Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 16, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:20:09

S556 - Scandal Erupts As Several Outlets CAUGHT Pushing Lie About Trump, Democrat Impeached Using Fake News

Scandal Erupts As Several Outlets CAUGHT Pushing Lie About Trump, Democrat Impeached Using Fake News Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:19:52

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Today is March 16th, 2021, and our first story.
		A major media scandal is currently underway after it was revealed that the Washington Post published false quotes from Donald Trump with very little confirmation.
		Just one unnamed source.
		When the Wall Street Journal got a hold of the actual recording, it was revealed the story was fake.
		What makes this scandal so massive is that several other mainstream news outlets pushed the same lie, but claimed they had independently confirmed the recording, which, in fact, did not exist.
		It seems like the media is biased, to say the least, and we likely won't see any reconciliation or correction from any of these outlets, some refusing to outright admit they were wrong.
		Our next story, mainstream American culture seems to be on the decline.
		Ratings for the Grammys have dropped by 53%.
		These big cultural beacons that we used to pay attention to like the Emmys, the Oscars, the Super Bowl, they seem to be in decay.
		And with this comes separation of individuals, differences in views, opinions, and even language, which could ultimately lead to segregation and maybe even the breaking up of the U.S.
		Maybe that's a little extreme, a little bold, but we'll explore that story in our last story.
		Segregation is back in schools.
		The Biden administration has reversed a Trump policy that barred universities from implementing racial affinity groups.
		Many school districts in blue areas in Democrat cities are segregating students based on race to trigger racial awakenings.
		Most insidiously, a white racial awakening.
		It seems the Democrats are and have been the party of segregation.
		Before we get started though, leave us a good review if you like the show, give us five stars because it really does help, and if you really, really like the show, make sure to share it with your friends, because the only way to really grow a podcast, I guess, is if you tell other people you like the podcast.
		But enough said, let's get into that first story.
		In what is turning out to be one of the biggest media scandals we have seen in a very long time, The Washington Post has issued a lengthy correction to an article where they claimed Donald Trump told officials in Georgia to find the fraud and you will be a hero.
		As it turns out, the story is...
		Completely false.
		Now, you may have heard me talk about this yesterday in my main segment.
		It wasn't the lead of the segment.
		I was more concerned about the cultural ramifications of what's happened with the Democratic Party and many people, well, expressing their disdain or disavowing the Democratic Party.
		But the story is actually becoming much more serious.
		You see, while we know the media lies, and in this instance, the Washington Post put out a story claiming they had an independent source confirming this phone call and never actually listened to the phone call.
		What makes this story so much more insane is the numerous news outlets that all claimed to have confirmed the exact same lie.
		This is it, my friends.
		Look, many people have come to me and said, Tim, how do I convince my friends and family the media is lying to them, or at the very least, completely irresponsible?
		My friends, we have another opportunity here.
		So maybe you are one of these people.
		Maybe you genuinely trust the media and believe them.
		And I will tell you this, the media is not all bad.
		They just get things wrong often enough to cause very serious problems for our country.
		So maybe someone shared this video with you and said you need to watch this to understand what the media is doing.
		I'm going to break it down for all of you.
		For those that understand this already and haven't heard the story or are interested in what I have to say, share this video.
		Maybe you will find some people who will finally realize, because I'm going to go through a series of news outlets that pushed the lie but claimed that they had independently verified what we now know to be false.
		So I'll put it quite simply for you.
		How is it that so many outlets, news organizations said this conversation with Trump asking someone to find fraud really happened?
		How can they say that?
		How did they confirm this?
		How did every single how did how did all of these outlets confirm this?
		They didn't.
		They lied.
		Or, I should say, their standards are so incredibly low for what they deem to be factual news, they took a random quote from a random person and said, boom, confirmed.
		In the end, you were lied to.
		Or, you were misled.
		I'll put it that way.
		Lie implies intent.
		We now know that these, even if we think these news outlets have been duped, the individual who confirmed the call to all these news outlets absolutely lied.
		And that's what you need to understand about how the media operates.
		A single source claiming something happened was enough for all of these outlets to push the narrative.
		Why?
		Trump bump, perhaps?
		But then think about how easy it is for nefarious actors to manipulate the press.
		Oh, maybe you're on the left.
		Maybe you're a Democrat.
		Maybe you're saying, okay, well, this is that one time.
		Well, think about it.
		How many journalists, I'll do air quotes, do you think would be willing to take an anonymous quote from a Republican who's giving some dubious statement, and they'll just run it as fact as well?
		How many smear pieces do you think have emerged on people that you like?
		How many times have you read a story where you're like, hey, that can't be true?
		This is the time where we all need, look, you need to show people what's happened here.
	This is now two months on, possibly one of the biggest media scandals we've seen in years.
	The Washington Examiner reports, audio shows the media got the Trump Georgia story all wrong.
	Do a little bit better, Washington Examiner, because while I think you're right, audio shows the media fabricated or, it's not just they got the story wrong, they pushed an absolutely fake story.
	The Examiner reports, I'm sorry, it's an opinion piece.
	If one thing, it's one thing if a single news outlet publishes a fraudulent, anonymously sourced scoop.
	It's another thing entirely if multiple newsrooms claim they independently confirmed the fraudulent scoop with anonymous sources of their own.
	The former can be reasonably explained away as a simple error.
	The latter is not so simple.
	It's unrealistic.
	So many sources would be wrong about the same thing.
	It's more likely competing news outlets spoke with the same anonymous individual or individuals, which leads to an uncomfortable question about whether the media were merely fed bad information or were intentionally manipulated.
	In January, the Washington Post scored a humdinger of a scoop.
	Then President Donald Trump, still reeling from the results of the 2020 election, urged Georgia's lead elections investigator to quote, find the fraud in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a national hero.
	The Washington Post reported, citing a single anonymous source who supposedly confirmed the details of the private conversation.
	Now, the first thing I'll say is, There's supposed to be three sources to confirm a story.
	At least that was the standard a long time ago.
	Apparently, that's not where we're at anymore.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the official AP correction, published by the Washington Post.
	In a story, January 9th, 2021, about a phone call between then-President Donald Trump and a lead Georgia elections investigator, the Associated Press, based on information provided by a source, erroneously reported that Trump pressed the investigator to, quote, find the fraud, and said it would make the investigator a national hero.
	A recording of the call was made public two months later.
	A recording that was made public two months later revealed Trump did not say either, and instead said that if the investigator looked into Fulton County, the investigator would quote, find things that are going to be unbelievable.
	Trump also told the investigator, when the right answer comes out, you'll be praised.
	It's worse than just this correction.
	It's worse than a series of outlets actually just somehow confirming the same false details.
	Some outlets have absolutely refused to issue a hard correction and are using weasel words to push the same false narrative.
	And I'll show you that, but first, let's keep reading.
	They're going to say, in released audio of the phone call, released audio of the phone call shows that Trump never said those things, find the fraud.
	He never urged the investigations chief to find fraud in Georgia's presidential election results.
	He never promised the investigator would be a national hero.
	Rather, Trump said, if you can get to Fulton County, Georgia, you're going to find things that are going to be unbelievable, the dishonesty.
	He followed this by telling the investigators, investigations official, she'll be praised When, not if, she produces the evidence of wrongdoing.
	There's a significant difference between saying, you're going to find things that are going to be unbelievable, I'm sorry, and saying, find the fraud.
	One represents the president notifying an investigations official of voter fraud in a specified county.
	The other represents the president demanding an investigations official get him the results he wants.
	Regardless of the facts of the matter.
	Further, the Washington Post alleges Trump pressured the official.
	The report also alleges also that the president's part in the conversation meandered from flattery to frustration and back again.
	However, with the exception of flattery, a review of the auto doesn't appear to support these characterizations of the call.
	The Washington Post got it wrong, plain and simple.
	Now they issued this correction.
	If you can believe it, the Washington Post bungling its bombshell report isn't the most scandalous thing about the episode.
	No, the most scandalous thing is several newsrooms claimed they independently confirmed the most damning details.
	NBC News reported, quote, confirmed the Post's characterization of the call through a source familiar with the conversation.
	USA Today claimed a Georgia official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters confirmed the details of the call.
	ABC News reported, quote, President Donald Trump phoned a chief investigator in Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's office asking the official to find the fraud and telling this person they would be a national hero for it.
	I'd like to show you something.
	I pulled up some of these stories.
	to ABC News. PBS NewsHour and CNN likewise seemingly claimed they
	independently confirmed the story through their own anonymous sources. I'd
	like to show you something. I'd like to... I pulled up some of these stories. Before
	I show you them, I want to stress one other really important aspect of this
	narrative. The quote was literally used in the impeachment process.
	When the Democrats were trying to impeach Trump post-presidency, they used this quote to prove that Trump was doing things wrong.
	The media put out a fake story that was confirmed poorly with low standards that should have been blocked by any good and honorable, reasonable journalist.
	And that it was used to try and impeach the president.
	Now, let me show you some of these things from CNN.
	Actually, before I do CNN, let me show you this.
	We have this story from CNBC.
	They say Trump pressured Georgia top elections investigator to find the fraud in phone call.
	No update.
	The story from January 9th from Emma Neuberger for CNBC has not yet been corrected.
	So even though we now know the story is false and it's been a few days, this story still exists.
	And of course, it absolutely does say NBC News has confirmed the Post's characterization of the December 23rd call through a source familiar with the conversation.
	How did they confirm it?
	Didn't happen.
	So they pushed a lie.
	One person Who is pushing a false narrative, made, what, ten phone calls, and then all of a sudden, you have yourself a national news story.
	That's how it works, my friends.
	It's a game of telephone.
	You see, what happens is, someone writes a story that's clearly sensationalized.
	It gets them traffic.
	All the other outlets realize the risk if they lose out on this story, and so they begin pushing the same narrative, and they talk to the exact same people.
	They say that they confirm the details based on a source from the conversation.
	So who are these sources?
	At this point, I believe it is incumbent upon these news outlets to out these sources for manipulating them, for lying.
	They won't do it, of course, because the name of the game is the collusion between the media.
	Now, while some of these outlets like USA Today, they still say this, a Georgia official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, confirmed the details of the call to USA Today.
	This story also not been updated.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	This one actually has been updated.
	This is amazing.
	Look at this.
	USA Today writes, correction, a January 9th story incorrectly quoted President Donald Trump during a conversation with a Georgia official based on incorrect information provided to USA Today.
	A subsequent recording of the call published by the Wall Street Journal shows Trump asked the official to look for dishonesty.
	That's not even true!
	He said, Investigate and you will find dishonesty.
	I guess fine, maybe you can say technically the truth, but I love how they still included this line claiming it was confirmed.
	Here's my favorite.
	CNN.
	Trump pressured Georgia elections investigator to search for dishonesty in the 2020 ballots.
	Ah!
	Updated 1.41 p.m.
	Monday, March 15, 2021.
	So now they're saying he pressured Georgia elections investigators to search for dishonesty.
	That's interesting.
	According to The Examiner, they say you can't even hear much pressure of anything.
	It's him basically saying, investigate.
	What does it mean to pressure someone?
	This is not a news story, my friends.
	This is an opinion piece.
	This is what you need to realize about the media.
	Trump pressured is an opinion statement.
	If Donald Trump said, could you please investigate?
	I think you should.
	You could say he pressured them.
	You could say he demanded of them.
	You could say he requested of them.
	You could say that Trump asked about.
	They chose the word pressured.
	It creates a framing.
	It's a framing device that makes it feel as though Donald Trump's yelling at them, trying to force them to do it, when in reality, Trump could very well be saying, please help me, please.
	Trump begs for help from Georgia elections investigator to find dishonesty.
	Here's my favorite part.
	Check this out.
	Editor's note.
	Not even a correction.
	You know why?
	CNN won't issue a correction.
	They say, an earlier version of this story, published January 9th, presented paraphrasing of the president's comments to the Georgia elections investigator as direct quotes.
	The story has been updated following the discovery of an audio recording of the call.
	Updated.
	Not corrected.
	Just an editor's note.
	Why?
	Because they did not change the actual story.
	Now all they do is they remove, they removed the words the fraud from the quote.
	Now it says this.
	During a stunning hour-long phone call earlier this month, Trump pushed Raffensperger to quote find votes to overturn the election results after his loss to Biden.
	So that is a different phone call, mind you.
	The people of Georgia are angry.
	The people of the country are angry at IATA.
	Raffensperger told ABC Good Morning America he didn't feel pressure from the president.
	So that's actually a different phone call, which is interesting.
	Is CNN conflating the two?
	They say President Donald Trump last month urged the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State's officials office To search for dishonesty in the 2020 election.
	Telling the individual that the investigation was of national importance.
	The phone call first reported by the Washington Post is the latest on earth effort, yada yada.
	Okay, so the find thing was part of the different phone call.
	Interesting thing about this is that it's about time we get hard corrections.
	And they're not doing it.
	CNN is still claiming the exact same narrative.
	They just removed certain quotes.
	Many outlets haven't even done that.
	It's absolutely insane.
	They say this over the Washington Examiner, the most likely scenario is ABC, The Washington Post and
	others shared the same source or sources.
	It's either that or a bunch of people managed somehow to be wrong about a very specific claim,
	which is highly unlikely. The uncomfortable questions we are left with now are to whom
	did these news outlets speak? How did the source or sources get the details of the phone call wrong?
	Are there additional examples of the media reporting bad information provided by anonymous sources we don't know about?
	Merely because there's no contradictory audio or video.
	Just how many anonymously sourced stories are not true?
	If it can happen this easily, who is to say it doesn't happen often?
	Further, how many of these bogus stories have enjoyed the backing of supposed independent corroboration when in fact newsrooms most likely talk to the same person or people?
	How does one confirm something that is not true?
	You're asking me.
	This is exactly what we warned about during the Trump years, when the press dropped all hesitation and standards regarding the usage of anonymous sources.
	We warned it would lead to the publication of dubious or flat-out false allegations that are all but impossible to verify.
	We warned competing newsrooms would feel inclined anyway to confirm the anonymously made allegations with their own nameless sources.
	We warned if even one widely confirmed report based on anonymous sources turned to be false, it would lead only to further erosion of trust in the news industry.
	Now that we know false reports based on anonymous sourcing can enjoy equally fraudulent corroboration, who is to say there are not more examples of this type of thing?
	The whole thing is a mess, and it's entirely of the press's own creation, but hey, at least the journalists who got it wrong can say they resisted Trump.
	We now have a statement from Donald Trump.
	He says, the Washington Post just issued a correction as the contents of an incorrectly
	reported phone call I had with respect to voter fraud in the state in the great state of Georgia.
	He says, well, I appreciate the Washington Washington Post's correction, which immediately
	makes the Georgia witch hunt a non story. The original story was a hoax right from the beginning.
	I would further appreciate a strong investigation into Fulton County, Georgia, and the Stacey
	Abrams political machine, which I believe would totally well, I'm not gonna repeat what Trump
	says because YouTube will ban me if I do, but Trump thinks it will benefit him to say the least.
	Fulton County has not been properly audited, etc.
	etc.
	He says, you will notice that establishment media errors, omissions, mistakes, and outright lies always slant one way, against me and Republicans.
	Meanwhile, stories that hurt Democrats or undermine their narratives are buried, ignored, or delayed until they can do the least harm.
	For example, after an election is over.
	Look no further than the negative coverage of the vaccine that preceded the election and the overdue celebration of the vaccine once the election had concluded.
	A strong democracy requires a fair and honest press.
	The latest media travesty underscores that legacy media outlets should be regarded as political entities, not journalistic enterprises.
	In any event, I thank the Washington Post for the correction.
	We then have this.
	Henry Rogers tweets, Glenn, this is the impeachment brief.
	The fake quote is in it.
	And we can see in the impeachment brief, you can see the quote, find the fraud.
	It was there.
	Fox News Democrats leaned in—leaned on false WAPO find-the-fraud quote in impeachment hearings.
	Rep.
	Madeline Dean repeated the now-corrected quotes while encouraging senators to convict Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.
	The fourth estate, the press.
	These institutions are supposed to be guarding us.
	They're supposed to be protecting the American people from the lies and manipulations of the authority.
	There was a big fear with the collapse of local journalism.
	Local politicians will start becoming corrupt and they will get away with it.
	And I believe that truly does happen.
	The idea is that news is becoming nationalized.
	That local news isn't as riveting or important to most people.
	They don't care all that much about their local comptroller or whatever, so they pay attention more to Donald Trump.
	That means with less scrutiny on local officials, corruption will reign supreme.
	Local news outlets would challenge these officials, the stories would come out, and then they would be found culpable of something, or maybe exonerated.
	Now it's not happening.
	But at the national level, we're seeing, even with a nationalized press, the thirst among these journalists is for rage-bait, click-bait drama trash.
	Instead of telling you what's really going on so you can be better informed and make decisions, they just tell you what they think will get clicks because they want to sell ads, sell subscriptions, and make money.
	And they accuse me of being a grifter.
	Meanwhile, I host people on the TimCastIRL podcast that many people criticize and thumbs down me for.
	Maybe one of the few channels who will actually still try to have conversations with people that, you know, some people don't like their opinions or be critical of as many people as possible.
	I think we're all biased and I don't think I'm perfect at all.
	Although I try to make sure I'm being honest and calling out the manipulations because I truly want you to be able to make the best decisions for yourself.
	I don't want to be in charge of anything.
	I want to mind my own business and I want to call out those that lie, cheat, and steal to gain power.
	The media doesn't care.
	They're the true grifters.
	They're the ones threatened by people like me because I will call them out.
	Other people on independent media will absolutely do the same.
	People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracy, for instance.
	Big fans of those three journalists, mind you.
	They'll absolutely call it the lies from the establishment press and the manipulations.
	This is where we are.
	We know they lie.
	Many people haven't been exposed or initiated.
	I guess this is now, you know, becoming an aspect of my belief structure, I guess, is what people keep repeating, that I often say that the culture war is people who are discerning and people who are not.
	People who are initiated politically and people who are not.
	The people who are not politically initiated don't know about this stuff, don't know about these problems, and don't pay attention.
	They're not typically discerning.
	Meaning, you know, you'll see a news story from CNN and go, wow.
	But those of us that are familiar with the Gell-Mann amnesia effect are probably saying, I don't buy this for one second.
	And maybe you're someone new, you've not seen my content before, and someone shared this video with you, so I'll explain the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, because I don't want to assume everybody just knows what this is.
	Think about something in which you are an expert.
	Maybe you're really good at baseball.
	Maybe you're a huge fan of football.
	Maybe you're really good at cross stitch or knitting or maybe fashion design, fabric, furniture, whatever.
	You've got some expertise.
	You pull up a newspaper and it says, you know, world-renowned knitter.
	Did a double back loop stitch triple variant.
	And you're like, that's not a real thing.
	Like, this person just made that up.
	Quite literally, I made that up.
	I don't know, it's a garbage idea.
	And you might be saying, that's not a thing.
	What are you talking about?
	What is this?
	This article is fake.
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Then you turn the page.
		Figuratively speaking, you click the next link.
		The next story you read says, war in Syria.
		You know, insurgent does this thing.
		And you go, wow, I didn't know that was happening.
		The point is, when you read news about subjects in which you are an expert, you can clearly see the falsehoods and, well, what they got wrong.
		But when you read news and you are not an expert, did you forget that they were incorrect in the previous article?
		That's the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
		We read stories as the layman, assuming they must be true, even I now.
		Granted, I actually fact-check things.
		So I looked at the correction, I saw what was reported, and I fact-checked some of the claims.
		That's why I pulled up the other stories, saying they confirmed this, to prove that the Washington Examiner was correct.
		Because I actually try to investigate and find the source material.
		But there are many people who read the news just believing it to be true.
		The problem is the media will also tell you, corporate press, that independent voices are bigots and far-right and conspiracy theorists.
		Well, they've created a trap.
		If you are not discerning, and you blindly just trust the media, you're gonna blindly trust that channels like mine are lying.
		More importantly, or worse still, there are political activists that aren't doing it for money, they're doing it for ideological gain.
		They'll take quotes from me out of context.
		They'll take only the worst possible statements they would assume I would make.
		So I could say something like, Mitch McConnell is bad and should be impeached, and Nancy Pelosi is bad and should be impeached, and they'll only take the quote about Nancy Pelosi to poison the well among those who don't watch my content so that they believe I'm strictly critical of Nancy Pelosi and not basically everybody, to be completely honest.
		Rather pessimistic in many ways, unfortunately.
		I'll try to do better.
		But that's the name of the game.
		They don't want people to actually see counter-information.
		Think about CNN.
		The very famous moment with Brian Stelter, when he told his audience not to watch Fox News, or because, you know, they're the spin, we're the real news, only watch us.
		Anybody who's telling you not to seek out other opinions or information is trying to trick you.
		I won't tell you to do that.
		I'll specifically say, go watch CNN, see what Brian Seltzer has to say, and if I'm wrong, then so be it.
		You also had, I think it was Jake Tapper, who said, you can't read the WikiLeaks emails, it's illegal, only we can read it.
		Yeah, don't read the emails that are getting released, publicly, that you're allowed to read.
		Anyone who's telling you, only come to me for the truth, is lying to you.
		I'm wrong all the time.
		I sometimes don't have the specific citation pulled up and I'll tell people to fact check me.
		There's a meme about it.
		I'll say, fact check me, I could be wrong on this one, maybe I got that one wrong, and I definitely got that one wrong.
		And when I get things wrong, or when stories change, I issue corrections.
		What about CNN?
		They didn't issue a correction.
		They issued an editor's note.
		And they just removed the quotes but kept the story the same.
		Opinion pieces masquerading as news.
		Now, a lot of what I've just done today is, of course, opinion commentary on news stories.
		But it's journalistic in the sense that I fact-checked some of the claims before I just started reading this.
		I looked at what Washington Examiner said, pulled up the sources they claimed had made these statements, and then confirmed.
		Many of them did.
		I can't confirm some of them.
		That's why I didn't show them.
		So I'll leave it at that.
		The media is not here to be your friend.
		The media is a corporate machine designed to make money.
		It is a capitalistic enterprise.
		If you are someone who views yourself as on the left, or a socialist, and you don't like capitalism, never forget, these companies, even Fox News, Breitbart, CNBC, the New York Times, I don't care who they are and where they lean, their goal is to make money from you.
		I guess it is what it is.
		It's gonna require people to have a critical eye of the media if we're gonna solve this problem.
		But I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
		The Grammys have been generating quite a bit of controversy with some of their performances.
		One that I criticized depicted riots where a rapper performed a song, his name is Lil Baby, it showed the police as bad guys, the rioters effectively as good guys, and an activist came out joining the set apparently saying, we don't need allies, we need accomplices.
		It was effectively a pro-Black Lives Matter riot message.
		Now, I'm not one for cancel culture.
		It's their free speech.
	If they want to put out BS, I'll be here to counter it, and if you like it, you can watch it.
	But it still led to many people questioning the choices.
	For one thing, this Tamika Mallory activist has been accused of being an anti-Semite by the New York Times, and it caused a lot of controversy for the Women's March, for which she was a founder, because people heard some pretty crazy stories about her.
	I don't necessarily trust the mainstream press, so maybe it's not true.
	But she did come out and say, we need accomplices.
	Next we saw Cardi B's performance of WAP.
	And many people were like, dude, who wants to watch this overly sexualized award program?
	I mean, it's just not something we want our kids or families to be watching.
	And maybe that's a contributor.
	The Grammy's ratings are in the gutter, but I don't think this is a get-woke-go-broke necessarily.
	It may be a get-broke-go-woke kind of thing, where the Grammy's knew they were failing, they knew they were facing some serious problems with ad revenue or interest, so they tried to make a show as shocking as possible in an effort to generate press.
	But I have an honest question, you know, when it comes to this Cardi B stuff, What family wants their kids to actually watch this, like, hyper-sexualized behavior on TV?
	I mean, look, it's one thing what we've had in the past.
	Scantily clad women jumping around, and maybe that crossed the line for a lot of families so they wouldn't watch, but WAP takes it a step further, I gotta be completely honest.
	Plus the depiction of riots?
	How many suburban or middle Americans are like, I like my kids watching this stuff?
	Many of them probably said, I'm not interested.
	More importantly, outside of any of the criticism and the controversy, I think we may just be seeing a fragmentation of American mainstream culture.
	Award shows are not doing well.
	And it's because nobody cares.
	We have the opportunity to watch or listen to whatever we want these days.
	It used to be that the Grammys came on and it was a big cultural moment.
	It was what was on and everybody decided to watch it.
	It would get massive ratings and make massive money.
	Now, everything seems to be breaking apart.
	And with this fragmenting of culture, there is a desperate attempt from the establishment to create this kind of monoculture, get everybody back into the same narrative.
	The only problem is they're overly woke and apply too many double standards, which is causing problems.
	Who wants to be involved in an authoritarian culture where there are haves and have-nots based on which ideology you believe?
	Now, so a lot of people are going to say, not interested.
	I'm not going to watch.
	And this doesn't bode well for the massive corporate machine.
	So let me just say with a bit of optimism, as the Grammys fails, as the wokeness fails to net them that audience they want, the good guys may be winning.
	Those who believe in freedom, individuality, free speech, etc., we may be actually taking ground as they lose audience.
	More and more people are watching shows like mine, so maybe that's where we're headed.
	I want to show you some of the controversy and what's going on with the ratings and the claps, but I want to make sure I point this out first and don't bury the lead.
	Check this out.
	Grammy Awards 2021 earns 80 to 82 million dollars in national TV ad revenue.
	It may be that what's happening with mainstream culture is a path towards destruction.
	It may be that in the next few years, They do really, really bad.
	Maybe this time around, the ratings are getting really, really bad, but the revenue is still there.
	But when the advertisers look to the viewership and they say, wow, we overspent on this program, well, then there will be a delay, and then the next year or two, ad rates will drop precipitously, as nobody wants to watch this trash.
	First, let me just give you the straightforward view of what's happening from the New York Times.
	Grammy's television audience shrinks to a new low.
	They say.
	The collapse of awards show ratings continues.
	Viewership for Sunday's Grammy Awards on CBS fell to 8.8 million viewers, according to Nielsen, a television research firm.
	That's a new low for the show, and a 53% drop compared with last year's show, which drew 18.7 million viewers.
	The previous low was 17 million in 2006, when Green Day won record of the year.
	Two weeks earlier, the Golden Globes lost 62% of its audience, attracting 6.9 million viewers on NBC.
	Viewership for all live television events had plummeted, as people have seemed less enthusiastic about watching three-hour events packed with commercial breaks.
	The Super Bowl last month fell to a 15-year low in viewership, and it appears there is limited interest in a ceremony that has been scaled down because of coronavirus precautions.
	But unlike the Golden Globes or the most recent Emmy Awards broadcast, which had had a record low in viewership, The Grammy Awards managed to avoid the use of Zoom to power the ceremony, and the show did not lack in star power.
	With performances by Harry Styles, Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Megan Thee Stallion, and Cardi B, the show at more than three and a half hours drew praise for its production.
	With a mix of live performances and a small ceremony in an open-air tent outside the Staples Center in downtown LA, Trevor Noah, the show's host, likewise received warm reviews.
	Still, The ratings news is likely to set off alarm bells for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Academy Awards broadcaster, ABC.
	Viewership of last year's Oscars broadcast fell to a low of 23.6 million.
	Nominees for this year's awards were announced Monday, and the ceremony is scheduled for April 25th.
	My friends, what this really is, is cultural collapse.
	We talked about it quite a bit, many of us here on YouTube.
	Several years ago, I mentioned that, you know, one of the things I actually really like to talk about and press on is the stagnation of American culture.
	Let me ask you a question.
	When was the last time a Christmas song was written?
	And I mean like, a Christmas song that became something that we would repeat every year.
	Most people will say, you know, Mariah Carey's All I Want for Christmas is You.
	Wasn't that like the 90s or something?
	Maybe, I'm not entirely sure.
	But my question is about, we play the same songs, Jingle Bell Rock?
	Was that song from like the 50s?
	At a certain point, I started asking this question, like, wasn't that song new at some point?
	Why do we just keep repeating these same things every year?
	Why is it that we have become completely stagnant and repetitious?
	Movies become big smash blockbusters instead of interesting, thought-provoking movies or stories like Groundhog Day.
	I remember watching Groundhog Day thinking, this is a unique story.
	What do we get?
	We get derivative stories.
	We get Happy Death Day, and we get, uh, you know, uh, Live, uh, Live, Die, Repeat, Edge of Tomorrow.
	Whatever they renamed it to.
	No, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan.
	I like those movies, they're entertaining, it's fun to play with ideas and make, you know, new iterations of similar ideas.
	But we're getting movies that are adaptations, TV shows that are adaptations, remakes, remakes, remakes, Spider-Man remake every few years, Batman remake, we've got another Batman remake coming, we've got another Superman remake coming.
	The issue is, people are sick of it.
	They're tired.
	They're bored.
	Everything's boring.
	What are you doing?
	What new video games have come out that are particularly interesting to many people right now?
	Certainly there are some.
	What we are seeing, in my opinion, is an absolute fragmentation and a collapse of American culture.
	It has a lot to do with wokeness, in my opinion.
	But it has a lot to do with the internet.
	And I think it has a lot to do with just general cultural decay.
	We are not pushing new ideas.
	We are not experimenting with stories anymore.
	Nobody wants to take that economic risk.
	Well, I think I might.
	But I think a lot of people are scared.
	They're scared that if they press the line, you know, if they decide, hey, we'll do something unique, they'll lose money.
	Certainly, there are indie films, and you can make them cheaper and cheaper, but mainstream culture, it's done.
	The unifying holiday seasons and award programs that Americans used to sit behind and watch are collapsing.
	Every award show, collapsing.
	The Super Bowl, collapsing.
	So what happens?
	My friends, as we talk about the culture war, one thing we often don't actually get deeply into is literal culture.
	We talk about how you have the woke left and you have the anti-identitarians and then you have the right and the conservatives and the populists, but when have we actually talked about the fact that in the culture war, the culture that makes up the bedrock for which we are battling on is falling apart.
	Now, there have been some people who have decided to make new shows and new games and things like that.
	I respect it.
	But they find smaller niche audiences.
	Not enough to create a unifying force.
	There have been some TV shows that brought everyone together, say like Game of Thrones, but in the past few seasons, the show just fell to trash.
	Let me show you this criticism of the Grammys.
	And I want to keep going up, you know, pushing this idea and then talk about the revenue and where I think we're headed.
	The Washington Times says, Wow!
	This is on network TV.
	Raunchy Grammy Awards sparks outrage and sheds viewers.
	They say not even the most explicit show in Grammy Awards history could turn out the viewers.
	The 63rd annual awards ceremony that aired Sunday on CBS was on pace to hit a ratings low, with a time zone adjusted audience of 8.8 million.
	Viewership plunge despite or maybe because of a politically woke show that featured tributes
	to last year's Black Lives Matter protests and a speech from former women's March leader
	to make a Mallory who declared President Biden we demand justice equity and policy justice
	equity policy.
	The program moved quickly from PG to NC 17.
	However, when rapper Cardi B did a pole dance and performed her hit song WAP by joining
	Megan Thee Stallion for an explicit interlude on a giant bed, a scene that for mainstream
	news outlets was indescribable.
	Quote, as a news service that must adhere to strict editorial standards, we can't tell
	you what WAP stands for.
	And we can't really say what Megan Thee Stallion and Cardi B were rapping about or simulating
	during their performance.
	Either the BBC said in its coverage.
	Let's just say that the live TV debut performance of their X-rated hit took place on a giant bed and they did not look at all tired, the British network said.
	In other words, the episode went well beyond the most memorable performance of the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards when Madonna and Britney Spears kissed during a song, but it failed to spark anything resembling the same uproar.
	Some viewers were certainly surprised.
	Wow, this is on network TV!
	Tweeted CNN senior editor Brandon Griggs.
	The Grammys tweeted, What a performance!
	With emojis of hand claps, eyeballs, and fire.
	Billboard Magazine called it a truly wild performance.
	Conservatives who took note tied their comments to the entertainment industry's cancel culture.
	The left is fine with the disgusting performance Cardi B just gave at the Grammys, but Dr. Seuss is too dangerous for our children, tweeted Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, referring to Dr. Seuss' enterprise decision to stop selling the books.
	Ian Haworth, editor of the Daily Wire, tweeted, Let me tell you what's going on.
	likely to see Cardi B doing this than Dumbo, the 1941 animated film recently blocked from
	Disney Plus' children menu because of Rachel stereotypes.
	Let me tell you what's going on.
	It's called lowest common denominator culture.
	What do you get from Disney films like Dumbo or Dr. Seuss books?
	Some of them contained offensive imagery and stereotypes.
	I, for one, don't care all that much if they stop selling them, or if they do, if you don't like it, you can make your own things, right?
	But these are things that we used to tell our kids you should watch.
	I think it's a sign of cultural decay when we don't make new things, and that's why I'm partly critical of many on the right who are screaming about this.
	I'm like, it's time for something new!
	If you're just repeating cultures of the past, there will be nothing eventually but derivatives and hand-me-downs.
	At the same time, however, what we can see from the Grammy's lowest common denominator culture.
	Let me explain.
	If someone gets offended by Dr. Seuss, it doesn't matter if it is 100 people or 10 people.
	It must be gotten rid of.
	If people are offended with Dumbo, it doesn't matter.
	It must be gotten rid of.
	Now, conservatives are offended at the performance we get from Cardi B. A very explicit performance, sure.
	But it's the lowest common denominator.
	Adult gratification.
	We'll call it that.
	They're trying to maximize how many people will watch because they know what they represent is already dead.
	Mainstream culture in this country is falling apart.
	Major news outlets ratings are collapsing.
	National, I'm sorry, local news is collapsing.
	There seems to be this weird effect the internet has had on us where it's, well actually I shouldn't say it's weird, it's predictable.
	People are now able to watch whatever they choose to watch.
	So with 330 million people, you end up with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of prominent channels on YouTube and other websites they can go to to get their news and their narratives.
	So it has completely decentralized the conversation.
	Now, the Grammys are completely irrelevant to anybody.
	After a year of being beaten over the head with insane politics, how many people are going to care to watch some weird sexualized performance from these artists or whatever you want to call them?
	And it's so ridiculous, it's the news we get from the New York Post.
	Did Cardi B fart during her Grammy's WAP performance on a giant bed?
	What were they thinking?
	I'll tell you what they were thinking.
	They're desperately trying to shock as many people as possible and pander to the lowest common denominator, which is baser-level instincts, I suppose.
	I remember back in, I think it was like 2004, I'm hanging out at my friend's house and we were playing, you know, Knights of the Old Republic on, what was that?
	It was on an Xbox, I think.
	I can't remember.
	And then, you know, his buddy gets home and he's like, yo, let's watch some TV and, you know, referencing Knights of the Old Republic because it was a long time ago.
	I think it was 2004.
	Anyway, we put on a Family Guy, I think.
	I think it was Family Guy, I don't remember.
	And I said something like, dude, in the future, there's gonna be one channel that's nothing but, like, The Simpsons.
	You can literally just, like, turn on The Simpsons channel.
	And we were all like, yeah, dude, crazy, and we laughed about it.
	And the reason we did was because we were looking at these cable channels where, like, it was playing, like, three hours of The Simpsons.
	I was right.
	Today, you can go onto Hulu and just play... How many episodes are there of The Simpsons?
	Hundreds?
	Over, like, 30 years?
	You will not be able to watch every single episode in a single day, with work and food and everything.
	It would take you quite some time to go through every single episode.
	I mean, you could do it in a relatively short amount of time.
	But I reference that because everything has become absolutely hyper-focused.
	People are choosing to go to political channels where they get their literal politics said back at them.
	People come to a channel like mine.
	This one has just over a million subscribers, and I talk about things in a moderate perspective, but there are people who don't like me because they're staunch Trump supporters, or they're just general conservatives, so they'll go to a channel like Steven Crowder.
	There are progressives who don't like this and won't watch it at all, even though many Trump supporters probably would watch my content.
	There are many on the left who will go and only watch one progressive and get their news distilled through that one individual.
	That's all they care about.
	They've developed a routine and they can watch the shows they want to watch.
	But this leads us to a dangerous place.
	You see, the culture war isn't just about whether or not one side is going to win over the other.
	It's not just about libertarian versus authoritarian.
	It's about whether or not we as a country remain cohesive and actually share something that we want to defend and protect.
	If you watch certain progressive YouTubers, you'll end up believing things that aren't true, but will drive you towards a left-tribalist approach.
	And maybe you think, you know, certainly there are things that I say that aren't true because I get things wrong.
	So I'm not saying that these people on the left will tell you lies.
	Many of them will, and many on the right will tell you lies.
	I think it's an exception in a rule system like, many on the right are more likely to give you information that is factually accurate because they know you can go and watch whatever you want, and in the mainstream progressive space, because they do have establishment control, they say whatever they want because they know their audience is captive and tends not to go anywhere else.
	But now we're getting people who are saying, instead of watching the Grammys, I'm gonna watch Tim Pool.
	But the people who watch Tim Pool might not watch any other channels, and you definitely should.
	But how much time do we really have in a day for our programs?
	Think about this.
	See, back in the day, it was The Simpsons.
	It was on at 7 or Star Trek The Next Generation, airing on UPN at 8pm or whatever when it was syndicated.
	I think it was a CBS show.
	I can't remember.
	Or NBC or something.
	It was on a bunch of channels.
	So, at this date, at this time, you'd go home, you'd turn the TV on, and tens of millions of people would all watch the exact same thing.
	Maybe it's the Grammys.
	Then they would all go and talk about it at work.
	Today, people go home, and with what little time they have, there is a competition for their attention.
	Some will choose me, some will choose Kyle Kalinske, some will choose Styx Hexenhammer, but then their views will be shaped very specifically by a single show that they watch, and not everyone else does watch.
	Because of this, there is no real unity.
	There are a lot of people who put out overt lies about me.
	I try to avoid talking about individuals and their channels in specific ways or accuse them of doing things publicly because, well, I don't watch every single one of Kyle Kulinski's videos.
	I don't watch every single one of Steven Crowder's videos.
	But you see, people build up this worldview based on increasingly smaller cultural factions, where that leads us.
	Okay, let's talk about money.
	The Grammys pulls in 80 to 82 million dollars in national TV ad revenue.
	That's really good for them.
	They'll probably do this again next year, but the revenue will probably be cut in half or more, because what's going to happen is a lot of these advertisers are going to say, you didn't pull in the numbers, And we took a loss.
	I spent X amount of dollars.
	I only made Y amount of dollars.
	The number was less than I spent, so it wasn't worth it for me.
	I'll tell you what.
	I will give you less money for the ad.
	There you go.
	The Grammys will then net less, but they'll also notice they overspent last year, and they won't want to do it again, and they know the ratings for the Grammys are collapsing, so the Grammys may eventually just get cancelled.
	What happens then?
	It's really interesting.
	While they're certainly making money today, there is something that's going to be affecting us that I think will lead this country to disillusion, and I'm not talking about Civil War.
	I've talked about the potential for conflict and civil war quite a bit.
	A lot of people on the left just don't care to hear it.
	And not that I think it's an absolute or that I know everything, but I do think we're in a cold conflict of some sort.
	And that's a quote from a Princeton professor.
	We're fighting each other.
	We're at each other's throats all the time.
	But we're all watching different people.
	Even those on the right watch different people.
	You know, for instance, I don't watch Ben Shapiro.
	Periodically, maybe.
	I watch Steven Crowder sometimes.
	I tend not to watch a whole lot of anybody.
	There are a lot of people who probably only watch Ben Shapiro, don't watch me.
	Or they watch Crowder, not Ben Shapiro.
	And thus, they're getting different views and different opinions.
	The same is true for the left.
	Ultimately, what I see happening is, while there may be an ongoing cultural conflict across the board, the collapse of a unified culture in this country, the stagnation of culture, in my opinion, will lead to a point where we no longer care to be involved with each other as a community.
	You'll end up seeing people in, you know, New York, watching different content, specifically aimed at them and their politics and their opinions, and there are people like this, in Pacifica, I'm sorry, in the Atlantic Northeast, And their opinions are very, very different from those in other parts of the country.
	Instead of getting a national address, we are now seeing a president who gives a... Let me clarify.
	Instead of getting an address to the nation as a whole, we get a president who gives an address to the blue states.
	And though the address is to everybody, no one agrees with it.
	You have red states saying, now we're not going to do what you say.
	There's no cultural unity.
	So let me try and wrap this up, otherwise I think it's becoming too verbose.
	The Grammys doesn't matter to me.
	The Emmys, none of this matters.
	What matters is that the unifying culture that we had, the conversation we had, I mean even Game of Thrones contributed to this, to this unifying of culture.
	It's collapsing.
	People are going to watch whatever they want to watch.
	They're going to talk about whatever they want to talk about.
	It makes it harder for us to associate with others and our own neighbors.
	You used to be able to go to work and at the water cooler, like, hey, did you see that new movie that just came out?
	Well, now movies are over.
	COVID shut down the movie industry for the most part.
	And now you turn on Amazon or whatever, and there's thousands of movies.
	So which one did you watch?
	Hey, did you see that movie?
	What's it called?
	It's called Spiral.
	Never saw it.
	What's that one?
	Oh, you know, it's this movie.
	Well, okay.
	Not much to talk about.
	Not much to share.
	Maybe people are just going to stop watching.
	Ratings are down for literally everyone, so I wonder what people are really doing.
	Maybe there's a net positive because it's not so much that our culture will collapse, but that people will start developing new unifying cultures around new ideas.
	But here's my prediction.
	I think that as more and more people disassociate with a greater American culture, you end up with people caring less, and you end up pushing the United States towards something that very much may be a peaceful divorce.
	Not because of the culture war, but because we just don't care about each other anymore.
	Maybe economic ties will force things together, but when you combine the culture war, What happens when you get to a point where there is absolute fighting?
	People are, you know, Donald Trump wins and they say, why are we gonna accept this?
	Why would 80 million people accept a president they don't want?
	What happens then when someone's like, dude, we don't watch the same movies, we barely speak the same language, the woke versions of words is different from what most Americans recognize, they have their own semantics, colloquial use of words.
	So what happens when we're speaking a different language, watching different movies, and physically fighting with each other?
	The collapse of the culture.
	That's what I see happening.
	So again, we can criticize the Grammys, we can say they're dumb, we can say they're woke or whatever.
	It's not a get-woke-go-broke thing.
	It's an American decay thing.
	And I guess I could rant on this for a long time, but I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	Near the end of Donald Trump's administration, he passed an executive order barring many elements of critical race theory trainings in the federal government.
	He also barred contracting companies that used these similar trainings.
	The media screamed that Trump was banning diversity trainings, but that's a manipulation.
	They weren't telling you what was actually going on.
	They were using clever words and false framing to make it seem like Donald Trump was a bigot.
	When in reality, many of these programs outright violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
	Now, if you're somebody who doesn't reach beyond the news, and you just believe what you hear on TV, which is probably not many of you, if any at all, well, then you're just going to believe it.
	Donald Trump is a bigot, and he's pushing the far-right white supremacist ideals.
	But if you actually look into what his executive order was and what was going on, you'd realize Donald Trump was correct.
	You see, I rag on Democrats a whole lot on this channel.
	And for this, many people say, you know, Tim is conservative or he's right wing.
	But in fact, I'm actually not.
	I recently tweeted that Joe Biden's progressive income tax Doesn't go far enough.
	Well, actually, I did a Futurama reference saying it doesn't go too far enough.
	In fact, I'm pretty left on many issues.
	But I take specific issue with media deceptions and the pushing of agendas which I view to be overtly racist.
	Segregation is back.
	It's getting worse.
	It's been getting worse.
	And I and many others have been talking about this for years.
	It is not the Republican Party pushing segregation, race-based training, and overt racism.
	There are certainly some elements of the right in the Republican Party.
	Many of these individuals have been excised from the party.
	However, it is the Democrats that seem to be doing everything in their power to bring back racism and segregation, and I am going to show you definitively and prove it.
	You see, I view the Republicans as stagnant and obstructionist.
	I'm not a fan of Mitch McConnell or the Republican Party leadership, because not only do I disagree with many of the Republican Party policies, they don't fight for anything anyway.
	So there's nothing to really be upset about other than they're obstructionist.
	Okay, they do have some policy positions I disagree with they've tried to push, but for the most part, What do they do?
	The Democrats are on offense, and Donald Trump was on offense, and that was about it.
	There were some good things about Trump, many bad things, but the Democrats seem to be worse.
	There's a meme among conservatives that Democrats have long been the party of Jim Crow, segregation, slavery, etc.
	While this is historically true, you often get media outlets saying, yes, yes, but the party's flipped, they've changed.
	Maybe.
	But I'm sorry if I just don't see it.
	It is the Democrats today pushing racial affinity groups, race-based segregation.
	It is blue cities.
	It is urban centers that are pushing these policies.
	And it typically is the Republicans saying no to this.
	Unfortunately for most of us that disagree with segregation and violations of the Civil Rights Act, or who believe in Dr. King's dream, Republicans don't do anything to fight back.
	Except, of course, for Donald Trump.
	We have the story.
	From March 7th, U.S.
	Department of Education curbs decision on race-based affinity groups.
	Affinity groups are basically just racially segregated groups.
	Universities do this, grade school, elementary schools do this, and they do it for very overt and racist reasons, and I'm going to show you.
	It's back.
	Segregation is getting worse.
	Colombia just today announced, we're learning, is hosting six separate graduation ceremonies based on income level, race, and ethnicities.
	Lindsey Graham, for all of his problems and everything I could criticize him for, slammed racial reparations in the COVID relief bill.
	My friends, let's read the news, but let me start by saying we will not solve the problem of racism by segregating the races and providing money to people based on race when the problems tend to be class-based and education-based.
	And I'll show you exactly what Biden is doing and why it's so insidious, and then we'll go through the news about what's happening with segregation expanding across the U.S.
	Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and get access to exclusive members-only podcast segments.
	We have a bunch of really great conversations.
	The other day, we talked about the collapse of the anti-SJW YouTubers and why it happened.
	And when you become a member at Timcast, you're providing a safety net for me and my company and my employees in the event that we get purged or banned.
	We will still be able to produce content, albeit the reach wouldn't be nearly as far, but at least we will still exist in some form.
	But don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
	Let me read you the story from the New York Post.
	They say, The U.S.
	Department of Education suspended a decision that found racial affinity groups discriminated against students and staff, the Post has learned.
	The goal of the programs, used by the New York City public school system and other school districts, is to separate students and staff by racial groups in order to help address discrimination and white privilege.
	But the practice of separating schools into racial groups is discriminatory, a determination obtained by the Post found.
	The findings, reached during the waning days of former President Trump's time in office in early January, were in response to a complaint about a Chicago-area school district's racial equity training programs and lesson plans.
	Sources said the findings, if implemented, could apply to New York City and other school districts.
	The Post last year exclusively reported about city early childhood teachers being asked to be segregated into discussion groups based on skin color, race, and ethnicity following the George Floyd killing at the hands of Minneapolis police and the violent riots that followed after.
	They said protest, I'm correcting them.
	Critics ripped the initiative for perpetuating racial stereotypes.
	One Manhattan principal even asked parents to reflect on their whiteness to address white supremacy, white privilege, and discrimination.
	The 18-page letter of finding, drafted by the Federal Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Enforcement Director Carol Ashley, was triggered by a complaint filed by a former NYC arts teacher who now works in the Evanston-Skokie, Illinois, school district.
	The DOE findings said the Evanston-Skokie School District violated civil rights law by separating administrators in a professional development training program in August 2019 into two groups based on race, white and non-white, offering various racially exclusive affinity groups that separated students, parents, and community members by race, implementing a disciplinary policy that included explicit direction to staffers to consider a student's race when meeting, when meting out discipline, Carried a colorism privilege walk that separated 7th and 8th grade students into different groups based on race.
	Quote, If you are white, take two steps forward.
	If you're a person of color with dark skin, take two steps back.
	If you're black, take two steps back.
	The privilege walk exercise said.
	The goal is for white students to learn more about white privilege, internalized dominance, microaggressions, and how to act as an ally for students of color, the lesson plan said.
	But Ashley of the DOE concluded the school district engage in intentional race discrimination by coordinating and conducting racially exclusive affinity groups.
	Which resulted in the separation of participants in distinct programs based on race, in violation of the Title VI regulation.
	My friends, that is quite literally the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
	These blue, these urban districts, these Democratic politicians, these people in the Biden administration, they are absolutely reactionary, which means they are trying to bring us back to a time long since past, reacting to the change, the revolution brought about by the Civil Rights Movement, which desegregated this country.
	When I was covering Ferguson and Baltimore riots, this was over the police killings of certain individuals, there were certain rooms in these organizing areas that were segregated for certain people of certain races.
	And I thought it was actually scary and shocking.
	They said it was a safe space only for people of color or the African diaspora.
	I thought segregation was wrong.
	We're supposed to be fighting to be one country, one people, one planet, one human race instead.
	You actually have people like Don Lemon on CNN demanding that people see color.
	I think it's fair to point out there are issues of racism that we need to deal with.
	I think it's important to point out that we should note these things.
	But to create government programs would still violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
	And honestly, it'll only make things worse.
	We've now brought ourselves to a point in this country where we have ended most of the racist programs and laws, if not all of them.
	Now, there are still remnants of this racism, but the solution here isn't to bring back racist policy or racial discrimination, though that's what the intersectional or identitarian left would want to do.
	That will only make things worse.
	Now, I can already tell Whenever I bring this up, there are many on the left who say, Tim, you are wrong.
	Affinity groups are a good thing.
	Let me break down for you the problems we have.
	And I want to show you this.
	Racial affinity groups from the anti-racist classroom in Sacramento City.
	And I want to read for you the first paragraph.
	I did cover this before, but in this context of what's happening with universities, it's important to bring up again for those that aren't familiar.
	This is from the Sacramento City Anti-Racist Classroom document, which reads, Racial affinity groups offer a structure of inquiry and can address many needs.
	They support us in exploring what has been forbidden, forgotten, and unhealed.
	For example, in racial affinity groups, white people can discover together their group identity.
	They can cultivate racial solidarity and compassion and support each other.
	in sitting with the discomfort, confusion, and numbness that often accompany white racial awakening.
	They can also discern white privilege and its impact without the aid or dependence on people of color.
	White people who have formed racial affinity groups can report that they recognize their collective commonality and shared history, as well as the impact that their privilege has had on other races and on each racial affinity group member.
	Like I want to say, while many POC may not need an affinity group to help them relate to their racial group membership, they may need to explore the diversity that exists among POC and across POC without having the distraction of having to educate white people on whiteness and its harm.
	What they're basically saying, they want different groups based on race.
	They would take all of the small white children and put them in a group to ask them to learn about their shared history.
	My question is, what do you think that shared history would be?
	And why would you just assume it would be inherently negative?
	Why would these young white people who get together and talk about their race despise their history or view it negatively?
	Why wouldn't they view it positively?
	My whole life, you know, I grew up in a mixed-race family.
	I've heard about the splendor, wonder, and advancements of European settlement in North America.
	I learned about atrocities and the Trail of Tears and really horrifying things—slavery, for instance—but typically what we learn about the inventions, the developments, the technologies, the methodologies of The mostly, if not all, white founding fathers.
	And I mean expansively founding fathers.
	There were many people who I think contributed to the founding of this country well after the inception of this country and well before.
	And not all of those ideas came from white people, but for the most part.
	We are told, historically, it was the white founding fathers and their ideas.
	If you put these children into these groups and you follow a logical path, what would you discover?
	We are a great American melting pot.
	We are a great country with great ideals that has resulted in the most expansive set of civil rights for any country on the planet.
	And though we're far from perfect, we are probably one of the most tolerant societies in the world.
	And how did that happen?
	Why, it was the ideology of classical liberalism and the Founding Fathers, who happened to be white.
	What happens then when you demonize, attack, and force these groups to have a racial awakening?
	They're not going to sit there in self-pity and say they hate themselves.
	Many might, and many others might actually just become white supremacists.
	Segregation is back.
	It is being pushed by Democrats, not Republicans.
	Which brings me to the news from today, that Columbia University is hosting six separate graduation ceremonies, with race and ethnicity being partly the defining factor.
	in these different ceremonies.
	Fox News says, Columbia University is planning to hold six additional graduation ceremonies for students according to their race and other aspects of how they identify.
	The New York City Schools website details graduation ceremonies for Native, Asian, Latinx, and Black students taking place for Columbia College, Columbia Engineering, General Studies, and Barnard College at the end of April.
	Another dubbed FLI graduation for first-generation and or low-income community, the school also hosts a lavender graduation for the LGBTIAQ-plus community.
	Due to coronavirus restrictions, the ceremonies will take place online.
	It's unclear when the separate ceremonies were announced, but Sunday was the deadline for nominating individuals in Columbia College, Columbia Engineering and General Studies, for the Multicultural Affairs graduation cords.
	Columbia University did not immediately respond to a comment.
	Last month, Young America's Foundation flagged a white-only caucus event scheduled to take place at Elon University.
	It was intended to, quote, give white people a space to learn about and process their awareness
	of and complicity in unjust systems without harming their friends of color, according to an
	email distributed by the university. The university said the event was organized by a group of
	students and eventually did not take place because it would have been at odds with university policy.
	And don't forget, U.S.
	law.
	University of Michigan-Dearborn.
	There was a big controversy over what they were calling cafes.
	They announced a white-only and non-white-only digital cafe where people could meet, gather, and talk about these things.
	Quite literally a racial affinity group.
	The events were canceled.
	The website was taken down.
	That's my understanding.
	It was interesting that the initial backlash shut down the website promoting a racially segregated gathering for white people and people who aren't white.
	If it was really about promoting diversity, wouldn't there be a multitude of racial affinity groups?
	More than just white and non-white.
	Maybe that's why it got taken down.
	Maybe that's why it was stopped.
	But now we're seeing quite literally the same thing across many different universities and an advocacy for it coming from school districts and even Joe Biden's Department of Education.
	Let me show you some things.
	From Reason, they say, this is from August 24th, 2020.
	Yes, black NYU students demanded segregated housing.
	No, the university didn't agree to it.
	Quote, NYU does not have and will not create student housing that excludes any student based on race.
	My question is, how long How long until this falters?
	Like the other, you know, POC cafe and non-POC cafe event they did.
	It eventually collapsed and now they are doing racial affinity groups.
	How long until NYU does actually implement racially segregated dorms?
	From Forbes, November 15th, 2018.
	Racial segregation on American campuses, a widespread phenomenon.
	Forbes says, or I should say the author, Richard Vetter says, The National Association of Scholars, a group of mostly academics interested in higher education, issues only a few research reports annually, but what they lack in quantity they make up in quality.
	Their studies are extremely carefully done, with well-documented research.
	A young NAS employee, Don Pierre, Dion Pierre, has been researching the segregation of students on college campuses by race.
	Special commencement exercises for African American students, living and recreational facilities segregated by race, black student unions, and so forth.
	These practices have existed for decades on some campuses, and rather than fading as racial prejudices decline, witness rapidly increasing interracial marriages, they are flourishing.
	The Pierre study, mostly completed, should be released around Martin Luther King Day in early 2019.
	All of this is terribly ironic.
	In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the U.S.
	Supreme Court effectively outlawed racial segregation in our schools.
	Angry whites, especially in the South, fought the attempt to integrate schools, often leading to violent protests, such as when James Meredith became the first black student to enter the University of Mississippi in 1962.
	Civil rights leaders put their lives on the line working for a colorblind, non-race determined society, most memorably King, when he articulated his dream where people, quote, will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
	The bitter struggle to break down racial distinctions in education lasted for decades.
	Yet now universities are reintroducing segregation, making race the primary determinant of student participation in some activities, such as black student unions or race-based housing facilities.
	I may be biased, my friends, because many of you who are frequent viewers of my content know exactly why this has always freaked me out, and why I've never been a fan of Democrat policy towards racial segregation and critical race theory.
	And it's because I come from a mixed-race family, second generation.
	It's because I witnessed discrimination against my dad based on his race, even though he was part of an interracial marriage with interracial kids, he was still He still faced detriment based on his race, which made no sense.
	We were anything but privileged.
	We were supposed to be this family that represented the future of this country that the progressives fought so hard for, that people like Dr. King in the Civil Rights era fought so hard for, that after loving v. Virginia, we were finally supposed to be accepted.
	And actually benefit from the great privileges of the society.
	But in fact, it was the progressives and the Democrats who fought so hard and are continuing to fight to make it all worse for people like me and my family.
	Meanwhile...
	You have many unwitting, dare I say, useful idiots who support this policy from Democrats, maybe because it grants them power or because they are actually white supremacists.
	Perhaps you don't agree and you don't believe me, but let me show you a few, let me show you a statement and a comic to break down what is actually happening.
	Bill Burr, the comedian, was called racist.
	And it probably has to do a lot with his comedy, which is particularly offensive, but it stems from his appearance, I believe it was at the Grammys, I'm not sure, where he mispronounced a Latino woman's name.
	He just pronounced it poorly and he said, sorry if I'm butchering your name.
	Well, he was called racist.
	A woman on Twitter posted, Gen Z calling Bill Burr a racist.
	Bill Burr and his beautiful wife, Nia.
	Bill Burr is in fact married to a black woman.
	And I don't think that matters.
	I think they are two people who love each other.
	Good for them.
	I'm glad, I'm actually, it's actually amazing that we can see how far we've come in terms of civil rights and where we are today in terms of accepting people who just love each other.
	However, A man named Claiborne Griffin, a verified Twitter user,
	tweeted this image saying, while I'm not suggesting Bill Burr is racist, a white man
	having a non-white wife, so saith Claiborne Griffin, can sometimes be a sign of
	racism. So you shouldn't assume someone isn't racist just because they own, and this is his word, a
	minority, we'll just say love servant.
	They may very well, and this is what Claiborne says, have one because they are racist. One of
	the most shocking displays of overt racism I have ever seen on this platform.
	And it's coming from someone purportedly on the progressive left.
	Now, of course, there are many progressives who push back on people like this and slam them.
	It's not indicative of every single person on the left, mind you.
	But it is enough.
	There are elements of the far-right that are crazy and creepy, and I think, yes, that's enough to be criticized, and to criticize what they believe.
	But I have no problem criticizing fringe far-right conspiracies, and I have no problem criticizing fringe far-left conspiracies.
	The issue is that while Trump may have emboldened some of these people, he has never been the establishment, he has never been the media, and he struggled to actually maintain any semblance of an administration when he was president.
	Many of his appointees turned on him, John Bolton was a dumb move who stabbed him in the back, and Trump struggled to get a lot done.
	The establishment political class, Democrats and Republicans, they push many narratives that we must be concerned with.
	And right now, and in the past several years, the past decade, it has been the establishment Democrats, with tacit support from progressives, pushing this ridiculous behavior.
	There are many dirtbag leftists, they call themselves, that I absolutely respect for calling out the wokeness, the critical race theory, and I love the memes.
	There was one, I think it was from Kyle Kalinske, a progressive, where it said something like, we just want healthcare, and it was like the sad, you know, depressed meme guy, and then Democrats offering up critical race theory.
	They think that by having a diverse military-industrial complex, progressives will just fall in line.
	But perhaps this is why we see censorship affecting the anti-war left as well as conservatives.
	Those who push back on this psychotic orthodoxy and dogmatic cult-like behavior from the democratic establishment that for some reason has always pushed for segregation.
	Maybe there was a brief fleeting moment for a couple of decades, I don't know, maybe I was too young.
	But they were the party of segregation then, and today they are the party of segregation, so I will absolutely be calling them out because these are the ones who freak me out.
	Let me show you this meme image.
	There is a black man who says, this is an historic moment.
	People of color finally have a space safe from white privilege and discrimination.
	And there's a man putting up a sign who says, actually, this sign has been in the basement of the university for decades.
	And it's a sign where there is an E.D.
	scratched off of a certain word and it says, People of Color Dormitory.
	And they're pointing out the segregation was then and is being brought back now under a very similar name.
	It's the same thing.
	And I think it's fairly obvious if you pay attention and you're critical of this.
	The problem, I suppose, is that there are many people who are not paying attention.
	So while it may be obvious when you see them doing it, if you're a tribalist who goes along with this, if you're a dogmatist who believes in identitarianism, or you're a democratic established politician, You're probably in favor of this because it gives you power.
	You can cancel those who disagree with you policy-wise.
	You can get your politician elected.
	You can accuse Trump of being racist, and I'll give you an example.
	Take a look at this from Law.com.
	Trump executive order forcing cancellation of more diversity events, DOJ groups say.
	The dangerous consequences of suspending more than just trainings have already begun to play out.
	Groups for diverse staff at Justice Department have scrapped more events over concerns they would violate Trump's recent executive order prohibiting diversity and inclusion training.
	You see how insidious it is to call it diversity but then actually advocate for students to be separated based on race?
	Isn't diversity when we have different ideas and we're people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds and identities?
	Isn't it diversity When we're all together, working together, at what point did diversity come to mean racial segregation?
	It's semantics.
	It's doublespeak, straight out of 1984.
	They argue that segregation is diversity?
	They're doing it, and it's happening right in front of us, and it's only gotten worse.
	Maybe you've heard me talk about a lot of this stuff for some time, and maybe this is just an update for you, because now we're seeing just how bad it's gotten.
	And I think it's going to continue to get bad, and I think those of us who believe in true classical or social liberalism, where the individual is protected, We're losing.
	Maybe we're not completely losing.
	Maybe the night is always darkest before the dawn.
	And what we're really seeing is that the more this kind of behavior happens, the more regular people are going to tune out, and these institutions will get woke and go broke.
	How many people actually want this?
	The scary thing to me is that it's likely there are... You know what?
	I'm gonna say it.
	They try to argue that there are crypto-fascists or crypto-white nationalists.
	This guy, Claiborne Griffin, for instance, on Twitter, has to be... He has made one of the most overtly white supremacist things I've ever seen.
	But I shouldn't call it most overtly.
	I should say it's subversive.
	Telling you that someone in an interracial relationship may secretly be racist... It's insane!
	It absolutely is insane.
	Bill Burr is married to a beautiful woman.
	They look like they have a very loving relationship.
	And this woman slammed Claiborne, telling him to basically shove off.
	And, absolutely.
	Bill Burr is an epic and amazing comedian.
	He's a rad dude.
	And I don't care about the race of him or his wife.
	I think he just does a good job.
	I'm glad he calls out the stuff when he does.
	He's not perfect.
	He tries to play it safe a little bit sometimes.
	And I think his wife seems like a very lovely and intelligent person.
	So, so what?
	Why would this guy say this?
	And how many more people exist like him who believe these things and are secretly pushing this while claiming to be on the left?
	It reminds me of the trope about the abusive male feminist.
	They claim to support women, but they're actually just trying to use feminism as a, as a, you know, foot in the door to get in safe spaces with these women and then abuse them.
	And here we are today.
	We now have Lindsey Graham decrying what he calls reparations in the COVID relief bill.
	Hidden inside President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill is a special program that will dole out race-based cash to black farmers, says GOP Lindsey Graham.
	Quote, in this bill, if you're a farmer, your loan will be forgiven up to 120%.
	If you're African American, some other minority.
	But if you're a white person, no forgiveness.
	Why do that?
	Why tell a poor white person you are not entitled to being helped?
	Why should our taxes be segregated?
	We fought long and hard in this country to end the racism.
	And it is not the Republicans bringing it back, as much as I am no fan of Lindsey Graham.
	I can give him respect for calling out race-based programs that give money to people based on race.
	This should be outright illegal!
	But you take a look at Joe Biden's administration, and we'll bring it all together.
	The U.S.
	Department of Education suspended a decision that found racial affinity groups discriminated against students and staff.
	To put it mildly, it is now okay to discriminate against people based on race at these schools.
	And I am no fan, and I completely disagree with it.
	Forrest Trouble's Lindsey Graham was slammed.
	The National Black Farmers Association calls for Graham to apologize over racist comments If you criticize the government giving out money based on race, they'll call you racist.
	Here we are.
	Where does this all lead us?
	At a time when we are hyper-polarized, worse than we've ever been.
	At a time when it seems like we have no unifying culture.
	The Grammys ratings are down, Emmys are down, Super Bowl ratings are down.
	None of us are watching the same programs.
	Our culture is fracturing.
	At a time when cultural stagnation is on the rise, movies are repetitive, redundant, repeats, adaptations.
	We also have an effort by the left and Democrats to separate people based on race.
	This may be the most divisive time in American history.
	We don't agree on policy, we don't agree on politicians, we don't agree on social issues, and then we're being separated on a bunch of different issues.
	The TV shows we watch, the commentators we listen to, our income levels, where we live, Who we vote for and now apparently race.
	So what do you think's going to happen?
	Do you know what divide and conquer means?
	Here we go.
	Is there a solution to the division that I believe will eventually result in conquering?
	I don't think so.
	I could go to the woke leftists and argue why I think what they're doing is wrong and they'll just tell me I'm wrong.
	They'll scream, you know, it takes one to know one.
	Nothing will get resolved.
	You can take a look at Twitter and, you know, Twitter and YouTube.
	Many of these once anti-SJW types that were critical of all this stuff have now become anti-anti-establishment.
	While they may not be supporting overt wokeness, they're certainly critical of those who are challenging the status quo and challenging critical race theory.
	And I find that outright strange.
	The progressive left and many of the populists, the ones who don't support this, will still line up behind it to go after Trump supporters.
	Well, fine.
	Consider a threat what you want to consider a threat.
	But in the end, what will happen is we will be completely divided, and then we'll be conquered.
	Or, at the very least, we just collapse, and then we can see rival nations start to take over and become that superpower.
	The destabilization may very well lead to international conflict and war.
	So, I don't know.
	I don't know if that will happen.
	I can't see the future.
	I can only tell you that I argue this is a problem.
	It's becoming worse.
	It will likely only get worse seeing Joe Biden is rescinding Trump's executive order on critical race theory, allowing these race-based segregation to continue, and why should I assume the Democrats would do anything else?
	Dividing up this nation will make it easier for Democrats and corrupt politicians, Republicans included, to maintain power.
	So here we go.
	But in the end, with no unified front for America, no unified community or culture or mission, then we just get crushed.
	And that's where I think we're headed.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up tonight at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
	It's a live show.

▲