S543 - Woke Leftist Race Hoax Exposed, College Falls Into Critical Race Theory CHAOS Over False Allegations
Woke Leftist Race Hoax Exposed, College Falls Into Critical Race Theory CHAOS Over False Allegations. At Smith College a woman complained that an encounter with police was racial discrimination but an investigation later revealed it was just not true.The woman was in an unauthorized area of the school and was politely asked by an officer what was going on. The officer apologized and that seemed to be it.But the school immediately started forcing people to attend anti-bias trainings and pushing critical race theory and other social justice issues which began to ignite serious controversy.Now one staff member has raised nearly $240,000 after complaining of a hostile work environment.The issue of antiracism and critical race theory seem to be escalating once again.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It's February 25th, 2021, and today's story's first.
A woman at Smith College who had complained about racial discrimination is revealed to have not been a victim of such an event.
This moment led to a massive uproar in the community, resulting in several people losing their jobs.
The story is taking off, as one woman who left the workplace citing racial hostility has now raised over $240,000, challenging critical race theory and these lies.
In the next story, we have Marjorie Taylor Greene sparking outrage after she put up a sign in front of her office in Congress that reads, there are only two genders.
And lastly, GameStop stonks, which basically means stocks, are skyrocketing once again.
And in the meantime, the M1 money supply is quintupling?
Something that we've never seen before that suggests maybe the economy is collapsing?
So, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member to get access to exclusive members-only episodes of the TimCast IRL Podcasts, hear amazing stories from people like Sidney Watson, James O'Keefe, and even the guy from Phoenix Ammunition, the company that banned Biden voters from buying ammo, and he'll explain why.
Now, let's get to the news.
A young black woman, a student at Smith College, was peacefully minding her own business and eating lunch when a police officer approached her and asked her some questions.
The student filmed the encounter and framed it as though it was racial profiling and that it was a horrifying experience to have this officer come up to her to have someone call the police on her for simply minding her own business.
She said that she was approached simply for the crime of being black.
But an independent investigation found that it was not true.
Apparently the officer was called for a different matter and politely just inquired as to if this person knew what was going on or if something had happened.
And that was really it.
But following this, the university went nuts.
Started making life a living hell as this student complained about the racial profiling.
Apparently several people were ousted from their jobs and things just got really bad at the university for a lot of people.
It got particularly contentious.
The whole thing was just not true.
I would say it was a hoax.
But take a look at this glorious sentence from the New York Times.
The story highlights the tensions between a student's deeply felt sense of personal truth and facts that are at odds with it.
Personal truth?
You mean you were wrong and overreacted and ruined people's lives and their experiences at this university?
The facts showed that you were incorrect, and that's just your personal truth?
My friends, you've heard many stories like this.
This is not the only one.
There are a ton.
And we are seeing the explosive expansion of left-wing racial identitarianism, which allows for this type of exploitation.
We've already seen many people launch GoFundMe fundraisers and make hundreds of thousands of dollars alleging some kind of victimization at the hands of the authorities.
We are entering an era of woke capital, and I'm sorry, my friends, meritocracy has gone out the window.
It ain't even command economy.
Now it's victimocracy.
Those who are considered to be the most victimized get the power.
Let's be real.
For a long time now, this country has been deemed to be a plutocracy, ruled by wealthy elites and oligarchs.
It was Citibank that said something like this about 10 years ago.
I believe it was Citibank.
I could be wrong.
Well, we know that money is power, and that those who have more money have more influence over the political space.
So as people seek to use victimhood as a weapon to gain political power, there are going to be very strange people controlling the reins of our government.
These are the people who will go on Twitter and claim that Ted Cruz almost got them murdered.
I mean, that was AOC.
They use this to raise money for political ads.
This is the dawning Of a victim economy.
And this story is just one example.
We've got a couple of things that I want to bring up into this story.
The nature of critical race theory, as well as new PSAs from Cartoon Network that many people are talking about, pushing on this idea which expands leftist identitarianism, which would have a government based around race and identity.
Something that we all fought so hard to end with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I think it's only going to get worse.
But let's get started and read through this story to get the nitty-gritty details on what happened with this hoax.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only episodes.
We have a ton of really great podcasts you can't get anywhere else that aren't available on YouTube, and we set up TimCast.com specifically so that in the event I inevitably get banned or suppressed.
I believe that some of my recent content about tech censorship literally got censored, and
that tends to be the case.
I will still have this website.
One other thing that we're working on is with your membership, the resources I'm getting
are going towards supporting this content, but also we're focusing on building open source
software to decentralize the net so that censorship won't be an issue in the future.
That is a big goal that I have and I need your support to do it.
But seriously, it just helps support my channel, my content, and allows it to grow.
Don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read this story from the New York Times.
Inside a battle over race, class, and power at Smith College, a student said she was racially profiled while eating in a college dorm.
An investigation found no evidence of bias, but the incident will not fade away.
It doesn't matter who's right or where the facts are, it matters which side can be empowered by this.
I'm sorry to say to many of those on the left, but you need to have a wake-up call as to what the Democrats, the establishment, and the corporate politicians, including Republicans, are doing.
There was recently a survey done from Echelon Insights.
Republicans' biggest concerns are the exact same concerns they've always had—illegal immigration, taxes, support for police, etc.
The Democrats are concerned about Trump supporters and white nationalism—things that aren't really policy issues.
You don't like what Trump supporters are doing?
The Democrats are being roped up by media outrage, but they are being exploited by grifters who will stage hoaxes to manipulate you and exploit your goodwill.
This story breaks my heart.
This young black woman, she was not profiled.
At least the investigation said so.
But she's exploiting the goodwill we all have, and we've seen it over and over again.
Notably with George Floyd and other large protest movements.
We all want to protect life, to varying degrees, I have to unfortunately say.
But we want to respect other people and their civil rights.
Everybody does, including Republicans.
Anybody who tells you otherwise has not had a real conversation with conservatives.
I shouldn't say Republicans, because the Republican Party is trash, to be completely honest.
But it breaks my heart, because I see these leftists, these liberals, who really want to fight racism, but they keep getting manipulated.
I want only for you to see what's going on, to see that they're grifters who are stealing from you.
Here's the story.
They say in mid-summer of 2018, Umu Kanute, a black student at Smith College, recounted a distressing American tale.
She was eating lunch in a dorm lounge when a janitor and campus police officer walked over and asked her what she was doing.
The officer who could have been carrying a lethal weapon left her near meltdown, Ms.
Kanute wrote on Facebook, saying that this encounter continued a year-long pattern of harassment at Smith.
Quote, all I did was be black, Ms. Kanute wrote.
It's outrageous that some people question my being at Smith College and my existence
overall as a woman of color.
The college's president, Kathleen McCartney, offered profuse apologies and put the janitor
on paid leave.
This painful incident reminds us of the ongoing legacy of racism and bias, the president wrote, in which people of color are targeted while simply going about the business of their ordinary lives.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN picked up the story of a young female student harassed by white workers.
The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, which took the student's case, said she was profiled for, quote, eating while black.
Less attention was paid three months later, when a law firm hired by Smith College to investigate the episode found no persuasive evidence of bias.
Ms.
Kanute was determined to have eaten in a deserted dorm that had been closed for the summer.
The janitor had been encouraged to notify security if he saw unauthorized people there.
The officer, like all campus police, was unarmed.
Smith College officials emphasized reconciliation and healing after the incident.
In the months to come, they announced a raft of anti-bias training for all staff.
A revamped and more sensitive campus police force and the creation of dormitories, as defended by Ms.
Kanute and her ACLU lawyer, set aside for black students and other students of color.
Let me stress, segregated dorm rooms emerged from this.
Let me ask all of you, and please, if you are someone, a regular viewer of this content, share this with those in your family, your friends, who disagree with you, and let's have a real conversation.
I want to ask you something very simple.
Would you agree with segregated dorm rooms?
Would you agree with discriminating against people based on their race?
Just give me a simple yes or no answer to those questions.
Now, many of you may have already read the literature and agree with those things and say you may agree with segregation and with discrimination, but a lot of good-natured and good-faith and good-willed liberals would say no.
It flies in the face of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.' 's dream.
The civil rights protests We're fighting to end segregation, to get the Civil Rights Act put in place to guarantee the end of segregation.
And we won.
The good guys won.
We ended that segregation.
We have fought so hard to make sure that there are shared spaces and that people have access to everything.
It has long been the liberal position that businesses should not discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics, immutable ones.
Yet now we're being told that they should have segregated dorm rooms?
I'm sorry, I will always oppose that.
Now, for obvious reasons, I come from a mixed-race background.
I know a lot of people say, oh, Tim mentions it all the time.
I would say periodically, out of the hours and hours of content, maybe a couple times in the past, you know, six months or so.
But it matters to my family.
It matters to me.
I don't want to live in a world where my friends are segregated from my other friends.
That's nightmarish and weird.
And that's what we're getting now with this critical race theory.
We're getting it now with these hoaxes.
I don't know why these people want segregated dorms.
They claim it's because they need safe spaces.
In other circumstances, they claim there should not be segregated spaces.
It makes no sense, in my opinion, other than to gain power.
New York Times goes on to say, They did not offer any public apology or amends to the workers whose lives were gravely disrupted by the students' accusation.
This is a tale of how race, class, and power collided at the elite 145-year-old liberal arts college, where tuition, room, and board top $78,000 a year, and where the employees who keep the school running often come from working-class enclaves beyond the school's elegant wrought iron gates.
The story highlights the tensions between a student's deeply felt sense of personal truth And facts that are at odds with it.
I could never have afforded this when I was growing up.
$78,000 a year was well beyond what my family could afford.
Yet I'm repeatedly told that my dad's side of the family are privileged over these individuals.
And that this woman was a victim having gone into an unauthorized portion of the school and was able to pay a $78,000 a year tuition.
Tuition.
That is the epitome of privilege.
I'm sorry, but I'll just give you my thoughts.
It makes no sense to me to claim that a homeless white man is privileged and that Oprah Winfrey is not.
She's one of the richest people on the planet, and that's an understatement.
The New York Times says, the tensions come at a time when few in the Smith community feel comfortable publicly questioning liberal orthodoxy on race and identity, and some professors worry the administration is too deferential to its increasingly emboldened students.
Quote, My perception is that you're on the wrong side of issues of identity politics.
You're not just mistaken, you're evil," said James Miller, an economics professor at Smith College and a conservative.
In an interview, Ms.
McCartney said that Ms.
Kanute's encounter with campus staff was part of a spate of cases of living while black harassment across the nation.
There was, she noted, great pressure to act.
We always try to show compassion for everyone involved, she said.
President McCartney, like all workers Ms.
Kanute interacted with on that day, is white.
Faculty members, however, pointed to a pattern they say reflects the college's growing timidity in the face of allegations from students, especially around the issues of race and ethnicity.
In 2016, students denounced faculty at Smith's social work program as racist after some professors questioned whether admissions standards for the program had been lowered and this was affecting the quality of the field work.
Dennis Meals, one of the professors they decried, left the school not long after.
Then in the autumn of 2019, the Religious Studies Department promised a class on Native American religion and spirituality.
A full complement of students registered, but well before classes began, a small contingent of Native American students and allies pasted bright red posters on buildings on campus revealing The course and harmful, intrusive, and disrespectful, and attacking the, as harmful, intrusive, and disrespectful, and attacking the instructor, who was young, white, and not on a tenure track.
He had an academic background in this field and had modeled his course on that of his mentor, who was a well-known professor and member of the Choctaw Nation.
The administration declined to challenge the students' protests and had the instructor submit to sessions of radical listening with the protesters.
In the end, the Religious Studies Department dropped the class.
The Atmosphere at Smith is gaining attention nationally, in part because a recent resigned employee of the school, Jody Shaw, has attracted a fervent YouTube following by decrying what she sees as the college's insistence that its white employees, through anti-bias training, accept the theory of structural racism.
Stop.
It's called critical race theory, not structural racism.
We can talk about institutional racism, which is when an institution has a bias.
So universities, for instance, are examples of institutional racism.
When they determine that certain individuals should be granted preferential access, that is institutional racism.
The institution, of course, having the power to determine which races are allowed in and out of.
Now, of course, many on the left say that's not the case, but we've seen racial discrimination from these institutions, so call it whatever you want.
There's also historical racism, which is a reference to, I mean, look, there was segregation, there was slavery.
This resulted in systemic racism, meaning that through these systems, we as individuals may be better off in terms of our morality and understanding.
We may reject racist attitudes and behaviors towards other people, but there are still remnants of these policies and laws that exist today.
Case in point, redlining and blockbusting, which were discriminatory policies that made it very difficult for black people and for minorities to find a home in certain cities and jurisdictions.
The remnants of that resulted in ghettos and enclaves and poverty, which persist to this day.
So while individuals may firmly oppose racism, there are still remnants of that that exist.
And I think we can have conversations around this, but ultimately it seems that the fairest solution to this that we can come up with would be a class-based solution, not a race-based one, because we don't want to recreate the segregation of the past and the policies that resulted in these problems in the first place.
But you see what they do over the New York Times.
The New York Times has been heavily accused of being overly woke or engaging in leftist identitarianism.
They're trying to conflate these ideas.
My friends, let me make it very simple for you.
Over on Instagram, I posted this.
It is an image from a Cartoon Network PSA for children.
It says, see color, be anti-racist.
Most people see the phrase anti-racist, and they assume it means don't be racist.
I'm sorry, that's not true.
I have a quote for you from a prominent anti-racist explaining what anti-racism is.
In this quote from Ibram X. Kendi, he says, The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity.
If discrimination is creating equity, then it is anti-racist.
If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.
The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.
The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
This is a quote from a prominent anti-racist author, saying that you must discriminate against people based on their race in order to create favorable outcomes.
Most people on the left would not agree with that.
They would argue that discrimination is wrong.
I mean, coming from my family, who fought so hard against discrimination, they all certainly would think that discrimination is wrong, and they taught me to believe as such, and I carry that with me.
So what does it mean now?
When you have a cartoon for children telling people to see color and be anti-racist, at its core, this does have a very large overlap with, say, the alt-right.
Now, obviously not identically.
You know, there's very big differences.
But the general idea is that these critical race theorists want to trigger what is known as a racial awakening.
They want people to recognize the color of everyone else so they can vote on policies based on that color.
Let me ask you something very simple.
What race is the majority of this country?
Obviously, white people.
Who will most likely be impacted by PSA's saying to see color?
To judge people based on their race?
White people.
And if people are told to make decisions based on the color of their skin and the color of other people's skin, Which race will predominantly benefit from voting based on race?
Once again, it is white people.
This is why there are many right-wing identitarians and white identitarians that support and agree with a lot of this ideology.
And it's why true activists and individuals who really care about social justice and equality and legitimate equity would say this is wrong.
It's extremely dangerous.
Now maybe there's a bunch of people who don't understand what it means when you have these schools and you have these policies and critical race theory.
They genuinely think they're doing the right thing.
Hopefully that explainer I just gave you breaks down why what you're doing is wrong.
I can't tell you how many times I've had arguments with wealthy white progressives who tell me how I'm supposed to live my life when my family literally experienced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.
I mean, these things were not good for my family.
So they fought to get it shut down.
And now, once again, it is the white progressive, I suppose, that is saying we should go back to those ways.
I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of that.
I absolutely reject that.
But that's what's happening.
And it's destroying people's lives, and so long as there are cowards who refuse to stand up and say no, it'll only get worse.
They say the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think that's where we're headed.
It's reactionary.
Reactionary is a phrase that typically means, it's a reference to the French Revolution, those who opposed the revolution were reactionary, reacting to those who wanted a change.
Well, I would dare say it is the history of this nation to be identitarian.
The United States, for the longest time, had many racial covenants, racial ideology, and policies.
We had slavery.
We had segregation.
We had Jim Crow.
We had race-based law.
It is only in the short term that we changed these things.
That with the Civil Rights Act and with Loving v. Virginia, with the banning of redlining and blockbusting, only in the 80s did we start to say, it's time to change the structure of this nation.
And we did.
It was a revolution.
Still to this day, many countries around the world have race-based policies.
Try becoming a citizen of Japan.
See what happens as someone who isn't Japanese.
It's true for many other countries as well.
The United States is unique in this regard, and so are many European nations.
The critical race theorists and these far leftists who are creating segregated dorms are trying to revert the United States back to what it used to be.
That's reactionary.
They oppose the radical change of equality and recognizing people as people and not based on their race.
But once again, they will say you must see color.
In this PSA, There is a little black girl and a little white girl.
And the little black girl says that her experience with anti-black racism is different from the experiences of other races.
And the little white girl says that it matters that she's white, too.
Now, many on the left will tell you what the white girl is saying is that she's talking about white privilege.
That's fine, okay?
I understand the concept.
But let me just once again state what I feel has always been obvious.
What is the majority race in this country?
White.
Who is most likely going to vote on racial lines if they start having a racial awakening, seeing color?
White people, because there's more of them.
It's just general arithmetic.
And do you think they'll vote in favor of their own race or against their own race?
I'm sorry.
While there may be many liberals with an out-group preference, the out-group preference is only around, I believe, 10 or so percent.
If you were actually able to make white people see color, they're going to start voting for their own interests, which is why the alt-right supports much of the same ideology as Black Lives Matter.
Not identically, of course.
And critical race theorists.
It's why both the left, this woman, is an identitarian, as well as the alt-right.
They're quite literally identitarians.
Back at the New York Times.
They say, quote, Stop demanding that I admit to white privilege and work on my so-called implicit bias as a condition of my continued employment.
Ms.
Shaw, who is also a 1993 graduate of Smith, who worked in the residential life department, said in one of her videos, After months of clashing with the administration, Ms.
Shaw resigned last week and appears likely to sue the school, calling it a racially hostile workplace.
Her claims drew headlines from Fox News to Rolling Stone this week.
Alumni, faculty, and students continue to debate the issue.
All of this arose from the events of July 31st, 2018.
This individual, Jody, I believe it's Jody Smith, Jody Shaw, sorry, Smith College, Jody Shaw, has launched a GoFundMe to help Jody Shaw with legal and living expenses.
And you can see one individual gave $5,000 to this woman.
Interestingly, at some point GoFundMe froze the donations to investigate the claims and statements made by Jody Shaw.
As we've seen over and over again, GoFundMe has no problem banning anyone who goes against their leftist orthodoxy.
However, in Jody Shaw's case, GoFundMe has released the hold on my account.
Over at GoFundMe, Shaw says, Since going public with my own story of being trapped in a hostile work environment, I have heard from people, both my own former colleagues and others, who are in similar situations, but cannot afford to take action.
With any money I raise in excess of $150,000, I would like to help others exercise their right to be free from a hostile work environment.
The purpose of this cause is to raise money for the legal and living, mortgage, rent, food, transportation, childcare, expenses of myself and others who were forced to leave their jobs due to a hostile work environment and or would like to take legal action but cannot do so due to a lack of financial resources.
The people who have come to me for support cannot afford to have their identities exposed while still employed.
It is precisely this climate of fear that I am seeking to combat with my lawsuit.
But revealing the identities of other individuals trapped in hostile work environments would compromise their safety and security.
Well, listen.
Some people would say it's easy for me to speak up because I run my own business.
And that is not true.
I mean, it's certainly true that it's easier for me to speak up, fine.
But I spoke up when I worked for ABC News' joint venture with Univision.
They were a completely woke environment.
I was explicitly told that I could not participate in a high-profile event because I was too white, even though I actually have a mixed-race background.
They don't respect Asians, and they don't respect, you know, white backgrounds.
And I was told by this company, again, I could not participate, sorry, and I was actually told by one of the executives, it's super racist, I know.
Now what could I do?
File a lawsuit?
That's not necessarily who I am.
Maybe I should have.
No, I just spoke up, spoke out, left, and I've told people about this.
I tried breaking my contract, which they wouldn't let me do, and I said, well, you know what?
It's called golden handcuffs.
They give you a ton of money, and they make it so you can't really do much.
They allowed me to basically work on my own YouTube channel, and so I said, they're still paying me.
They're discriminating against me based on my race and my appearance.
I mean, it had nothing to do with the fact of being white, because by legal accounts, I qualify as other on these documents, because I am not solely one race.
But it was appearance.
That's exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King said, I don't want to happen.
But here it is, in full swing.
I'm worried about the future because, you know, seeing Cartoon Network come out and say to children, see color, I simply ask people, do you agree with the dream of Dr. King?
That one day his children will be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
We now live in a world where the left is advocating for judging people based on the color of their skin.
Now, I've argued with many people on the left about this, and they've said, it's not at odds.
You can recognize someone's race and their experiences, but not judge them because of it.
And I say, no, you literally can't.
When you claim that there's white privilege and that it's inherent and supersedes all other issues, you would look Let's say you took a white man and a black man and you dressed them in fine clothing.
You would judge them on what you think their status is by their appearance, the color of their skin.
We can't do that.
I gotta be honest.
You can learn more about someone based on their shoes than their skin color.
And that's a fact.
They used to teach us this in fundraising, you know, in sales.
Look at someone's shoes, they'll tell you a lot more than anything having to do with any other characteristic.
People with nice shoes?
You can probably assume they can afford to get nice shoes.
Class issues are paramount.
Well, here we go.
All day I've been talking to people about these issues, Cartoon Network for instance, these PSAs, and let's be real.
Institutions are wholly embracing neo-racist ideology.
When they say it's anti-racist, there's a reason why they're calling it anti-racism and not saying, don't be racist.
Because to tell someone not to be racist, we typically associate that with not discriminating against somebody based on their race.
But as I showed you, some of the most prominent authors, one of the most prominent authors, Ibram X. Kendi, who actually has some of the best-selling books, has straight-up said that the only remedy is discrimination.
I'd like you to ask your friends and family, who don't know about this stuff.
Very, very simply, say, I don't want to, you know, start anything, we're not here to have a crazy argument, just I'm curious, do you support discriminating against people based on race?
And when they invariably say no, as most will, just show them this book from Ibram X. Kendi and this quote, where he says, you must.
He says, quote, racial, Ibram, I don't even want to read this!
Ibram X. Kendi says, racial discrimination is not inherently racist.
It is.
Racism being traditionally defined as positive or negative discrimination based on race.
I remember for a long time, they used to say there was positive racism.
And what they meant was, when you claim that Asians are good at math, that was a... it was racism.
Because it's not true, it's a stereotype.
But it was a positive one.
You were saying good things about them, but it was still wrong to do.
Because you shouldn't judge people based on their race.
I agree.
I know many Asians who are not good at math.
I knew a kid growing up who was Asian and he was not particularly a smart guy.
And I knew some Asians who were geniuses.
Because guess what?
The Asian had nothing to do with it.
It has to do with your access to education, your access to medical treatment, your access to information.
Whether or not you have two parents is another big factor in this.
Yet they keep trying to change the conversation and make the end all be all race.
So I'll tell you what I think.
You have this woman who writes this book, Robin DiAngelo, telling people that she is a racist, and she knows it, and that you should listen to what she has to say.
Many organizations hire this woman, and I don't know why.
Why would you take a white woman who claims to be racist and wealthy and tell her to preach to people her ideology?
It makes no sense.
I've already laid out who's going to benefit the most from these policies.
In my opinion, it's going to be white people.
Because once they start voting based on race, they're going to start voting for their own race.
I don't know what these leftists think is going to happen.
It's not what's going to happen.
It's not going to happen the way they think it is.
It is white progressives who are pushing these policies.
Maybe they're misguided, or maybe they're being manipulated by overt white supremacists who are using this as a Trojan horse to enact policies that fly in the face of the civil rights era movement and laws.
And it's going to keep happening.
They're going to change language, they're going to make these arguments, and they're going to stop anyone from talking about it.
So let me just make one point clear as we sign off on this story.
When you have a white woman tell you she's a racist, please don't listen to her.
Why would you take your advice from racists?
That's what they're doing.
They're telling you they are racist, and they want you to be like them.
When they call it anti-racism, they don't mean non-racist.
They mean the same thing, just with a different word.
So unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to believe it.
They would claim that I have some kind of agenda.
So let me make one thing additionally clear.
In an argument I had earlier, someone tried claiming that I actually supported these ideas because simply talking about my heritage was supportive of some kind of race-based policy.
No, no, no.
I want to make sure you understand this.
Why do people say, haha, Tim Pool's mixed race?
Maybe it's because if any identitarian faction gains the ability to pass laws based on race, I will lose everything.
I refuse to be a second-class citizen.
I refuse to have them say, based on any race, you're going to face some detrimental policy.
Because that just means my family goes back to being second-class citizens.
I won't accept that.
I will resist it, whether it comes from the left or the right.
Unfortunately, it looks like the left is winning this fight.
That's a reality.
Smith College is still having these conversations.
People's lives are still adversely affected.
I can say it's a good thing that Jody Shaw has raised nearly $240,000.
Those are resources going towards someone who's fighting against this with respect.
And hopefully, in the end, The true social justice activists, the true ones, who want real equality among people, hopefully they win.
But it'll only happen if you speak up and you share videos like this to help educate people to what's really going on.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
It's a live show.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, back in the news again, because she put up a sign that says there are two genders, male and female, quote, trust the science.
The leftists are freaking out.
They're outraged!
The mainstream media, of course, supports their narrative, and not the conservative narrative, because that's just the way it always goes.
And I gotta be honest, it's really hard to care about the stupidity of all of this stuff that's going on.
Look, the left is pushing a ridiculous narrative on this.
Oh, here comes the angry leftist grifters claiming that I'm wrong.
Sure, whatever.
I saw a funny tweet.
It said sexism is when someone says women must do the dishes.
Equality is when men and women together say, you know what?
Anyone can do the dishes.
And gender ideology says whoever is doing the dishes is a woman.
You take a look at these stories and how they're trying to define gender and you can see that it's...
Well, it's quite arbitrary.
So, in that regard, I would say Marjorie Taylor Greene's sign is wrong.
Gender is not, according to the left, a reference to biological sex.
It's a reference to social constructs, for which there are an infinite number.
No joke.
New York has long supported the idea that there are infinite numbers of abstract genders.
How can you have legislation protecting gender if there is no definable gender?
This is what everything comes down to.
So, from this we have XX and XY trending.
Conservatives say there are two genders.
Genders are social constructs, but they're built upon the biological sexes.
And the left just basically says anyone can make up whatever gender they want, and now there's a feud over it.
This all has to do with the Equality Act, and it all started when Congresswoman Marie Newman put up a transgender rights flag in front of her office, which is a cross for Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Marjorie Taylor Greene then comes out with a sign that says, there are two genders, and we live in one of the stupidest times in American history.
Sure, I guess.
I wonder if people are going to, like, romanticize this era the same way they do, like, the 20s and, you know, and the 1890s or whatever.
You know what I mean?
I don't... I mean, like, they make movies where it shows people going through this.
Are they really gonna make movies about stuff like this?
Jeez.
You know what, man?
I gotta be honest.
It's really hard to care about all of this stuff.
But the sad reality is, every single day, we see more insane ideology-based nonsense.
So let me break all this down for you.
I gotta explain to you what the Equality Act is before we go into what's going on with this sign so you can understand what's happening.
Marjorie Taylor Greene voted against this.
The Equality Act, with protections for LGBTQ Americans, is up for a vote in the House.
What is it?
The USA Today says, The House on Thursday is set to pass sweeping legislation
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, though it faces an
uncertain future in the Senate.
The Equality Act would amend existing federal civil rights law to extend protections for LGBTQ Americans in what
Democratic lawmakers and advocates say would make significant progress towards legal protections for all
Americans.
It is one of President Joe Biden's top legislative priorities.
Okay, let me tell you something.
I like the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I like the idea that we tell people, yo, you can't discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.
Immutable characteristics.
Gender identity is the opposite of that.
Sex and orientation, long considered to be immutable, that's kind of changing, I suppose.
Particularly around two different schools of thought on transgenderism.
And this is where things start to break down because when you have laws like this and no unified language, what do the laws really mean?
The bigger problem that I think we're seeing in all of this is not anything to do with Well, let me slow down there.
One of the biggest problems we have is there is not one English language anymore.
I mean, there's always been British English, the loo and the lift.
And, you know, Australia, where they like to say the C word to their friends.
But we're now seeing gender mean, I don't know, a handful of different things.
We see that transgenderism actually means a handful of different things.
How do you legislate this if no one agrees on what the definition is?
Now there may be many leftists arguing and saying Tim Pool is a bigot.
He's saying it's true.
I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to be a bigot or disrespect anybody.
I'll point out some basic facts first.
There is a millennial and older view of transgenderism.
In this world, I'm specifically referencing a very famous trans woman who explained this.
How do you transition from, say, male to female if there's not just two genders?
And in that case, why would you need to have, say, surgery or medication?
Again, not my opinion.
I'm trying to avoid referencing this person's name because they already got harassed for saying this.
But there are many trans women and transgender individuals who have pointed out they view that there's only two genders, and they are based on biological sex, and they want to transition via hormone or surgery to the other gender.
But now you have the Gen Z transgenderism.
This is where you start to get the non-binary plethora of genders, including one, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or I'm not making anything up, hydrogender.
Hydrogender is described by Gen Zers as a gender referencing water.
You feel fluid or like water.
Then there's like, there's a whole bunch of other genders, you know, like pangender and like demigender and stuff like these things.
And what it really seems like is that the younger generation, kind of just rebelling I suppose, is literally just describing personality traits and how they feel and calling them genders.
Now, there's a logical basis to this.
I'm not saying it is completely sound in the long run.
But the general idea is that when you tell someone, gender is a reference to the social constructs around biological sex, they then say, yeah, but some women wear long, foofy dresses and some women wear pants.
Therefore, you know, anybody could make up any kind of social construct that has no bearing on biological sex.
In which case you end up with young people basically saying, okay, let's just start making up genders.
That flies in the face of the older transgender ideology crowd.
This has resulted in a high-profile trans woman being harassed and then eventually leaving social media and then they came back and things like that.
But you can see, even on the left, there's no unified understanding of this.
So here's what happens with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The story from NBC News. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene hangs sign mocking congressional
neighbors transgender pride flag in Twitter spat. Greene hung a sign facing Rep. Marie
Newman's office that says there are two genders, male and female, trust the science.
The issue I take with this is that Marie Newman actually mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene first,
putting out a video saying Marjorie Taylor Greene opposes what we believe in,
so we're going to put this flag right in front of her office.
By all means, put up a flag, I don't care.
But they did it not as a, I want this flag here as a sign of our support, they did it directly as a target, you know, they were targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Marjorie Taylor Greene responded.
The news comes out going after Marjorie Taylor Greene because, look, this is just the way things go, right?
But let me break down for you now the issue.
And that's the gist of the viral story.
Seriously.
Alright, so you get the picture.
Let me explain some stuff to you.
I, first and foremost, have no strong opinions on... Well, I have some strong opinions for sure.
But if they pass this law, so be it.
If they pass the Equality Act, okay, I'm not complaining.
Not for or against for the most part.
I know that the left is probably going to scream saying I should be for it, but there's issues that need to be worked out.
And the most important thing to mention in this is that the bill contradicts itself and would result in chaos.
Well, when I say chaos, I don't mean like dogs and cats living together and planes falling out of the sky.
I just mean there will be a period of disputed legislation over what these words actually mean and how you adjudicate them, and you will probably get different rulings in different federal districts because different ideology exists in different locations in the country.
Let me explain.
The bill says that you can't discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity.
Okay, now let's jump over to this story.
High school track athlete disappointed after Biden-DOJ drops support of challenge to transgender policy.
You may remember this story.
This is from just this morning.
Let me read a little bit for you and then we'll loop this all together.
Connecticut high school track athlete Alana Smith told Fox News Wednesday she was disappointed after the Biden Justice Department withdrew its support for her lawsuit seeking to prevent transgender athletes from competing in girls sports.
The Justice Department had backed Smith's case last year during the Trump administration.
Smith, who is fighting the rule after placing below a transgender runner in a meet, told Fox News Primetime that she and other female athletes, quote, have worked really hard to get our stories out there, to get people to realize that fairness needs to be restored in our sport and in all other women's sports.
Smith hopes people will realize that a lot of biological females have missed out on making it to meets that really matter, and that transgender athletes have taken spots on the podium that belong to biological females, quote.
We train for so many days a week, so many hours to be able to be the best in our state and the best in our region, and these biological males are just taking it away from us and we really deserve it.
Smith's attorney Christiana Holcomb of the Alliance Defending Freedom vowed the case will go ahead and called the DOJ's decision politically motivated.
What is even more concerning is this effort took gut legal protection for women, To gut legal protection for women is not just isolated to what we see in Connecticut.
Even now, the Biden administration is pushing for the so-called Equality Act, which ignores the physical differences between men and women and threatens women's privacy, women's homeless shelters, and yes, even women's sports on a national level for female athletes like Alana.
Title IX was designed to ensure that girls like Alana have a fair and level playing field, Holcomb concluded.
We want to move forward and we want to see women's sports protected across the country.
As I often mention in segments about these issues, let me make it very simple for you.
In major league sports, football, basketball, baseball, there is no rule barring females, women, from competing on these teams and being involved.
The issue is, when it comes to the owners, They don't recruit females, typically because on the higher end of the bell curve of the best of the best athletes who can play the sport, it's men.
I mean, basketball's fairly obvious.
All of the guys who play basketball, for the most part, super tall.
Save Muggsy Bowes, who was pretty awesome.
They're mostly tall people.
And there are a lot of people who are younger.
Maybe they're 12 years old and they're playing basketball and they're really, really good.
And then once they reach a certain age, they realize, uh-oh, they stopped growing.
They're only 5'9", 5'10".
Hey, that's not a bad height to be.
It's fairly average.
But guess what?
You want to play basketball in the NBA, you gotta be tall.
Now, there are some people, like I mentioned, Muggsy, who is really, really, really good, and I think he was like 5'3".
Dude, is a legend.
Amazing stuff.
Showing that some people can really break that barrier.
But there are some people who just can't compete in Major League Sports, and it has nothing to do with being a man or a woman.
In the NBA, just not tall enough, right?
In female sports, you actually can't be a dude.
And the reason for this is prenatal testosterone.
There's more fast twitch muscles allowing for more burst strength, jumping higher, running faster, burning out energy faster, broader shoulders, larger hands, better grip, stronger joints, double the collagen in skin.
There's a lot of differences between biological males and biological females.
Now, one of the big things we've seen when it comes to the debate over transgender individuals in sports has to do with hormone therapy.
And so, you've seen many studies and many arguments, and there are conflicting sets of research.
But the left will say, so long as a transgender woman is taking hormone therapy for a certain amount of time, they should be able to compete because they lose his advantages.
I can just say there are many studies that say that is absolutely not true because prenatal testosterone plays a large role in this.
Anecdotally, I'll just tell you this.
I skateboard.
I've been skateboarding for, man, what are we going on now?
21 or 22 years?
I have, when I was a teenager, I was friends with some of the top female pros in the industry.
A good friend of mine that I grew up with was, for a while, like one of the best of the best female skateboarders.
Now interestingly, she was able to actually compete on a level with all the guys in Chicago, because skateboarding is an art form.
And if you're willing to throw yourself off a building or jump down a massive set of stairs, then you've got a psychological advantage that many other, you know, individuals wouldn't have.
That was really interesting to me.
And it made me a big proponent of equality in women's skateboarding.
But I can tell you this right now.
There is a dramatic, dramatic gap between the overall skill level, jumping height between biological female skateboarders and biological male skateboarders.
And there even are some prominent transgender skateboarders, who are trans women, Who just are an entirely different skill level.
I gotta say, I'm really impressed by their skateboarding.
But I've seen several videos from some transgender, trans woman skateboarders.
These are people born biologically male who have transitioned.
And the skill level of the things they're doing are, I gotta be honest, even rivaling that of some of the best men.
No joke!
Skateboarding is an interesting thing, and I highlight skateboarding because it's not the same as football, where it's like, throw the ball far, crash into somebody.
There's an art form to it.
It's, you know, some people call it like a martial art.
You can have bravery, psychological ability, you know, psychological strength, where you're willing to jump down dangerous things, take bigger risks, and have technical ability, where you can do, you know, a variety of tricks in combination.
Some of the stuff I've seen from biological male trans women skaters is just... I gotta be honest.
I think if these individuals competed in women's skateboarding, they would win gold outright.
I'm not saying that means every single trans person always would always win or anything like that.
I'm just saying the differences are real.
So let's bring it back to this Equality Act and why the bill itself is contradictory.
Now, first and foremost, I understand if somebody is transgender and walks into a bakery, this bill would protect them.
That makes sense.
If they are in a same-sex relationship and they walked into a bakery and said, you know, I would like to be serviced, this would protect them.
And if they are a man or a woman, you couldn't have a feminist or a masculist bakery say, I won't serve men or women or whatever.
It does, however, create some very, very interesting problems adding sex to anti-discrimination law.
And again, I'm not saying for or against it.
Just consider this.
What we're hearing from the lawyers in the high school track meet thing, You have women's shelters.
These are typically designed for biological females, who tend to be smaller in stature, have less muscle mass.
And, look, let's be real.
First, I understand men can be abused.
Biological males can be abused by their spouses, and it happens.
But typically it goes in one direction.
Spousal abuse is more devastating for women, for females, particularly because guys, bigger fists, more muscle mass, tend to be taller and larger.
So when they engage in domestic abuse, it's pretty devastating.
I actually think there's... I may have seen that there's comparable amounts of domestic abuse in the other direction, but typically our society kind of ignores this because a dude being smacked in the face or, you know, slapped by a woman doesn't result in the same amount of damage as the other way around.
I do think that's problematic.
The law is the law and we should not have discrimination one way or the other.
Here's the point.
We separate shelters to protect females and women who are concerned about being in a space with a male, maybe due to some trauma.
If a woman was, you know, sexually abused by men, they'd probably not want to be around anyone who's biologically male.
This bill would take away that protection.
Now, I know, the left doesn't care.
They're absolutely in favor of that.
But there are many people who are in favor of women's rights.
Now, I think we should clarify for the sake of this discussion, because the left and the right don't agree, what they mean is biological female rights.
That biological females are very different to biological males and thus require a different set of protections than biological males would.
Adding this language of sex to the 1964 Civil Rights Act would mean that you couldn't really have women's locker rooms or showers.
I know a lot of people say that's hyperbole, but it's legitimately true.
You cannot tell someone you can't do this on the basis of sex.
Now, there is an interesting argument in that Courts have ruled, so long as there is an equal and opposite version for the other, you know, biological sex, then it's not discriminatory.
So in this regard, they say, if there's a men's locker room and a women's locker room, you can bar a woman from the men's or a man from the women's, because they have their own segregated spaces.
But then we come down to orientation.
Now you can't.
Because, I'm sorry, not orientation, identity.
Because identity is inherently internal.
You could just say, identify as I see fit, and they cannot discriminate.
This will remove the protections under these court rulings.
So ultimately that means, we have set up barriers for female sports so that, you know, people, biological males don't compete against women, biological females.
The left wants to eliminate those barriers, and you will start seeing exploitation.
I'm not saying that every trans person would exploit it, I'm just saying, you know, bad people exist and sometimes people exploit things.
But you will see very serious ramifications to this.
In the end, it will be biological females who lose out substantially.
But the bill itself is contradictory, like I said.
Because gender identity and sex, you have those two things together and then all of a sudden they can't protect one or the other.
How do you say we're not, you know, it's not fair to discriminate on the basis of sex, but then tell a biological female she's not entitled to a space separate from biological males?
The argument is then, well, you could go into the biological male space if you wanted to.
It takes away special protections for biological females, which society long determined was an appropriate thing.
The left refers to this as gender segregation, and they ultimately want to get rid of it.
Look, I can talk on this stuff to try and explain it for a million years, but I don't think that really matters.
Let's just get down to the brass tacks.
The mean potatoes here!
Nobody actually cares about what the science is, I gotta be honest.
I mean, maybe I shouldn't say nobody, a lot of people do.
You got Marjorie Taylor Greene saying trust the science.
A lot of people are now saying over at the, so XX and XY is trending.
And all of these leftists are saying it's trending because people don't understand that there's more genders.
The propensity for intersex, those who are not either XX or XY, is estimated to be, let me just make sure I get the exact numbers, 0.18% or as high as 1.7%.
That's according to aggregation on Wikipedia, whether you trust Wikipedia or not is an entirely different conversation.
The issue ultimately becomes, To what degree do we strip away the rights of 51% of the population to protect 1.7% using the higher estimate of intersex individuals?
And it's a serious challenge.
I mean, I don't want to discriminate against people who are in the minority.
Absolutely not.
And biological females are the majority.
So do we offer up a majority protection?
This is the ultimate argument.
And I'll tell you this.
The end result will be There's going to be a lot of biological females who will be removed from many athletic programs because they won't be competitive anymore.
That's a fact.
It's why this woman is filing this lawsuit in Connecticut.
I'm pretty sure it's because she would have placed like eighth or something, which would have got her a spot at a scouting event, where she could have got a scholarship.
But two transgender women, who are not transitioning or taking hormones or anything like that, won first and second place and shattered the women's track record.
Several women, two women, were then dropped from the top rankings because the trans women won.
The left will say that's good, good for them, and the right will say it's not fair to these young women who competed and trained every day and just didn't have the capability to compete against a biological male who is not currently transitioning.
They may be at this point, I'm not entirely sure.
So therein lies the bigger issue.
Do we just get rid of the rights of women to have safe spaces?
Should women be afforded safe spaces?
That's a simple question, yes or no.
Don't look at me!
You know, Twitter will ban you.
YouTube will ban you if you say the wrong thing on this one, but these are conversations that have to happen.
So, of course, the left has called me transphobic, and I haven't even expressed an opinion one way or the other.
I've just pointed out the actual arguments and what we can expect to happen.
Anybody who opposes what they're saying and doesn't just blindly follow along is gonna get, you know, accused of being all the dumbest things in the world.
I'm so over it, man.
I'm just... It is so hard to make me care about this.
You know, when I lived in the cities, I really did care.
Because it affected me and the people around me.
And then after the riots and the insanity, I said, I'm just going to get out of these cities.
I don't want to live here anymore.
Now I'm looking at the people who still live in the cities and I'm like, yo, if you still live here and you want to live under these rules and do these things, go for it.
If you want to vote for this stuff, go for it.
I'm not standing in your way.
I don't care.
If you want to have all these rules, do it to it.
I'm gonna go do my own thing, maybe get a farm or whatever, and just have my own little private space, and I'll let y'all do your thing, just... I'll stay out of your hair, how about that?
The problem, I suppose, is...
Where does this all lead to?
I don't know.
I do think, for the most part, stuff like this isn't actually that important.
I think we'll adjudicate these things as we get to them and, you know, we'll cross those bridges as we get to them.
But I think there's going to be a lot of angry and hurt individuals.
There's going to be a lot of conflict.
And I think, like what I said about the Equality Act, is that ultimately it will lead to a particularly chaotic legislative season.
Not that I'm saying it's unique in that regard, but that you're gonna see a lot of really interesting cases where maybe in, like, the 9th District, they'll say something like, oh, you know what, this does discriminate on the basis of sex because of these reasons, and then in a different district that's more red, they'll say something totally different.
Then I'll have to go to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court will narrowly rule on the matter, and, you know, not really address the broader argument of it, which will result in more lawsuits.
To clarify, narrow doesn't mean, like, 5 to 4.
It means they only focus on, like, one core aspect.
And then eventually you'll get a bunch of more lawsuits.
The issue here is that when we passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, there still were, you know, lawsuits and things like that.
But you can clearly define, you know, someone's race.
Now with the expansion of a lot of these racialized, you know, leftist, you know, critical race theory laws and ideas, you can't.
There's some story about a guy who took a DNA test, found out he was 4% black.
It looks super white, but hey, 4%.
And now he's demanding special access to grants and funding, and people are saying no to this.
There's a funny story about a scholarship that was doing interviews with African-American students, and a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white kid shows up, and they're all like, hey, yo, he's African-American only.
And he said, I'm from South Africa.
Literally born in Africa.
And they're like, get out of here!
And so the question about these words, these terminologies, these laws, it's gonna get particularly interesting, but ultimately, my view is that it will ultimately break down.
The end result, or I should say that the final factor in all of this is language.
What does gender mean?
Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks gender means something different to what Marie Newman thinks.
In which case, the law will not function properly.
In New York City, gender identity is defined as self-expression.
So you can't discriminate against me on the basis of self-expression?
Okay.
I mean, fine if you want to pass that law, but what does that mean?
Can I show up to work dressed up like a giant eagle and be like, this is my identity?
I know it might sound absurd, but some of these questions have to be answered.
The argument that I've brought up, and I've talked to lawyers about this, is, let me explain.
Let's say, you show up to work, and you've now discovered your true identity, and it's eagle gender.
And eagle gender requires you to wear a fake beak, you know, it's like what you identify as, and a bird costume.
I am not saying this to disparage anyone, I'm bringing up a point about the law.
Which says self-expression.
I talked to a lawyer in New York who said, if you tried dressing up like an eagle and showing up to your job at Starbucks, and they told you to take the clothes off but you refused on the basis of gender identity, they would probably still kick you out, and then you would go to court and the judge would laugh at you.
And I said, by what reasonable argument does the judge have the right to laugh at someone over their self-expression as per New York City law?
And he said, come on, everybody knows it's absurd.
And my response was, in the 1980s, if you were having the same argument, a man, a biological male, dresses up in women's clothing and then says they have a right to present this way, the judge could have laughed them out of the courtroom.
Under the rulings today, they could not do that, right?
If you give the judge the ability to laugh at someone's self-expression, then why couldn't they laugh at a trans woman's self-expression?
There's no clearly defined point that you can't really quantify that point as to what defines a gender identity when the law defines it very broadly as self-expression.
And they say you can't discriminate on the name you choose and the clothes you wear.
I know dressing up like an eagle is a more extreme point, but that is the point.
Testing the boundaries of the law.
The point I'm bringing up, and again, I'm not saying for or against, is just to put it simply.
At what point do you mock someone's identity?
Let's say you have a biological male who dresses up like an eagle.
And the court says, come on, eagle gender?
No, we're not doing that.
Case dismissed.
No violation of civil rights.
Let's say someone just wears feathers adorned over their uniform.
And they say, you can't wear feathers, sorry, doesn't count.
But let's say you get someone who is transgender, but dresses in a very, very extreme and exaggerated way, with, like, massive fake padded hips, and, like, giant platform shoes, with, like, seven-inch lifts.
Would a judge throw that out?
I'm not trying to disparage anybody.
I'm saying, like, to what degree would a judge have the right to laugh at someone?
I honestly don't think they should be able to laugh at people, especially if the law is this.
So anyway...
You know, I say it's hard to care about these arguments, but the reality is there's a lot to talk about in this stuff.
And it's hard to have these conversations because you get banned for them, so I won't make this one.
This is a long segment.
I'll leave this here, and we'll talk about more of this stuff coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
GameStop stocks are skyrocketing again, and tons of people are celebrating the 10-Ds, as they call it.
That basically means the profits.
The other day on the IRL podcast, check it out at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL if you haven't already, I got a ton of super chats!
And I'm like, look at all of this sweet, sweet money coming in to these people who are commenting, and the reason it was coming in is because GameStop was spiking and people were making tons of money.
Right now, like, the big trending story this morning was, like, Marjorie Taylor Greene putting a sign on her wall or outside of her office.
And I'm looking at this GameStop story, right?
And I'm thinking, like, why are these stocks skyrocketing?
Because it baffles the mind, you know what I mean?
Like, GameStop, I would understand people were saying, like, $16 per share made sense.
It's skyrocketing.
Let me not bore all the people who don't know what's going on.
They're like, what do you mean GameStop, Tim?
What's this about?
Well, you click the video, you're gonna find out.
I think the economy is collapsing.
I think the economy is collapsing.
I think it has all fallen apart.
And, uh, the only thing you can do is smile and laugh as the rollercoaster comes crashing down.
The only problem is this rollercoaster going down is not gonna loop back and go to the start of the ride once again.
It's going to crash down, the rails are gonna break, and we're all gonna go flying off screaming.
Okay, look.
The GameStop thing started because these hedge funds wanted to short the stock.
It basically means they were betting the stock would fail.
But if the stock started doing really, really well, they were going to lose a ton of money.
By several estimates, some of these big hedge funds lost billions of dollars.
Well, all of these people on Reddit, the little guy, who were putting their money in GameStop, said, hold the line, don't sell.
A lot of people sold.
They exited.
Famously, David Portnoy of Barstool Sports said he lost $700,000 on meme stocks.
Shouldn't have sold, I guess.
Well, I don't know at what number he sold, but he bought in at like $300-$400 a share.
Anyway, I digress.
Long story short...
The core of this is this idea that GameStop was worth more money, and these hedge funds exploit the system to destroy businesses and jobs to extract value from them.
A bunch of regular people fought back.
Now, mostly they just say, I like the stock, because there's already been an investigation.
This guy Roaring Kitty testified to Congress.
I believe Congress.
Yes, Congress.
I don't know if it was the House or the Senate.
I think it was the Senate.
And basically said, I like the stock.
Here's what happens.
This guy Roaring Kitty, he bought 50,000 shares of GameStop at like a really low number, and then it skyrocketed.
He bought, I think he bought around like what, $6 or $7 or some really low number.
Now they're selling for $130.
The dude is extremely rich.
Guess what?
He just doubled down.
Here's the political angle to this.
A lot of people who are holding GameStop believe that these big hedge funds were still planning on shorting the stock and may have actually made their positions worse or more risky.
Here's the idea.
Initially, when GameStop was low, they were saying, okay, let's bet against GameStop because who's going to go to a retail shop during a pandemic, right?
All of these Redditors, notably this Roaring Kitty guy, bet on the stock improving.
This cost the hedge funds tons of money because they bet it would go down.
So they lose a lot.
But once GameStop reached like 400, a bunch of people said, dude, short the stock now, because it can only go down.
And then it did.
But a lot of people on the WallStreetBets subreddit were saying, it's not over.
Hold the line, because like other, you know, I forgot what it's called.
Short squeeze, that's what it's called.
It'll go up way, way more.
Some people actually think GameStop is going to surpass $500 and even hit $1,000 or even $10,000.
I don't know much about stocks, so don't take any advice from me.
We always say that, right?
But it does seem like this is nonsensical, right?
Let me tell you what I think is going on.
I think a lot of people are getting rich, and I think a lot of people lost a lot of money.
I think a lot of people are happy it's going back up.
Maybe they can exit now.
Someone's going to be left holding the bag when someone else makes money.
The money just doesn't appear out of nowhere.
You're trading.
There's risk involved.
It's a game of hot potato, I guess.
But WallStreetBets, this subreddit, discovered that the stock market is basically a big casino, and many have criticized them, saying they're engaging in just pump-and-dump schemes, which basically means someone comes out and says, this is the stock you gotta buy, because they have a bunch, and then once the stock goes up, because everyone's buying, they sell it, make a ton of money, leave other people holding the bag.
So that's why they're called schemes.
With all of these users, I believe there's what, like, I don't know, 10, almost 10 million subscribers to WallStreetBets on Reddit.
If they're all now realizing the economy is a big ol' hunk of junk, and they can just play this game of hot potato and try and get rich, they're turning our actual stock market, where people, you know, have their retirement and value and their assets stored, they're turning it into a casino.
Now, I think it's funny in a lot of ways.
A lot of people are probably laughing.
I think a lot of Gen Z and Millennials are probably laughing.
A lot of Gen Xers and Boomers are probably freaking out.
But to me, I'm sorry.
I'm just gonna say it.
I think the economy is collapsing.
I know, I know.
Let me just, let me say this.
Guys, when I look at this story about GameStop, I think there's something wrong with the economy.
Right?
Be it the hedge funds trying to short and destroy companies, or the fact that everybody can just rally the stock to insane numbers.
But, uh, I also think there's something wrong with the economy based on this image.
For those that are listening, I present to you the St.
Louis Fed Fred M1 Money Stock.
That's right, it's the stlouisfed.org, and then it says Fred M1 Money Stock, that's what it's called.
Let me describe to those who can't see this and you're just listening perhaps on a podcast.
The total money supply was 138.9 billions of dollars.
The M1 money stock is basically the money in circulation.
Well, as the years went on, the money stock gradually was growing.
And around 1990, it was 795.4 billions of dollars.
it was seven hundred and ninety five point four billions of dollars
so uh... we're we're we're not quite yet at uh... trillion in two thousand
In 2008, just after the crisis, we were at $1,407 billion, so, you know, $1.4 trillion.
So, you know, $1.4 trillion.
From 2008 until just before 2020, right into 2020 in December, it was nearly $4 trillion
in the money supply.
Well, in the past year, I think the money supply has quintupled.
Just about quintupled.
I mean, look.
Basically, for those that are just listening, it's not even a hockey stick.
You know how they say hockey stick, where it's like, the stock is going up, or the graph is going up, then it spikes?
No, no, no, this is a straight upward line, and then it tapers out a little bit at the top.
The current M1 money stock is $18,105,000,000,000.
Now, I know a lot of people are saying, Tim, Tim, Tim, but wait!
They changed how it's calculated in May of 2020.
So the real... No, no, no, hold on.
The spike started before May, okay?
Getting into March and April, it already started hockey-sticking.
And then in May, it does jump quite a bit.
But let me show you the Financial Times.
It's the exact same chart.
Okay, it's not the exact same chart.
This is a story from the Financial Times that says, Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion package is a risky experiment.
It might be no bad thing if the U.S.
fiscal stimulus ended up somewhat smaller than now proposed.
And they have this graph where they say, COVID-19 has caused explosive growth of U.S.
broad money supply.
And we can see it is a bit different because this one gets more into the nitty-gritty of the ups and downs.
But we can see, you can see the financial crisis in 2008 into 2010, and then you can see in 2020 the giant straight upward spike.
Okay?
So this is year-on-year growth of U.S.
Divisia M4.
Weights the components of M4 money supply by their role in transactions.
So M1, M2, M3, M4, they're different.
So some people are saying, Tim, it's just a calculatory difference between April and May.
Okay, and I'll just stress, the spike started before that.
It started February to March to April.
There was still a massive spike.
From April to, I think, uh, you know, December, it's up nearly a trillion dollars in the money supply.
And then, it spikes dramatically by like 15 trillion, so, uh, look, Let me be real with y'all.
I don't exactly know.
I'm not an expert on the economy.
And I hear many economists who say it's a good thing that they're mass printing trillions of dollars over and over again while nobody is working and the economy is shut down.
Okay.
Well, I'll tell you this.
Those same people ain't saying it's a good thing about what's going on with GameStop.
No, they're freaking out saying you're destroying everything!
Let me read for you what's happening with GameStop, and then I'll tell you what my plan is and what I'm going to be doing, and what I think might actually happen, and again, not a financial advisor, not an economist.
The Daily Mail says, shares of GameStop are surging again in a puzzling sequel to last month's frenzy, with the rally immediately following a cryptic tweet about soft-serve ice cream from a keyboard member.
At Thursday's opening bell, GameStop stock jumped another 80% to $164 one day after the shares soared more than 100%.
You could have doubled your money in a day!
That's crazy.
Raising fears that small investors swept up in the mania could again lose big.
Loose big?
Come on, copy editor guys.
The rally began late on Wednesday, soon after GameStop board member and activist investor Ryan Cohen tweeted a mysterious image of McDonald's soft serve ice cream accompanied by an emoji icon of a frog.
The renewed mania also followed GameStop evangelist Keith Gill, aka Roaring Kitty, revealing last week that he had doubled his stake in the struggling video game retailer after he testified in Congress, I like the stock.
I gotta tell you, man.
This guy, Roaring Kitty, made himself like tens of millions of dollars.
He doubled his position.
He didn't sell when it was at $400 or $500.
I think this dude was looking at, I think it was the Volkswagen short squeeze people referenced, where there was an initial spike, and then a drop-off, and then a massive spike.
I think he's looking in that direction, and he's gonna jump out when he becomes worth maybe $100 million.
I don't know.
Look, I don't know anything about it.
Don't take advice from me.
But I also want to clarify, a lot of people say that to avoid liability.
Like, everyone says, don't take advice from me, but you really should not take advice from people.
On Reddit and Twitter, small traders scrutinized Cohen's ice cream tweet in a frenzy of speculation, searching for clues it could contain about GameStop's future.
My friends, the M1 money stock is skyrocketing.
Money is being printed like crazy.
Joe Biden says, we're gonna do another $2 billion. No, I'm sorry, $2 trillion.
Then there's gonna be another $4 trillion stimulus of our infrastructure package.
It is just dumping.
It is raining money from the money printers.
And a lot of people, I think it was Vladimir Putin, who said that we are in an era very similar to Weimar Germany, where the hyperinflation hit and people were shoveling the Deutschmarks into the gutters because they were worthless.
Nobody wanted them.
There was too many.
I wonder what's gonna happen now with everything happening with all this money printing, but let me just point this out.
Someone just became a millionaire because a dude posted a picture of an ice cream cone on Twitter.
Okay, I don't know if someone actually became a millionaire.
I'm making a point.
Somebody holding stock maybe bought in and then the stock skyrocketed from like 40 bucks to 160.
So somebody with a couple hundred K they dumped in it now has got a million bucks.
I'm sure somebody made a ton of money.
The point is, people are getting rich because some guy posted a picture of ice cream cone?
Something is wrong with our economy.
It's going to be great, right?
The economy of the future is going to be people who are rich simply because they posted memes.
The people who hold power are those who control the memes?
I think something's wrong with the economy.
Anyway, they say.
Cohen, the billionaire founder of online pet supply retailer Chewy, last year disclosed that he'd taken a 13% stake in GameStop and joined the board touting plans to reinvent the company as an online platform.
Users of the Reddit board WallStreetBets, who have pushed to buy up GameStop shares, view Cohen as the company's savior, obsessively analyzed his tweet for signs of insider information following the ouster of CFO Jim Bell on Tuesday.
One enterprising researcher discovered the following quote on the website of Volition Capital, a major Chewy investor.
Chewy's first official board meeting included two slides, a lot of laughter, and a trip to McDonald's for soft serve.
When Twitter user Vestro shared the theory, his tweet was liked by Volition Capital's managing director, pouring fuel on the bonfire of speculation.
Holy F wrote one user, Ryan Cohen has the reins as CEO and they just had their first board meeting, same as he did at Chewy.
Other users speculated that the frog symbol represented the classic arcade game Frogger, or is a long-used symbol of transition and change from tadpole to frog.
Nobody knows what it means.
What they're basically saying is, when this dude was at Chewy and, you know, the company was doing great, they went out for ice cream cones.
Now they think the post of the ice cream cone is symbolizing he's taking over GameStop and he's gonna save the company and the stock is going to skyrocket.
My personal opinion is that, based on what I've read, the GameStop stock was undervalued when RoaringKitty bought into it.
I think he was correct.
I don't know if it's justified at $164 or $405, I don't know about that, but I think he was right.
It was undervalued.
GameStop has a ton of locations.
Whenever I go to GameStop, they are packed.
I'm not kidding, okay?
There's a handful of GameStops near me, and I was surprised to find when I would go in, Lines.
And it's, I don't know if it's because I started selling knickknacks or whatever it is, you know, little trinkets and pop dolls or whatever those things are called.
Or, you know, uh, whatever.
But I would always see people there browsing.
I like to go in and look at games and go home and download them, so I've not been particularly bullish on GameStop.
But outside of that, whether or not the company succeeds, I don't know, we'll see.
I think the fact is, we live in this really crazy world where right now, people are doing really crazy things for really crazy reasons.
When I look at GameStop, it may just be a blip.
It may just be another one of these crazy stories because we've seen short squeezes before.
But then I read this story about Joe Biden and his $1.9 trillion package.
A risky experiment.
This is what this guy over at the Financial Times, Martin Wolf, he writes.
How much fiscal stimulus is too much?
The debate on this question among economists who support the goals of Joe Biden's US administration have become fierce.
That is no bad thing.
Policy should be debated.
In this crisis, as during the 2008 financial crisis, one has to evaluate the risks of doing too little against those of doing too much.
But one thing is clear.
The fact that too little stimulus was delivered in 2009 does not mean that far more than that must be right today.
Policy must be judged by its suitability in current circumstances while recognizing the uncertainties and balance of risks.
He says, I have no objection to the principle of fiscal spending.
He mentions 2009.
He says, nevertheless, it is vital to recognize what makes a pandemic different from a financial crisis or war.
Unlike a financial crisis, COVID-19 will not necessarily create an overhang of bad private debt, likely to suppress demand indefinitely.
Instead, the balance sheets of people who have earned well and spent little have actually improved.
And unlike a war, the pandemic does not destroy physical capital.
There is a good chance, therefore, that economies will recover really strongly.
Once fear of the disease has waned, if so, the dominant part of the planned fiscal policy response should aim not so much at short-term relief as at, quote, building back better by promoting a sustained increase in public and private investment.
Okay, long story short, with economic crises, money seems to... it's like debt.
People aren't spending anymore, so how do you get the economy turning again?
With war, there's an actual destruction of physical assets and value.
With the economy, we put everything on pause.
So, a lot is still there.
We did rather decimate the economy.
I guess he's saying that if we reopen after dumping all of this money into the system, it's gonna be weird, I guess?
Uncertain?
Unstable?
So I'm not here to rag on the GameStop people.
Look, if you like the stock, you buy the stock, right?
I'm just here to say, Whether there's a correlation or not.
We're looking at a future where people will get rich off of the most insane things.
Like, they're just desperately trying to buy waffles.
So that stuff happens.
Maybe that's the way it'll always be and it's nothing to be concerned about.
But I think there's something you should realize.
Yes, the printing of money seems worrisome, and I'll tell you what I did in a second.
But I think people, you know, 10 million people or whatever on Wall Street, that's realizing they can buy waffles with lots of syrup and make money and be rich for no reason.
They're gonna start doing it.
And it's going to be a run on the stock market, and it's gonna be weird.
Meritocracy out the window.
Businesses will start seeing their value go up because a guy posted a meme.
Apparently, people were buying the stock of some company whose ticker symbol was A-A-G-H because it was UGH!
And so people were just like, BUY UGH!
Like, for no reason!
Why not?
It's funny money.
The economy is on fire.
Our jobs are gone.
People are bored.
So I'll tell you what I did.
I bought batteries.
I bought a lot of batteries.
Like these really great reserve batteries.
And I'm jokingly... Well, I bought Bitcoin recently.
And I bought Ethereum.
And I've been telling people, I'm gonna buy some chickens, I guess.
Look, these are the most absurd and unstable times, I'll tell you that.
We've not seen charts like this before, right?
So, at the Financial Times, it goes back to 1968.
You do not see this massive spike, alright?
We had war constantly throughout these periods.
We had an economic crisis.
I don't know.
When we had the last economic crisis, the money supply dropped to negatives.
And today, we literally went negative.
And today, it's an economic crisis, but it's spiking.
I don't know what you can expect.
I just think everyone's kind of lost their mind, and everyone's betting on the collapse.
I'll put it very simply.
I believe that almost everyone now feels that the economy is collapsing, or that the system is breaking, and they're trying to extract as much value as possible from the system before it falls apart.
To put it even simply, I think people think the dollar is not going to be able to do things for you.
If you have dollars... I'm not going to tell you what to do, but here's what I did.
But a lot of ammo, you know.
That's because recently I've bought some guns.
But I believe that there's going to be hyperinflation.
To a certain degree, I don't know exactly what.
A lot of people have warned about this.
Not an economist, but I take their word for it.
We've seen food shortages in Texas due to the storm, but we've also seen food shortages due to COVID.
And...
I just think in the long run we're going to see prices skyrocket.
I've already heard from people that their grocery bills are getting higher and higher and they're like, this is crazy.
I had someone recently tell me they used to spend like a couple hundred bucks a week going to the grocery store.
Now they come back and it's like doubled, like 400 bucks.
We had this thing happen here, where I was like, we've got this big production space, we need food, you know, for people when they're working, like, you know, it's like an office snack thing.
So I said, here's a couple hundred bucks, go buy stuff.
And when they came back, I was like, where's the stuff?
Where's the money?
And they were like, we spend it all.
And I was like, what?
It's not even a full cart of food!
No joke.
And so we had a conversation.
I was like, were they taking money?
Like, where'd that money go?
We go to the grocery store to restock, you know, snacks and supplies.
I couldn't believe it.
So I don't know.
Maybe that's just me.
Maybe I moved to the middle of nowhere.
Things are more expensive.
I don't know if that makes sense.
I thought things were more expensive in cities, but I've heard from other people.
They were tweeting stuff about how like, did anybody else notice that the food bills, like your grocery bills are like going way up?
And I'm like, dude, I don't know.
It makes sense when you look at like, they're just mass printing money and people aren't working.
You can't have people not working and then all of a sudden dumping a bunch of money into the system because that doesn't seem to make sense.
But hey, far be it from me to know how this stuff works.
