, suffered.
Quote, We don't want to be as gangsta as they are, Keith said of Democrats in Congress.
We still have this delusion of bipartisanship.
There's no effing bipartisanship.
Get off that ship.
It does not work.
It's sinking.
It's done.
It's at the bottom of the ocean.
It's the effing Titanic.
It's down in the water.
Let it go.
Maybe this is insane rhetoric.
Okay.
But it's being said.
It is being said.
And it's not the first time it's being said.
Maybe the Republicans really are engaging in this behavior.
Maybe they're not.
All that matters is that prominent leftists, personalities on the left, are absolutely advocating for this stuff.
Now, I mentioned this.
Malcolm Nance, he's essentially the subject of this article.
I'm sorry, of this segment.
When he says, this is true, read my quotes.
And Malcolm Nance goes on to say things like, the Proud Boys and his other groups.
Let me read a little bit more.
They say, Malcolm Nance, a national security expert, He told The Root that not only is the Republican Party behaving like a terror group, he predicted soon after Charlottesville that Trump's use of insurrectionist language essentially would become a call to arms for white supremacists akin to a kind of terror extremism he saw as a military intelligence officer.
Quote, if Trump wins, these unofficial paramilitaries, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys, the state militias, all these other groups are essentially going to become semi-official brownshirts.
of the Trump campaign.
Let me stop right there and tell you this.
The Boogaloo Boys hate the Proud Boys.
Hate.
Maybe not absolutely, maybe there are some, there's some overlap, but there is a viral video, semi-viral video, prominent video, but we'll call it that, where one of the Boogaloo Boys, they're standing in a line and they see the Proud Boys and they yell at their statists and use a disparaging term for the Proud Boys.
Boogaloo Boys tend to be more in line with Antifa Now, of course, the left doesn't want to accept that, because the Boogaloo Boys can be named.
The Boogaloo Boys are mostly just anarchists.
Not necessarily left or right, just anti-government.
And so they're more likely to align with those who oppose the government, notably Antifa.
But you see what Malcolm Nance does.
He says, if Trump loses, these people are going to become the Iraq insurgents.
They're going to go underground.
They're going to be furious.
And over time, with the Trump campaign leading as the political wing of this insurgency, with a president in exile, those people will resort to armed violence, political standoffs, and terrorism, much like Antifa already has done.
He said the reason why these threats are taken seriously is because white people do not take white terror seriously.
So that quote initially that I brought up earlier was from Malcolm Nance.
I want to make sure I'm being fair.
The New Yorker wrote in November of 2019, Malcolm Nance on the danger of conspiracy theories.
And he actually goes on to claim, I guess Glenn Greenwald is a Russian agent or something like that.
I think it's fair to point out, this dude is not all there.
But I'm not entirely sure that it matters if he is.
They say Malcolm Nance, a former naval intelligence officer and an MSNBC contributor, has become one of the most recognizable voices on Trump-related scandals.
According to Brian Williams, MSNBC's chief anchor, Nance is, quote, a cross between Batman and Fight Club.
The Weekend Morning host, Joy Reid, called Nance very rational, even though the things that he's telling you will completely freak you out.
He's super knowledgeable, but he's also that calming friend.
Nance, however, has been frequently criticized by both the left and the right for promoting false or unproven claims, often having to do with Russia.
In March, Nance tweeted that he was convinced that Carter Page was an FBI double agent.
He has written of Trump.
Little comes from his mouth that was not put there by shaping actions and experiences with Russians, and was carefully panned to benefit the Russian Republic.
This month, on Morning Joe, he claimed the Russian government had been looking for ways to exploit Trump since the mid-80s.
Donald Trump sees the world only through Moscow's point of view, he stated.
They're going to basically say that, uh, well, I should say, he goes on to claim Glenn Greenwald, for instance, was an agent of Russia.
It's unhinged, unfounded conspiracy psychobabble.
But why is he being praised by so many of these prominent mainstream personalities?
Why is it that the mainstream left of MSNBC is propping up this man who is pushing some of the most extreme rhetoric.
Anybody on the right who's screaming revolution, I think, is nuts.
The people at the Capitol who stormed in thinking they were facing a revolution, I think they're losing their minds.
There's no circumstance in which a ragtag group of a few hundred people with no plan and no weapons occupying building space would do anything to the United States government.
Which, more to the point, When the left screams that it was an insurrection, it's silly.
It's silly, I'm sorry.
While there was some violence, it was a riot, and it did disrupt the electoral count, which is bad, it's very bad.
Like I mentioned, many of these people are being charged with misdemeanors, slaps on the wrist, unlawful entry into a restricted area, that's it.
Some people are getting other slap on the wrist charges for disorderly conduct.
To see them say that these people should be bombed or treated like insurgents is horrifying.
Again, I want to make sure I'm providing you with as much context as possible.
Terrell Jermaine Starr, who wrote the article, tweeted this.
Clarity, I mistakenly wrote this tweet to suggest that the expert meant the GOP would be bombed.
The expert said the insurrectionists would be bombed if they were abroad.
Think about what that means.
Are you saying that the American citizens abroad would be bombed?
Because the U.S.
government has done this before.
Barack Obama did it to a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen who was eating at a civilian restaurant.
Why did he bomb Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki?
We don't know.
I mean, they've said it was an accident.
The question is, if they were targeting some worse individual, why would the United States bomb a civilian restaurant?
Doesn't quite make sense, but I guess it shows you how brutal the American military can really be.
But let me clarify something as well.
What he said.
It's not the GOP.
It was the unarmed, for the most part, American citizens who entered the Capitol in the several hundred, many of whom had the doors opened for them by police.
Those would be the ones who would be bombed.
It's kind of scary, isn't it?
I'm not an advocate for any of that stuff.
I'm not an advocate for the U.S.
bombing as in Yemen or Afghanistan.
The drone strikes are horrifying for that matter.
Too often, they strike civilians.
But that's the point.
They're right.
If the American citizens were anywhere else, they'd get blown up.
Essentially, in a way, many people are advocating for this, saying, we need to treat them like enemy combatants.
Now, if they just said, if these people were overseas, they'd have been bombed.
I'd be like, you know, to be honest, yes, that's true.
But then they go on and say, we should treat them as though they're enemy combatants.
What do you do to a combatant?
You capture, imprison, and kill them.
It's combat.
Combat isn't people showing up on a battlefield and then arguing with each other.
It's people showing up on a battlefield with weapons and trying to harm the other side to gain power.
This, my friends, is scary, and also not the first time.
This is a story from February 5th.
The Blaze Media.
MSNBC host suggests killing American citizens with drone strikes.
They report.
During a discussion regarding domestic terror, MSNBC anchor Nicole Wallace floated the idea of the U.S.
government killing American citizens with drones.
Wallace brought up the National Terror Advisory System bulletin that was released to all law enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security last week.
The bulletin, which is in effect until April 30th, warns the DHS allegedly received information that there is a threat of ideologically motivated violent extremism, with objections to the exercise of government authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite violence.
Wallace notes, There's a bulletin released to all law enforcement earlier this week that there is, until the end of April, a persistent threat of domestic extremism, domestic terror, carried out in the ideology and around this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the COVID restrictions are unnecessary.
All of those ideologies pushed by Donald Trump.
The deadline White House host then said, but my question for you is around incitement.
We had a policy and it was very controversial.
It was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years of attacking terror at its root or going after and killing, and in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, a Yemeni American with a drone strike for the crime of inciting violence, inciting terror.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen.
He was killed in a drone strike extra-judicially, meaning Barack Obama, in violation of the Constitution, killed an American citizen without charge or trial.
It is one of the most egregious violations of human rights ever.
And they say it was because he was inciting violence.
He was preaching jihad against the U.S.
I don't think that warrants the death penalty.
Apparently Barack Obama and his National Security Council did.
Apparently, this MSNBC host also believes it warranted death.
And is going on to say now, well, who else incited violence?
Didn't Donald Trump get accused of inciting violence?
Aren't they calling what happened on the 6th Terror?
I hope you're paying attention to where this rhetoric leads.
I hope you understand what they're saying, because this is no joke.
They're not just saying, we need truth and reconciliation.
They're saying, blow them up!
Blow them up.
Where do these insurrectionists live?
And how would you target them if you were to treat them as enemy combatants, drone them?
They live in homes, in neighborhoods.
Did Barack Obama take any of that into consideration when the order was given to blow up the civilian restaurant that killed Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar?
I would assume some, but not enough to care.
You see, they claimed they were going after someone worse, and it was an accident that Abdulrahman was killed in this manner.
An innocent American 16-year-old killed by Barack Obama.
My question is, why did Obama order the drone strike of a civilian restaurant?
And what do you think it is these people are calling for?
The insurrectionists, I'm doing air quotes, live in homes, in suburbs.
They go to civilian restaurants.
Is she arguing that there is some position with which we should blow up civilian homes?
The collateral damage on American citizens?
Now, I don't want to believe anything like that would ever happen, but I gotta be honest.
The rhetoric is escalating.
The root, like I mentioned at least a couple years ago, was the number one left-wing source being shared on Twitter or engaged with.
She goes on to say, It was part of the policy, you know, of the Obama and Bush years.
Quote, Mitch McConnell was in the Senate then.
He was in the Senate after 9-11 too.
How does Mitch McConnell, who understands the way you root out terror is to take on, in the case of Islamic terror, kill those who incite it?
How does he not vote to convict someone that he said on the floor of the Senate incited an insurrection?
I mean, she said it.
Kill those who incite it.
Kill those.
These are American citizens.
These are the people you live next to.
Some of these are active-duty military.
Some of these people are police.
Now, they should not have done what they did at the Capitol.
But to call for their execution without charge or trial, like the U.S.
has done to so many overseas, one of the most horrifying things I've seen in a long time.
They're going to mention the Wall Street Journal reported in January 2010.
There was no indication Mr. Al-Awlaki played a role in any of the attacks against the U.S.
and he has never been indicted in the U.S.
The Brookings Institute declared al-Awlaki's assassination as the first extrajudicial killing by the U.S.
against a U.S.
citizen.
His 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was killed in a drone strike two weeks later.
It's the second time that al-Awlaki has been mentioned on Wallace's show in the last two weeks.
Previously, MSNBC contributor and former FBI agent Clint Watts hinted that former President Trump was inciting violence against the U.S., much like al-Awlaki with the Capitol, on January 6th.
Quote, we had a period after 9-11 where we were trying to get left of boom, as they would
say in counter-terror, which is, can you get way up, up the stream of an attack and start
to root out all of the confluences which bring an about-attack?
If you look at what President Trump said and you instead put in Anwar al-Awlaki's mouth,
we would be talking about drone strikes overseas, Watt said on the left-wing cable news network.
So that's one aspect of our political leaders talking about this rhetoric.
From CNS News, Acting DHS Deputy Secretary, Pelosi wanted, quote, crew-manned machine guns in Washington.
That was rejected.
Maybe Pelosi just doesn't understand, or maybe we're dangerously giving these people the benefit of the doubt.
Do you know what would happen if in D.C.
they did use crew-serviced machine guns, belt-fed 5.56 or whatever?
I had some people mention on the show the caliber by which they use for these crewman machine guns.
Do you know what would happen?
Do you know what these rounds do to a person?
Depending on the caliber, if they're very large.
These are not designed to be slow and enter the body and stay there.
They're designed to rip through them.
There will be untold collateral damage.
Civilian buildings will be peppered with rifle rounds through windows, through brick, through foundations.
The streets will be littered with the fragments and the holes from a crew-served machine gun.
Of course, they rejected the idea.
But it has at least been reported by one individual.
They wanted this.
Could we live in a country where there's machine guns surrounding the capital?
That sounds like occupation.
I gotta be honest.
With or without the machine guns, it sounds like occupation.
I hope you are paying attention.
Because the rhetoric isn't slowing down.
And we know where this kind of talk leads.
Many people like to say that, you know, a lot of these dumb people on Twitter, they're like, Tim's so dumb talking about Civil War.
Yeah, just when I quote prominent security experts and newspapers and magazines when they bring it up, or when left-wing professors from, say, Stanford say we are in a cold Civil War, my friends, let me ask you a very simple question.
We just had hundreds of people storm into the U.S.
Capitol during the counting of the Electoral College votes.
I do not believe that would have changed anything, but you can certainly see that people were screaming, angry, and some were calling it 1776, claiming it was a revolution.
While not nearly enough individuals to actually do anything, the sentiment is certainly on the rise, and it's worse than we've seen in a long time.
When you have people on the right fighting with police, you never see that, and then storming into this building.
And there were thousands of people outside as well, and hundreds of thousands there just peacefully supporting Trump.
When you see that, and you also see the violence in the streets from the left and Antifa, and they're still rioting today.
And you see prominent, mainstream publications and high-profile personalities say, these people are enemy combatants.
The Republican Party are enemy combatants.
Advocate for the drone bombing of them.
Democratic politicians, the most prominent before Biden, Nancy Pelosi, essentially the leader of the party, before Biden was inaugurated, saying crew-manned machine guns Do you think things are slowing down?
Do you think I've been wrong?
Perhaps.
As I often say.
Maybe this is the one time that things slow down and it's the back end of the bell curve.
Should we believe that?
If you'd like to.
Because maybe this is the end of the escalation.
Maybe now the actual fighting is over, we get some bluster, and then everyone kind of calms down.
But this is an escalation.
Once again, prominent personalities on MSNBC saying the Republicans are your enemies!
Combatants!
It's absolutely insane.
This is some of the most dangerous rhetoric we've seen yet.
MSNBC, they get millions of viewers at night.
They rival Fox News as of now.
And they're telling people to treat Republicans like enemies, who should be droned, who should be bombed, or killed.
I mean, all the same thing, essentially.
What do you think's gonna happen?
Do you think people are just gonna ignore this?
Or do you think they're gonna believe it?
MSNBC and these personalities are radicalizing people to an extreme degree, so I hope you understand what this means.
When we were seeing the fighting between Proud Boys and Antifa, and I said, I think this is gonna escalate into some kind of civil conflict or civil war, people said, you're so dumb, it's just a bunch of morons in the street fighting.
And I said, but look at the result of what comes next.
People in the media saying the Proud Boys were just defending themselves, and then the left saying, no, but they're the wrong ones.
Antifa just fights fascists.
You could see lines being drawn.
The domino knocked over.
You know that meme?
Where there's a little tiny domino, and they gradually get bigger and bigger and bigger until you have a giant massive slab?
It's because It escalates.
And that's what we're looking at.
Someone at one point flicked a tiny little domino.
Antifa and the Proud Boys fought.
And I looked down that path, and I saw the dominoes getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
And I said, y'all seeing this?
But everybody was too busy looking down saying, they're tiny, it's nothing.
We're at the point now, the latest domino to fall over, is MSNBC personalities, in more than one instance, essentially advocating for the extrajudicial assassination and executions of American citizens.
What do you think the next domino to fall over will be?
Maybe the domino gets knocked to the side and stops, and they stop falling over, and the escalation ceases.
Could be.
I just don't have any reason to believe that things are slowing down.
I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to be pessimistic.
But that's what's happening.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight, 8 p.m.
live, over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We will be talking about guns, among other things, and things like this.
So make sure you check it out, because we also take your comments and read them on the show.
So again, I will see you at 8 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
Check out the show live, and I'll see you then.
I try to be careful, precise with my language, the words I use, because I want to make sure
when people hear what I'm saying, they genuinely understand the ideas behind what I'm saying.
Now many on the left will take things I say out of context, probably on purpose, because they don't want people to actually hear what I have to say.
I saw a meme.
Somebody was talking about how they had been sending videos to their friends who were leftists or liberals, who finally said, hey, wait a minute, I watched this one video and I now understand.
I believe that many on the left... So this is a fact here.
Many on the left watch mainstream news and don't watch independent, alternative, or conservative news.
There was one poll that I like to cite over and over again that shows liberals and leftists get their information from 90% mainstream sources, about 10% conservative sources.
sources about 10% conservative sources. Moderates are about 65% liberal sources and about 33, 35%
conservative. Conservatives get their news from about 65% conservative sources and around.
What does that mean?
Conservatives typically know what liberals are thinking and why.
Not always, but typically.
And liberals don't understand what conservatives are thinking.
This works out really well for Democrats and the tribal left, so long as you keep the information suppressed, you can maintain your tribal authority, power, and political power.
Which it's no surprise why they're in favor of censorship.
So I try to keep my language precise.
And I think that's one of the reasons why they will pull my quotes out of context, or mash them together, or strip cultural context out of what was being said.
For instance, one of their big attacks right now is the 49 state landslide thing.
Well, because in the past, there were certain moments that made it seem like Trump was doing really well.
For instance, Trump's highest aggregate approval rating took place during the COVID pandemic, when he was giving speeches, and the governors were praising him.
And then we saw mass rioting.
Based on certain hypothetical situations, speculation ensues.
Basically, I would say, wow, if Trump does these things, he might see a 49-state landslide.
Not that he literally would.
There were a lot of variables, and I always, always take the milquetoast approach of saying, Well, you know, but probably not.
And I get criticized for doing both.
If I say something and qualify it with, but you know what, I'm probably wrong on that one, they'll cut out the I'm probably wrong and say, look, Tim Poole thinks he's a psychic.
If I say I'm probably wrong, or I could be totally wrong about this, then people will say, pick a position and stick to it.
The reality is, I don't have all the answers.
I'll give you some ideas, and I try to be precise.
If there's something I know to be true or factual, I will make sure I word it properly.
Which brings me, ladies and gentlemen, to this segment that, you know, might not be the most important news in terms of global affairs, but I thought I absolutely had to do a segment about.
The Poynter Institute, which you see on the screen, essentially decides who gets to fact-check on Facebook.
Recently, Luke Rutkowski of We Are Change, who co-hosts the Tim Cast IRL podcast, had a meme fact-check by USA Today.
Why?
It was an obvious joke about Joe Biden with stacks of executive orders, and they said misleading information and put a block in front of it.
It was a joke.
Twitter recently froze, censored, a meme.
It was an image, a cartoon image of Donald Trump, and it says, you stole my heart like a 2020 election.
It was a joke.
It wasn't actually asserting the election was stolen.
It was mocking the idea.
Twitter blocked it.
Now, that block isn't from the Poynter Institute or anything like that, but it just shows you institutional suppression of information.
Well, it's wrong, and I've got the hard proof, and boy, are y'all gonna love this.
The Poynter Institute writes this, Twitter's crowdsourced fact-checking experiment reveals problems.
A Poynter analysis found that less of half Birdwatch users include sources, and many fact-checking notes contain partisan rhetoric.
Just like what you do.
Ooh, I love it.
My friends, I give you a story about my own tweet.
I made a tweet.
It was being snarky, and it was referencing Time Magazine's Shadow Cabal article.
Pointer is furious.
Why?
Well, let me start over.
For those that aren't familiar with Birdwatch, Twitter launched a pilot program which brought a small number of people into this program that gives them the ability to fact check.
These people are chosen at random.
Someone will tweet.
And then Birdwatch users can say, this is true, this is false, this is misleading, here's why.
It seems to be working.
It's actually, I'm fairly impressed.
Well, in my tweet, I essentially, referencing Time Magazine, said they fortified the election.
Twitter froze that tweet, and the Birdwatch users overwhelmingly rated my tweet, not misleading, and then provided citation to Time Magazine.
Pointer is furious.
The fact-checking worked.
So they wrote a whole article about it, not liking what I wrote, and they used manipulation techniques.
This, my friends, may be the most revealing power play we can see from what Facebook and the fake news does.
So, my friends, If you agree with me, and I will keep this as reasonable as possible, share this video with your friends to explain to them the faults of fake news, and how the system is built to lie to them.
And I'll explain.
Let me bring you now to the Poynter article.
They say, on February 5th, Twitter flagged a post from controversial YouTuber Tim Pool
that said the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged.
The platform noted that the claim was disputed and turned off engagement due to a risk of
violence.
First of all, am I really controversial?
I don't think so!
Seriously, I don't think there is a circumstance where you could argue that I'm controversial.
I'm not newsworthy!
Nobody writes stories about me!
Sometimes people complain that I'm dumb, and the left likes to post things out of context, but I've not been featured in any major articles over anything that I've said that has been over-the-top or controversial, save for this, where they just assert it.
Calling me controversial is poisoning the well.
The goal is, once you start reading this, they want you to hold a negative view of me, as if I've done something wrong.
Sorry, man.
There's a reason why people call me a milquetoast fence-sitter.
Now they say, my tweet said the election was rigged.
This is only technically true in that I jokingly said it was, and then immediately said it wasn't.
So you could argue that the words do appear, but I did not say it.
You see, it was a post from me that said, that said.
Why?
Because I did not say the election was rigged.
The post itself says the election was not rigged.
You see, this is where it gets interesting.
Let me show you the actual post.
I tweeted this.
I don't think this even matters at this point.
Time magazine just came out, said that a cabal of elites rigged the election.
I'm sorry.
They said they didn't rig the election, they fortified it by changing the rules and laws as well as manipulating the flow of information.
That tweet is 100% factually true, albeit snarky, to say the least.
Time Magazine did come out and say a cabal of elites fortified the election.
I said rigged because I was being snarky on purpose.
That's why I then said, no, I'm sorry, they didn't say they rigged it.
That's the joke.
So they can technically say the post said it was rigged, but the post literally says it wasn't rigged following this.
More importantly, I think if you read the Time Magazine article, you'll get the idea.
The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
Let me just do a search for words to show you.
They say there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes.
One that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.
They say this started in a fall of 2019, which means whatever they were doing was hurting Bernie Sanders, I'd imagine, as well.
Fine.
Call it whatever you want.
More importantly, they use the word... Let me just read the paragraph for you.
Time Magazine said, That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream.
A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information.
They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it.
And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
That's why I said they didn't rig it!
They fortified it.
But what is the definition of rigging?
It's actually simple.
To change the rules or a system in order to benefit, in order to ensure a particular outcome.
Depending on what you like or don't like politically, you will look at this as it was being rigged or it wasn't.
Which is why I didn't make a definitive statement in my tweet.
I said they weren't rigging it.
They were fortifying it.
Showing what they said.
Being snarky.
And I said Time Magazine said.
Now, let's read this Poynter article.
They say, On Birdwatch, the social media's platform experimenting crowdsourced fact-checking, users overwhelmingly said the tweet was not misleading, according to a February 14th analysis of Twitter data.
And most Birdwatch users indicated in the tool that they found these notes that supported debunked claims helpful and informative.
Let's stop right here.
I tweeted, Birdwatch users, who are random people, I don't know.
Let me show you what they said.
Not misleading.
The tweet's author is simply relaying the content of a published Time Magazine article.
His summary is essentially an accurate portrayal of their article.
Next one, currently rated helpful.
Not misleading.
According to the officiating source of Time, there was a well-organized group of secret participants in a shadow organization that sounds like a cabal that worked together to sway the election in favor of Joe Biden.
The next one.
His context is proved by the Time article.
Look at this.
Not misleading.
There's one.
Misinformed or potentially misleading.
Saying, Poole is referencing a February 4th Time article.
The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
Some readers may classify tactics as campaign strategy.
Others may argue it is election rigging until a legal precedence is set.
Topic is open to debate.
And I respect that one as well.
So let me break this down for you.
The Poynter Institute, which is basically who determines what Facebook, who on Facebook can fact-check.
Check this out.
Facebook.com.
How does Facebook select its fact-checking partners?
Facebook's independent third-party fact-checkers are all certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, the IFCN.
A subsidiary of the journalism research organization Poynter Institute is dedicated to bringing together fact-checkers worldwide.
Here's what happened.
I made a post.
The post was snarky, but factual.
I said Time Magazine claimed they were rigging, I'm sorry, not rigging, fortifying.
That's intended to be eye-rolly and snarky.
But it is factually correct, albeit even if it was partisan rhetoric.
Fine.
Pointer is mad.
Because Twitter's open fact-checking system Proved me right.
Or at the very least made us a little strong.
I'll say it shows that most people agree with me on the interpretation of what this Time Magazine article is.
When Poynter holds the keys to who gets to fact-check, they choose.
Now isn't it funny?
What do we really see here?
Twitter is allowing anyone, anyone, so for now, it's a small group of randomly selected individuals, this is undercutting pointer institutes, IFCN, business, or organization, or whatever you want to call it.
It is coming at their source of power.
Facebook uses Pointer.
If you start a news organization and you want to be able to issue fact-check labels on other people's posts, you have to get approved by Pointer.
Pointer holds the keys.
On Twitter, they don't.
So they got mad that when I made a post that was factually true, albeit snarky, they had no control over it.
So they write an article claiming it was a problem.
They try to argue that these regular users are wrong, and that the posts that are helpful, that people like, are debunked.
Isn't it amazing?
When regular people crowdsource fact-checking, let me show you what you discover.
Let's break this all down.
Here's birdwatches of twitter.com slash i slash birdwatch.
This is where you can look to tweets and see how people are rating them.
And I'm going to show you that the system works and my tweet was correct.
Let's jump to a random tweet here.
Rex Chapman says, hey climate deniers, it's snowing now in Saudi Arabia.
And they show a video of camels covered in snow.
Let's click the button that says see all notes on this tweet.
In it, we can see.
Misinformed or potentially misleading.
One user says, These areas typically receive snowfall every year during winter months and is not evidence or indicative of climate change with a source.
Another user says, Misinformed or potentially misleading.
This tweet does not indicate this region does receive occasional snowfall and may be out of context.
Apparently, it's normal.
It's an out-of-context tweet from a verified user.
How about Mike Cernovich?
Cernovich said, Wikipedia goes full damage control to protect Lincoln Project.
Bad person.
John Weaver, the page is locked and no information can be added.
You click see all notes and you can see the two ratings are misinformed or potentially misleading.
Long story short, Be it a left-wing position or a right-wing position, users are overwhelmingly calling out what they see as bad information.
Birdwatch is working.
Just like Wikipedia, regular people are now giving a chance to rate information and to fact-check it.
The problem with Wikipedia is that special interests have essentially taken it over.
And now it's damn near impossible for a regular person to actually come in and say, hey, here's why that's not true.
Just like the Poynter Institute and Facebook.
Facebook says, we're not the ones who labeled these, it was those users.
The only problem is Facebook is giving the keys to a select group of people to act essentially as contractors on behalf of Facebook.
So I would argue, no, that's still Facebook making those statements.
And I think it's grounds for defamation lawsuits if Facebook wants to label my post or anyone else's as false news or misleading or whatever.
I'd argue that's defamation.
That is a false statement of fact.
There have been many instances where that's actually happened.
A tweet of mine that I didn't post, someone screenshotted and put on Twitter, put on Facebook, I'm sorry, was labeled false information by one of Poynter's approved organizations.
The post was about Bill Clinton flying on an airplane to a particular island.
My post was 100% factually true.
It was dubbed false.
Then, when you clicked the link, the fact check actually confirmed my post was true.
Which means, they knew what I was saying was true, slapped a label on it calling it false.
I would argue that's malicious.
They knew what I said was true, but still called it false.
It's a false statement of fact.
I blame Facebook for that.
Because Facebook ha- I'll put it this way.
If the New York Times, as a company, has contractors who write articles, and those articles are approved and posted, New York Times can't say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not a New York Times employee, that was just a contractor we approved.
If Facebook says, here's the five, ten organizations that we are giving access to to post on our platform, it's on behest of Facebook.
You take a look at Birdwatch and you can see.
Pull up most tweets and... Let's take a look at this one.
Lauren Boebert says, come and take it, Bill.
And it's a picture of a steak.
Because Bill Gates said that we should eat synthetic meat.
See all notes.
There's a note, misinformed or potentially misleading.
It says, Bill Gates said in an interview with Kara Swisher that wealthy nations to use more plant-based foods like Impossible Burgers, even though he still eats some meat and some synthetic plant-based meats.
He does not want to take meat away.
The transcript is here.
You see, even on silly posts, Birdwatch users are calling out what they view as fake news, and it seems to mostly affect right-wing individuals.
So why then?
I would ask.
Is Pointer upset?
Because the one time they want the control of the narrative, they lost it.
I mean, they basically maintain, look at this, all of the birdwatch stuff is overwhelmingly right-wing.
Robert J. O'Neill says, Barbara Boxer had a Chinese spy as a driver for 20 years.
See all notes.
Misinformed or potentially misleading.
Senator Boxer registered as a Chinese foreign agent, so the Biden campaign returned her donation.
Senator Feinstein's driver was a Chinese spy.
You see how this works?
It's amazing.
When regular people are actually given the keys and have the ability to fact check, you tend to get the correct approach.
Wikipedia used to be this way.
It really did.
Not so much anymore.
And I think there's obvious reasons.
In the early days of Wikipedia, anybody on Wikipedia would edit and try and add, you know, through good faith, correct information.
When special interests realized their reputation could be damaged through Wikipedia, and Wikipedia argued these are publicly available sources, so you can't sue us, they needed control.
Thus, digital firms emerged with the express intent, explicit intent, of manipulating information on Wikipedia.
We see it very heavily with politicians, both left and right.
If you try and say something negative, all of a sudden this prominent Wikipedia editor will come in and argue why it's actually okay.
A really good example is on Wikipedia.
If you try and say something like, uh, Mike Cernovich.
Mike Cernovich has once claimed he supported universal health care.
They'll argue one statement from Mike Cernovich is not important to a biography, and just because he said we need universal health care doesn't mean he actually supports it.
We should not include this.
And you'll get a bunch of these special interest and left biased redditor, uh, wikipedia, sorry, uh, wikipedians or whatever.
They'll say, yeah, it must be removed.
But then one day Mike Cernovich will say something like, we need deregulation in big business, and then boom!
It'll appear right there.
Mike Cernovich says deregulate business.
If it is a right-wing position, or an embarrassing statement, or something negative, they'll argue the statement is warranted as fact.
as a principal part of the person's biography.
But, for instance, if I say that I was a very staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders in 2016, they'll argue it's not relevant.
Now, this one was actually interesting.
It ended up in an article in which they actually said, well, look, it's in the article, so we have to include Tim Poole as a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, and then he voted for Donald Trump.
There are a lot of people that did that.
About nine million.
It's not unusual.
Well, I mean, it's not completely typical of everybody, but this group of people exists.
And there are a lot of left-wing individuals or moderate leftists who registered as Republicans.
I did not.
Or who voted for Donald Trump.
They fight over whether or not you can get in statements, personal statements, or whether or not Tim Poole is a good source.
For instance, for years they claimed that I invented a Zeppelin.
I love talking about this because it was seriously like seven years where Wikipedia said I invented a Zeppelin and I kept screaming, no I didn't!
It all stems from some fake article from, I think it was the Guardian, where I talked about a potential idea for you could put a Zeppelin on a roof and control it.
You could be in New York and control it in LA.
I never said I invented the damn thing.
I said, we're working on drone technology.
We have drones that can fly and do live streams.
It would be amazing if we got to the point where we actually had some kind of Zeppelin, because it's lower power and can fly for a longer amount of time, that you could like put on a roof and then remote control using cellular networks or the internet.
This happens all the time.
The media lies.
They lie.
I bring you now to, uh, proof.
A good example of how the media manipulates and why these fascinating organizations are so scared and offended.
From the Washington Post, eroding trust, spreading fear, the historical ties between pandemics and extremism.
The opening paragraph.
Adam Kregler used to feed his YouTube following a politics-free diet of chatter about aliens, movies, skateboarding, and video games.
Then came the pandemic.
Now he devotes much of his talk show to his assertion that mask mandates are an assault on personal freedom and that Democrats somehow stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump.
Result?
A much bigger audience.
If you are a fan of the TimCast IRL podcast, you would know that Adam Kregler was co-host for quite some time.
You would also know that we always talked about politics.
Politics just became more prominent because politics became pop culture.
That's really it.
The real story is that TimCast IRL was supposed to be a vlog.
It was supposed to be a vlog where I would go on the ground and interview regular people and do essentially long-form podcasting from regular Americans, kind of like Crowder's, you know, Change My Mind.
Crowder used to do something called Real Conversations.
I think that became Change My Mind.
My idea was we could just, you know, set up a table and say, regular people, come talk.
Sargon, aka Carl Benjamin, did something similar.
But then the pandemic hit, and so these regular issues that we wanted to talk about—cultural politics and politics—became confined to the home.
Adam Krigler did not used to feed his YouTube following a politics-free diet.
The second video that he produced for his channel, AdamCastIRL, is about—I think it's about Trump.
So why did the Washington Post write this?
Absolutely fake news.
They've created a narrative that Adam was just an alien, you know, and fun culture podcaster, and then the pandemic hit, and now he's got a bigger audience by claiming, you know, Donald Trump and all that stuff.
When in reality, he joined me, a guy who's been political for a decade, who is literally at Occupy Wall Street, to talk about cultural politics and politics.
No, don't get me wrong.
We did talk about UFOs and aliens, and we still mostly do.
The main issue with Timcast IRL is that politics became pop culture.
Everyone agrees.
Movies aren't coming out anymore.
They suspended a bunch of movies.
The theaters were closed.
And so mainstream establishment cultural news was all about Trump.
And now we're starting to get back into cultural issues.
Hence, the other day we talked about food shortages.
We talked about taxes in the power grid.
We didn't talk necessarily about Democrats or Republicans or Donald Trump.
We didn't necessarily talk about the pandemic.
We are slowly getting back into cultural issues now that the election year is over.
What we have from this is the Washington Post making up a narrative.
They made up a narrative because it sells.
Now what will happen is, in the future, when Wikipedia seeks to reference Adam Krigler, they will write this fake news that was not fact-checked.
And in fact, it is an absolute false statement of fact.
Now I reached out to this journalist and he said, I'm just relaying what Adam told me.
So you didn't fact check what the guy said?
There it is.
This is the nature of information in today's day and age.
I put out a tweet about the Shadow Cabal or whatever.
And regular people saw that and said, yeah, that's what Time Magazine said.
Pointer is furious because they're supposed to be the gatekeepers of information.
And on Twitter, they're not.
Well, good for Twitter in that capacity.
I got a lot of complaint about with Twitter.
Over at the Washington Post, you can see how this information will filter now to places like Wikipedia and trick you into believing fake news.
If you don't believe me, just go to Adam Kregler's YouTube channel, go to his video section, and search by oldest, and what will you see?
Tesla, some music, boom, politics.
In fact, Adam still talks about NASA and space.
He always has.
But he talks about politics as well.
In fact, the funny thing is, they say... Then came the pandemic, they say.
Adam Kregler's YouTube channel started, what, six months after the lockdown went into effect?
What do you mean, then came the pandemic?
Adam Kregler didn't have a YouTube following until he started his YouTube channel.
Then came the pandemic?
Absolute manipulation and lies.
I have to wonder about the rest of it.
I hope this was informative and useful for all of you.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I'll do my best to keep you adequately informed, but I'm not perfect.
I get things wrong too.
But at least I'll never pull BS like that.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you then.
It's long been said that Generation Z is the first generation in nearly a hundred years to be more conservative than the previous generation.
And this is true.
Looking at data from Pew and other sources, you can see that every generation, Silent, Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z, it's always getting a little bit more progressive.
Until Gen Z, and it moves slightly too conservative.
Now, here's the reality.
I'm not convinced that Generation Z is more conservative.
I think that's technically the truth, but I think there's still hyperpolarization happening, and Gen Z is still overwhelmingly similar to Millennials, and Millennials tend to be particularly woke.
What we're seeing now is one of the stupidest and silliest contradictions of thought, which is unsurprising coming from young people who have not yet entered, for the most part, the political world.
But among those of Gen Z who are more progressive, they tend to be increasingly authoritarian.
And across the board, Gen Z seems to be increasingly authoritarian within one poll.
The majority of Gen Z saying, shouting down speakers and banning speech, good thing, acceptable.
Here's where it gets funny though.
Obviously not every Gen Z individual is progressive, like I mentioned.
They tend to be slightly more conservative.
I think that is, uh, this has to do with having kids.
And I've talked about it before.
There's a bunch of data from the early 2000s showing that conservatives were having 2.05 children on average, while liberals were having like 1.7.
Which means on a long enough time period, liberals shrink or leftists shrink, conservatives maintain.
Because two kids per adult family is only slightly above replacement levels.
This means that in a long enough time scale, you'll get more conservatives.
Now here's where things get funny.
In this article from the New York Post, politicized, woke, and afraid, Gen Z needs to start thinking critically.
They mentioned that these Gen Zers want to abolish police.
Okay, around a third of them want to abolish police.
But around two-thirds think that rioting, to a certain degree, is acceptable.
Let me tell you what happens when you get rid of the police.
You know, I thought about it.
I thought about it quite a bit, and something changed where right now, you know, I'm in favor of abolishing the police.
Not really, but, you know, I'm thinking about the right to keep and bear arms.
I've gone pretty heavy into Pro 2A for the most part.
I'm not completely 2A like a lot of people.
A lot of people are like, I should be able to own a belt-fed 50 BMG Cruiser.
Well, you know.
I understand literally that, but I don't know if I would go that far, but it's pretty close in the sense that we have a constitution that must be obeyed.
And even if I don't agree that we should have people, you know, mounting belt-fed 50 BMG crew service machine guns on their homes or something like that, especially in cities, well, listen, we have a constitution.
You want to change the rules, you change the constitution.
It can be amended.
Anyway, look, here's the point.
I'm kidding about wanting to abolish the police, but I don't live in a city anymore where I have to worry about that.
I've lived in rural areas before, and without police.
So I knew firsthand what it was like to be in a home that was unguarded, and we literally had murders.
Murders that had happened nearby.
And so I was like, wow, now I kinda understand it, right?
Well, now I own weapons.
If you abolish the police, who is going to come and confiscate those weapons?
I guess the ATF, sure.
But imagine you're in a big city, like New York, and you believe that rioting is permissible, but that we shouldn't have police.
Okay, so when the criminals violate the law because no one's there to enforce it, and you bring out the social workers, and then a bunch of dudes are walking around with AR-15s, and then you're out rioting, what do you think those people with guns are going to do with you as you riot?
This is why I do find this story to be kind of dumb, to be honest.
I'm not here to rag on Gen Zers who think this stuff, because I understand they don't have that life experience.
They may think they're, you know, really smart and they know everything, like a lot of young people tend to do.
We all do.
And then every young person hears it from every old person.
unidentified
You think you know everything, but you'll get older, you'll figure it out.
Like I said, they tend to be more conservative than the previous generation, but they are still very much like Millennials.
But there's a difference between knowledge and wisdom, and I think the younger generation lacks the wisdom.
That's the...
Well, I'll put it this way.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
You see how that goes?
Basically, you have a lot of Gen Zers who might know stuff, they have access to the internet, but it is kind of insane that they're falling in line with this authoritarianism, simultaneously saying, riding is okay, but no cops.
Dude.
People gonna shoot ya, you know what I mean?
So I'm on the middle of nowhere.
You want to abolish the police, fine.
Gen Z is expanding, they're growing, they're gonna take over at some point.
And then maybe you'll have a large faction of people who vote to abolish the police.
Guess what?
I don't live in a city, I don't care.
Now I understand the stupidity of abolishing cops.
I got a problem with corruption and police brutality, same as most people do, and I think we need reform, but you know what?
I got out of these cities for this reason.
I rely on myself now.
I am a proud gun owner of many different kinds of guns of varying degrees of power, and all within the law, you know, nothing crazy, to be completely honest.
I was talking to somebody when I was buying ammo, and I was like, is this too much?
And they were like, dude, you are not even at a tenth of the level of where preppers go.
I'm pretty sure nobody cares.
And I was like, yeah, maybe it's just because I grew up in a city where you don't have any guns that buying a couple seems like a big deal.
But you go in the middle of nowhere, and you're like, this guy's like, here's my gun rack, and there's like 50 guns or something.
Well, let me read this, and we'll talk about what's going on with Gen Z, and we'll talk about what's going on with gun control right now.
The New York Post says, politicized, woke, and afraid.
Gen Z needs to start thinking critically.
They write, in our increasingly digitized, secular, and ideologically polarized era, my generation, Gen Z, has overwhelmingly turned to political activism in their search for meaning.
The rise of BLM protests, climate change rallies, and LGBTQ pride parades over the last half decade have given young people a religious sense of community and a kind of spiritual mission, that of fighting for equality and justice.
On the surface, young people involved in political activism have good intentions, to fight the evils of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, and feel genuine compassion for the historically underserved.
However, in the quest for justice, a brewing ideological radicalism and prevailing orthodoxy has swept Gen Z. Capitalism and all its manifestations are now considered dangerous.
While advocating for socialism, the new requisite philosophy for entering the cool kids club is viewed positively by 61% of Gen Z. A third of young adults polled last year supported abolishing the police, more than any other age group.
Blinded by myopic visions of cultural revolution, some young people even justify violence.
One poll showed 64% of college students agreed that last year's anti-police rioting and looting is justified to some degree.
The rise of orthodoxy comes with a growing intolerance Alternate perspectives that deviate from the mainstream aren't just discomforting to young people.
They're treated as a moral threat.
Just over 50% of Gen Z college students believe shouting down speakers or trying to prevent them from talking is sometimes or always acceptable.
At the same time, more than two-thirds of college students say campus climate prevents them from expressing their true opinions for fear of offending their classmates.
Despite the dogma of culturally emboldened young progressives, many Gen Z thinkers actually crave greater diversity of thought.
Though I just turned 20, I have taken the path less traveled throughout my favorite years, and now as an opinion writer, consistently seeking out ideas that challenge me.
Here are my five tips for how my fellow Zoomers can do the same.
Be skeptical of conventional wisdom.
Identity is not destiny.
Stay open-minded.
Watch your news diet.
The key to being open-minded is watching your news diet.
Checking the balance between intelligent voices on the left and right is essential.
Spend less time on social media.
Hear, hear.
I like this image.
It says, uh, young people should follow more diverse voices like Joe Rogan, Barry Weiss, and Glenn Greenwald.
I would just like to point out the hilarity there.
With respect to the writer of this article targeting Jan Z, Joe Rogan, Barry Weiss, and Glenn Greenwald all occupy the exact same space on the political spectrum.
So they're not particularly a diverse set of opinions.
But what I more want to focus on are these polls here that I think are particularly interesting.
The embracing of socialism?
That doesn't sound like they're more conservative.
Now I have an answer for that one though.
Interestingly, I saw a really great post from a Zoomer.
I guess that's what they're called.
They said, you wonder why Gen Z is overwhelmingly in favor of socialism and progressive economics?
Because they entered a world after the financial crisis where there were no jobs to be had.
So you have millennials struggling as it is with massive debt.
What do you think Gen Z was going to do?
And now we're in another crisis.
While Millennials have experienced two economic crises in their lifetimes already, Gen Z entered the world after the crisis, confused and with no real ability to do meaningful work.
Now, you have the COVID crisis again, there's no faith the system will allow them to do anything that will make money.
Now that is a failure of Gen X, to a degree Millennials, and mostly Boomers.
Where is the previous generation to inspire and teach young people that you can be responsible for yourself?
Go watch Fight Club, dude!
I know a lot of these Gen Z people were born after 1997, sure.
Go watch Fight Club!
Came out when you're like two years old.
Go watch it.
We were all told we were gonna be rock stars and astronauts, and as we're learning that's not true, we're pissed off.
To quote, to paraphrase Tyler Durden, Dude, you're not gonna be a rockstar celebrity.
Go chop some wood in the backyard, prepare your fire, tend to some chickens, and realize this whole thing is fake.
It's just not real, this desire for social acceptance.
You need to rely on yourself and stop worrying about what someone's gonna do for you.
You may not have the ability to get a job the way you were told.
So what?
It's time to start thinking and realizing the system is broken.
You can't sit around and say, We should have the government intervene and provide for us because I can't find the jobs.
More importantly, can I just point out the problem of advocating for abolishing the police?
Now, to be fair, it's a third of young adults polled are saying abolish the police, but it is more than any other group.
What do you think's gonna happen?
The Washington Post reports, fearing violence and political uncertainty, Americans are buying millions more firearms.
More than two million guns were sold in January, an 80% jump, and the third highest monthly total on record.
A year ago, When the lockdown started, we saw in liberal areas and big cities lines out the door from gun shops.
They were sold out.
Ammo?
Nowhere to be found.
Major ammo shortage, and the price of ammo was skyrocketing.
I mean, just a couple weeks ago, it was like a dollar per bullet for 9mm in some stores.
That's crazy.
Now, you go online, you might be able to find cheaper, but think about that.
It's just one bullet.
If you go and do target practice, if you're training, so I go to, you know, I go to a range, and they'll give you a box of, like, 50 or, you know, 200 cartridges, or you'll get, like, a box of 50.
50 bucks to shoot just 50 times practicing and training.
And don't think that somebody who buys a weapon is going to be able to master operating their weapon after 50 pulls of the trigger.
It's going to take a long time.
That's expensive stuff.
Rifle rounds?
Even more expensive.
But here's the bigger picture.
By all means, please, abolish the police.
I don't care.
I don't live in these places anymore.
And I've long said, if these leftists witnessed the rioting and the chaos all last year, of which these Gen Zers say two-thirds, to some degree, was justified, and they keep voting for this stuff, voting for their weapons to be taken away, you can't, in Illinois, for instance, you can't even have, like, you can't even walk around with a baseball bat.
You want to go- No, no joke!
In Chicago, if you want to go to, like, play baseball with your friends, you could get stopped by the cops and questioned.
And I've always been told if you ever want to go and you have a baseball bat, you must have a mitt and a ball because they can stop you and accuse you of carrying a weapon.
Gang violence, I guess.
If you want to get rid of the police, you live in these areas, rocked by these riots, I'm not going to stand in the way of that.
I'm not going to defend people who continue to live in places after a year of this.
At a certain point, the responsibility falls on you.
Now, now, I know.
I've heard a lot of people say, dude, I can't afford to move.
I get it.
For that, I'm sorry.
I genuinely mean it.
I don't want you to lose your cops because these crazies are taking over, but...
Look, I moved from Chicago to L.A.
with nothing.
I had a backpack.
I had a computer.
Okay, so not nothing.
And I had $200 in cash.
I found a rideshare from Chicago to L.A.
with no plan.
I was like, I don't care.
I'll sleep outside.
I'm gonna do my thing.
I figured it out.
I got a job within a couple of days.
I found a place to stay.
I made it work.
Maybe it doesn't work for everybody, but I took that risk.
If you want to live in these areas where they're going to take away your guns and take away your police while the gangs and the criminals are still armed, there's nothing I can do for you.
I can't stop these crazy kids from believing the police should go away.
You want to replace them with social workers?
Great, I'd love to see an army of social workers surrounding the Capitol building right now.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
Fearing violence and political uncertainty.
Americans are buying millions more firearms.
It's amazing how weird all of this is.
From the Hill.
Majority dissatisfied with U.S.
gun laws, policies, poll.
So what do you think it is?
Do you think people are dissatisfied because the laws are too strict?
Or because the laws are not strict enough?
It's simple.
The laws are not strict enough, they said.
41% of the public say they are dissatisfied with the current gun laws and want them to be stricter, while 8% say they are dissatisfied and want them to be less strict, and 7% are dissatisfied but want them to remain the same.
The poll was taken before, you know, the Parkland anniversary.
They say 56% say they are dissatisfied, 42% they are satisfied.
So what does that really mean?
I gotta tell you this.
I am personally dissatisfied with the laws.
I'm dissatisfied because there's no uniformity, and because they kind of don't make sense.
Why is that some states will ban, say, like, an M1A, and other states will not ban a SCAR, if you know anything about these weapons.
Modern versions of weapons that are better and more accurate?
Nope, those are fine.
Old World War II, you know, weapons?
I don't want any of that.
At a conversation at a gun store with one of the merchants, talking about bolt-action rifles.
And they said, well, you know, the laws, for the most part, the left doesn't seem to mind bolt-action rifles.
That's where you pull up the lever, you pull the bolt back, you push it forward, and you crank it.
It's a hand crank, essentially, operation.
And they said, these things are better, more accurate.
You know, they're typically used in hunting because there's less moving parts, so you have just like a smooth shot.
Whereas AR-15 semi-autos have a ton of crazy moving parts and will be less accurate.
I don't know if that's exactly true.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who would argue against that.
The point is, the gun laws don't make sense.
The people enforcing or creating these policies don't know what they're doing.
More importantly, that's why I'm dissatisfied with them.
But let me shout out a message to those Gen Zers who are occupying this space of supporting the riots to a certain degree, while also, you know, wanting gun control or wanting to abolish the police.
You get rid of the cops who's taking my guns away, okay?
You get rid of the cops who's taking away anyone's guns.
I know they keep saying, we don't want to take anyone's guns away.
That's just not true.
They do!
Beto O'Rourke said, heck yes, we're taking your guns!
There was an attempt to ban all semi-automatic weapons.
All.
That's basically every weapon!
Except for, I guess, bolt-action rifles, which can be fired extremely quickly, and are more accurate.
So I hear.
And what about lever action?
Those things can fire super fast as well.
People have no idea what they're talking about.
But they did want to try- They tried making a Glock 17.
Like, it's a handgun the cops use.
An assault weapon.
All right.
Let's say you have your way.
You ban all these weapons.
What happens then when I'm in the city and there's a riot?
Well, for me, I wouldn't go into the riot.
I don't want to carry a weapon in a city where it's illegal, regardless of if there's police or not, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to use it to kill somebody.
I don't want that for my home, for any of my property.
I don't want anyone coming here.
The last thing I want is to hurt somebody for any reason, even if they are threatening my home.
But if I must, I will.
Because if you come with malicious intent to cause harm to me, my friends, and my family, as much as I don't want to, I will be forced to defend myself.
That being said, there are a lot of criminals in New York, LA, Chicago, who are armed to the teeth.
Notably Chicago.
You abolish the police.
Okay.
Who's gonna stop the gang crime?
Who's gonna stop the gun violence?
Not like the cops are doing a great job of it right now anyway, sure, but at least they can arrest people who are illegally obtaining or trading or dealing in weapons.
Now the interesting thing there is, under the Second Amendment, There shouldn't be any restrictions, I guess.
Any law is arguably an infringement.
But here's my point.
If you think the cops should confiscate these weapons, what are you gonna do?
Send an army of social workers to gang territory, being like, now, now, gentlemen, your guns, please?
And what happens when you go out and riot?
What do you think's gonna riot?
You're in Chicago.
You take the red line down to 47th or to 63rd or whatever.
And then you're running around, smashing windows, screaming, you know, whatever protest cause.
You are going to get lit up.
And there will be no one there to save you.
You see the absurdity of this?
People don't have a clear understanding.
But again, but again, I understand Gen Z hasn't experienced this stuff.
Many of them are just too young.
Many of them in college haven't experienced a whole lot of anything.
That's kind of scary to me.
I really dislike college.
Why?
You get these kids.
They grow up in the suburbs.
Very little real-world experience.
You put them through institutionalized learning facilities up until they're, what, 22?
Yo, when I was a teenager, I was dealing with the realities of the real world.
I was dealing with gang violence, people, you know, getting shot, people dying of overdoses.
The real world.
My family ran a business.
I got to meet with, engage with real customers.
Talk with them about real politics.
I was just a little kid and I'd overhear them talking about politics.
Exposure to the real world.
But these kids, these young people, they go to college, they get a facsimile.
They get a two-dimensional image, a representation of what it really is.
It's like trying to look at the world through a keyhole.
Probably not even a keyhole, a pinhole.
While regular, you know, anybody who just entered the real world, who didn't go to college, or who just started working, have at least seen a great deal more.
More like looking through a window.
So when I was younger, I was never staunchly anti-gun.
No.
Especially when you had people running around shooting each other in my city.
I understood.
What are we supposed to do when these gangbangers are running around with guns?
Do we just say, well, I guess they can rob me?
No, I heard the stories.
The story about the firefighter who was driving home from the station, and a guy ran up to him and put two bullets in his chest.
Or the kid in my neighborhood, friend of a friend, was parked on the side of a road, because they were going to go to a party.
He was parked on a side street, and a guy walked up, was a dealer, knocked on the window, and told him to F off.
The dude went, okay, bang, bang, and killed the dude.
We know these stories.
So what do you do when the criminals are ready to kill you?
Do you just not arm yourself?
Well, I don't think the solution is everybody running around with guns shooting at each other, but I certainly thought it didn't make sense to make gun laws that don't affect those who are already breaking the law.
So a couple years ago I was in favor of certain kinds of gun control, thinking they were reasonable approaches, and this was partly informed by, I actually met with an instructor who, you know, a prominent instructor who said, the problem is uniformity.
It makes no sense, the law from one state to another are completely different, we should be able to, you know, have reciprocity and things like that.
That being said, there should be certain regulations on what you gotta do to buy a gun.
Though not particularly extreme, I said okay.
I actually moved a little bit away from that, but still in favor of some things, right?
Right now you've got what's called NICS, N-I-C-S, and they do a quick background check on everybody.
I don't have a big problem with that.
You also have people who get concealed carry, and that can operate as your background check.
You walk and you show it.
It's because you basically have a permanent license, and we know you're good, alright?
The issue is, we can do all of the restrictions in the world, and it won't stop the fact that somebody can just 3D print or make a weapon.
There's some crazy ways people can put together weapons using... I'm not gonna say it, because as YouTube, you might get mad at me.
Long story short, it is extremely easy these days to make your own weapon, 3D printed or otherwise, and when you have people cheering on riots, saying, it's acceptable, no police, then I tell you what might happen.
Things might get better.
No joke.
Imagine if people in big cities were allowed to be armed.
Nobody's really going to want to shoot.
You know what I mean?
Because you don't know who's going to be armed, see you, and then might shoot back.
They say a well-armed society is a polite society.
The rioters will certainly stop rioting because too many people with guns will tell them not to.
We saw what happened in Philadelphia.
Some dudes broke into a gun shop.
Probably the stupidest thing they could have done.
And the owner was sleeping there.
He killed one of the guys.
I'm sad it happened.
But if you're dumb enough to break into a gun shop during a riot, what did you think was going to happen?
And so I wish it didn't happen, but it does.
So Gen Z, by all means, advocate for these things, but then grow up a little bit.
Start realizing what's going on and why what you're saying doesn't work.
And in the end, by all means, abolish the police, because I ain't anywhere near these cities.
It's already, where I live, my responsibility to protect myself, because there's no calling the cops.
They're not going to be there in a few minutes.
Oh, they'll come, because they're, you know, they're sheriffs.
But in the end, When you live out in the middle of nowhere, you gotta protect yourself.
That makes things crazy.
Makes things difficult.
It does.
But it's not as crazy as only having cops who are allowed to be armed, but then complaining the cops are hunting you down.
That doesn't work either, right?
So by all means, make more gun laws, get rid of the cops, and then you'll have no one to enforce those gun laws, and then you will end up with warlords.
