All Episodes
March 23, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:19:29
S561 - US Joins The EU Sanctioning China Over Uyghur Abuses INFURIATING The Chinese Communist Party And Xi

US Joins The EU Sanctioning China Over Uyghur Abuses INFURIATING The Chinese Communist Party And Xi. China responded by issuing sanctions of their own.While Democrats and Republicans continue to engage in an escalating culture war the real threat to the world is the Chinese Communist party. The Biden administration has issued sanctions over human rights violations in a powerful move against ChinaMany fear that the escalating sanction war could lead to hot conflict. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:18:50
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Today is March 23rd, 2021, and our first story.
The U.S.
has joined the European Union issuing sanctions against China for their abuses of Uighur Muslims in concentration camps.
Hopefully this is the right move, but China has responded by issuing sanctions of their own.
There are fears that escalating sanctions could result in hot conflict.
Our next story, Mexican cartels are taking advantage of the ongoing border crisis and sparking big business smuggling humans and engaging in human trafficking.
Kamala Harris is being criticized for laughing at the crisis when asked if she would visit.
In our last story, advocates of gun control, Democrats, are exploiting the latest crisis to push for laws, but it seems like they just don't quite understand what these guns are, how they work, and what they're actually calling for.
Let's break down some of these gun control claims.
Before we get started, if you like the show, please leave a positive review, give us five stars, and share it with your friends.
Sharing is the most important thing you can do because apparently it really helps grow the show and inform people that, well, the show exists.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In what I can only hope is the right move, the Biden administration has joined the EU in sanctioning China over their mistreatment of Uighur Muslims.
For those that aren't familiar, China is operating concentration camps for a religious minority, and it's shocking and disgusting.
And it's about time we saw some action.
Now, in the past, I've said I think sanctions may be the right move.
I'm not a prophet.
I'm not a psychic.
I just hope this makes sense, and I will say it outright.
The culture war is damaging to U.S.
interests.
The fights that we have over critical race theory and social justice issues are important for a variety of reasons, but I fear they are tearing this country apart, and we must do everything we can to give credit where credit is due when things happen that are beneficial to all of us here in the United States and the world.
For the longest time, China has gotten away with the mistreatment of the Uighur Muslims, with the mistreatment of those in Hong Kong, and there are fears they will try to invade and seize Taiwan.
And there are fears the Biden administration will not be strong enough to stop it.
We recently saw peace talks break down.
Chinese officials went on a 15-minute rant insulting the U.S., claiming that we here have serious human rights abuses and our interests are being undermined by the culture war in many different ways, from messaging around the world, putting us in a weak position, to dividing us at a time when we are facing quite possibly the biggest threat we have ever faced, a rising and despotic authoritarian Chinese Communist Party.
Now, we're also seeing a movement to stop hate against Asians.
And this is where things get interesting.
And it seems that China absolutely seeks to exploit culture war tensions in an effort to undermine American interests.
We have many people, many articles being written claiming that criticizing the Chinese Communist Party over their actions pertaining to the abuse of religious minorities as well as their handling of COVID is Sinophobia that contributes to hate and violence.
Now my friends, I certainly think it is wrong what we are seeing with these hate crimes against the Asian community.
And in all seriousness, I'm glad to see finally people on the left recognizing that Asians are in fact a minority as well.
But in the end, it is still a divisive issue, and it is an excuse to claim that criticizing the Chinese Communist Party in any way causes this kind of hate or violence to these minorities.
Now look, I will be fair.
There are some crazy people, there always are, and there are fringe groups that absolutely equate a family running a small restaurant as part of the Chinese Communist Party.
There's a big difference.
We're not here to criticize the people in China, or Asians in general.
I actually am Asian.
We're here to criticize the authoritarian despots who are oppressing religious minorities operating concentration camps and threatening the interests of the world and the U.S.
You see, it's not just what China is doing with these human rights abuses that are cause for concern.
China has launched the Belt and Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure project Which is going to give them serious influence over many other countries and risk the U.S.'
's position around the world.
There's challenging questions.
Do you support U.S.
imperialism or whatever you want to call it?
I don't know.
I'm not a genius.
I don't have access to classified information, and I'm very critical of war.
But I do know that if America doesn't remain strong and unified, and we do end up breaking apart for whatever reason, then nothing will stop China's authoritarianism.
And that may be the path we're on, and it's scary, which is why I want to say I believe Biden's administration deserves credit for imposing sanctions on China so far.
I hope it's the right move.
But so long as there is proactive action being taken to stop the abuse of the Uighur Muslims, then I will absolutely give credit to Joe Biden's administration, though I am still cautious that he may not be up for the job.
And I don't know if Kamala Harris or anyone else in the administration is going to do the right thing as it pertains to these human rights abuses.
Let's get serious today, and we'll read the news about what's happening with these sanctions and exactly what the Biden administration is doing.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and help support my show as well as the TimCast IRL podcast.
In the event we get purged or banned or silenced or smeared or whatever, we need your support.
For now, ratings are down across the board, everybody is hurting, and we're working overtime to make sure that we can make something meaningful for all of you.
So go to TimCast.com, you'll get access to exclusive members-only posts.
We just did a segment the other day with Chrissy Mayer, the comedian, about aliens.
Because Trump's Director of National Intelligence said, yeah, there's some pretty crazy evidence out there.
And we have Kurt Schlichter and Jack Murphy, as well as Kim Iverson.
We've had some progressives, mind you, and some really interesting conversations.
Support the show over at TimCast.com, and don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell, and let's read some pretty serious and sobering news.
NPR reports.
unidentified
U.S.
tim pool
joins EU in sanctions against China over treatment of Uyghur Muslims.
China and the European Union traded sanctions against each other's officials Monday, and the U.S.
joined the U.K.
and Canada in parallel to measures by the European Union to protest human rights violations and abuses in the western Xinjiang region.
The EU imposed travel and economic sanctions on four of Chinese officials in response to the imprisonment of hundreds of Uyghur Muslims.
My understanding is that it's actually in the millions or million-plus.
Among those the EU sanctioned was Chen Mingguo.
The director of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau because of the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
The sanctions are the first the EU has imposed since 1989 in protest of China's treatment of the Tiananmen Square demonstrators in Beijing.
In response, China has dealt its own sanctions against 10 European individuals and 4 entities.
This move, based on nothing but lies and disinformation, disregards and distorts facts, grossly interferes in China's internal affairs, flagrantly breaches international law and basic norms governing international relations, and severely undermines China-EU relations, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said of the EU's move.
European Parliament members Reinhard Butterkofer and Michael Galler, Rafael Glucksmann, Ilhan
Khyatchkhyk, and Miriam Lexman were included in China's sanctions.
The U.S. joined the EU and other allies.
In a statement, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, I'm sorry, Antony, I always
do that, Antony Blinken said, the United States is committed to playing a strong leadership
role in global efforts to combat serious human rights abuses.
Through the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Program and similar efforts, the EU and US along with Australia, New Zealand and Canada released a joint statement saying, We will continue to stand together to shine a spotlight on China's human rights violations.
We stand united and call for justice for those suffering in Xinjiang.
The State and Treasury Departments released statements announcing financial terms that send a strong signal to those who violate or abuse international human rights.
And we will take further actions in coordination with like-minded partners.
Quote, We will continue to stand with our allies around the world in calling for an immediate end to the PRC's crimes and for justice for the many victims, Blinken said in a statement.
Jeanette Mohammed is an intern with Here and Now.
We also have this more specific story from CNBC, and I'm going to say it again.
Listen.
I don't like Joe Biden.
I don't like his administration.
I don't like the corporate establishment Democrats, but I will tell you this.
When presented with a conflict between the U.S.
interests and foreign adversaries, I will set aside my political concerns with Joe Biden and the Democrats, as well as with Republicans, and I will say we must stand united against a growing threat that is the Chinese Communist Party.
I'm worried the Biden administration is not up to the task and I'm worried that this may be just words and not legitimate action.
That being said, there is at least the words.
There is at least the action.
When Donald Trump crossed the demilitarized zone into North Korea without security, many criticized him saying he wasn't doing anything other than pandering to dictators.
I'm sorry.
I think he deserved credit for that because they could have snatched him up right there.
No security in North Korea.
It was a tremendous act of good faith, and I respect Trump for doing it.
Joe Biden, right now in his administration, sanctioning two Chinese officials citing human rights abuses against Uyghurs?
I don't know if it will be effective.
I don't know if it will backfire.
I just know I respect and appreciate action being taken by the U.S.
to go after these human rights abuses.
Now I think it's fair to point out the media is absolutely trying to frame this as though Joe Biden started the fight.
I'm not confident Joe Biden is willing to carry on this fight.
I know that he's taking actions now, which we must give credit for, we have to, because in the event that we actually do break apart, in the event, in the circumstance that Joe Biden actually is beholden to China, We're in serious trouble.
So all I can really do is cross my fingers and say, please, I hope they can do this.
I hope they can pull this off.
Because I'll present you with my worrying vision of the future.
Joe Biden may be compromised.
Tony Bobulinski, a confidant of the Biden family, said that the Biden family is compromised.
And we know about Joe bringing his son on Air Force Two.
That worries me.
We can see certain deferential behaviors from certain individuals on the Biden transition team to China.
And that means we will end up in a future where Chinese communist culture, the authoritarianism of their party, becomes dominant and spreads to the rest of the world.
There are many people I believe that are ultra wealthy that feel as though the U.S.
has already lost that battle or That something called Thucydides Trap predicts serious war which must be averted, in which case, they defer to China.
I don't want to live in a world that lives under the boot of the Chinese Communist Party.
They're authoritarian, they're despotic, and they welded people's doors shut and barricaded them in their homes during COVID.
They lied to us and the World Health Organization about what was going on with COVID while instructing their citizens abroad to buy PPE gear.
We have a few choices, and they're not good ones.
It's not an easy choice to make.
The U.S.
has tremendous power with military bases around the world.
With this, American interests persist.
But at least in the United States, for all of the problems and all the authoritarianism, there is still some accountability.
China doesn't have that.
When you criticize the police or a politician, they essentially kidnap you and torture you.
If you're a religious minority, they put you in camps.
If you want your freedom of speech in, say, Hong Kong, they will oppress you and install a puppet government.
That is the terrifying future that is Chinese Communist Party influence.
Which means, as they expand into their Belt and Road Initiative, we are at a serious disadvantage.
My fingers are crossed.
I'm fairly pessimistic.
CNBC reports the Biden administration on Monday sanctioned two Chinese officials citing their roles in serious human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang.
Beijing has previously rejected U.S.
charges that it has committed genocide against the Uyghurs, a Muslim population indigenous to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in northwest China.
China has also said that allegations of its use of detention camps are groundless, and that it instead uses facilities to provide vocational training to help stamp out Islamist extremism and separatism.
I understand those claims.
I understand those statements.
But we've seen the photos, we've seen the videos, and we've heard from the witnesses.
In the United States, we respect as a culture your right to practice your religion.
Now, I understand we have clashes over ideology and we have internal political bickering.
It's escalating to a very serious culture war which undermines our interests abroad.
And that, to me, is the most worrying thing.
I don't agree with the critical race theorists.
I don't agree with many of the left on policy.
But I think if we don't come together, And recognize the greater external threat.
We're in serious trouble.
I get it.
We have internal threats.
Our political fights, they go on seemingly forever.
But we have to be able to overcome this and remain a unified United States.
Otherwise, China will sweep across the globe, and they already are.
Fox News reports, China infrastructure plan could leave U.S.
grossly disadvantaged, ex-Navy leader says, as report warns of risks.
I'm not a big fan of the CFR either.
But I gotta tell you, man, we are between a rock and a hard place.
Authoritarian interests here in the U.S.
would strip us of our rights.
And Chinese interests.
Talk about a rock and a hard place, my friends.
Chinese communist interests, to clarify.
Fox News reports China's massive international infrastructure initiative, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, poses a significant challenge to U.S.
economic, political, climate change, and security interests, a new report released Tuesday by the Council on Foreign Relations warns.
A retired Navy leader involved in the report told Fox News that if left unchecked, the initiative could leave the U.S.
grossly disadvantaged.
The Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force, chaired by former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and former Obama Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, released the report Tuesday, warning of the implications of China's Belt and Road Initiative for the U.S.
Roughhead in it. I'm hoping pronouncing it right in an exclusive interview with Fox News said quote
It is important that America understands just how extensive Bri is the belt and road initiative and how China has been
has been able to expand globally and penetrate Into what he considers some of the key factors of what will
determine national power and america's role in the world The cost of an action is that the united states will find
that it will be dealing with countries that fundamentally are based on chinese
Infrastructure chinese information systems and with that a significant amount of chinese influence in many parts of
the world Ruffhead told Fox.
The U.S.
will find itself grossly disadvantaged if that is allowed to happen.
Chinese President Xi Jinping first announced China's Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, a planned multi-trillion dollar infrastructure program that is intended to link China with more than 100 countries through railroad, shipping, and energy projects.
The BRI seeks to recreate the Silk Road, an old network of trading routes between the East and West by investing large sums of money into other countries to build such infrastructure projects.
Already, China has poured massive investments into other countries as part of the initiative.
Proponents say the project will strengthen ties between Beijing and emerging markets, while lifting developing nations out of poverty.
However, critics of the BRI say it is part of China's desire to achieve trade dominance and control in order to compete with the United States.
Ruffhead said China has been able to make inroads in key regions and in key countries, warning that many are U.S.
allies.
One of the most significant moves China has made in its BRI, according to Ruffed, was in penetrating digital infrastructure in countries around the world.
Quote, to me, that infrastructure is how we are going to live, how we are going to operate, and how information will be garnered and used, he explained.
And China has done an incredible job in making that penetration.
Ruffed said the United States needs to become more active in participating in the standard-setting bodies as it applies to digital technology.
We walked away from that, Ruffhead said.
This report shows the breadth and depth of the Belt and Road Initiative and the need for the United States to look at it and say, what are we going to do about it?
He added, it is spreading Chinese influence in ways that the U.S.
had opportunities in the past that we didn't take advantage of.
China's had some momentum on this, particularly when you get into the digital space.
They have infrastructure already in place, and we need to figure out what the strategy should be to wean countries off of that, and provide more responsible, more open, and more transparent options that allow them to move forward.
Now, the previous administration, under Donald Trump, I believed was doing a decent job.
I say decent because there were many things I thought they were doing that was good.
However, could it be perfect?
I don't know.
Were there still problems?
Yes.
But under Donald Trump, he made China front and center.
You see, the Democrats were obsessed with Russia.
Russia was their big villain.
Michael Flynn was adamant that China was the actual threat.
Before Trump, they just kept talking about Russia, probably because they wanted to build the Qatar-Turkey pipeline through Syria, and Syria is allied with Russia, creating problems for the U.S.
Donald Trump sought to bolster U.S.
manufacturing and strengthen us from within.
This is paramount.
Many of our medicines and our goods are manufactured in China.
If China shut off manufacturing, we would be crippled.
It'd be horrifying.
Antibiotics aren't even being made here.
Vitamin C, not made here.
We would be helpless if China just decided one day to shut off the manufacturing.
Now, we do have some of our manufacturing in Mexico, but the point is, we need to shore up our critical infrastructure, because China is adamant, they are hell-bent, on gaining dominance around the world.
I don't blame them.
I don't blame any group of people for vying for power, and seeking to gain power.
But if we believe our values are better, and that human rights, free speech, and all of these values that we hold, must be paramount, Then we need to make sure we do not allow China to gain that dominance.
Unfortunately for us, it seems like it is inevitable.
The predictions say that now, because of COVID, by 2028 China will overtake the U.S.
Most of you know I'm a big fan of Star Trek, namely The Next Generation.
I watch that show with hope that we get to this future.
It is a classically liberal future.
For the most part, technology changes things.
But they believe in free speech.
They believe in the right to exist.
They don't believe in the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party.
If they do end up overtaking us, and their influence becomes law around the world, We're not going to have that beautiful future where we travel the stars.
We're going to have an authoritarian, Borg-like future, where we're all cogs in a machine, and we basically just suffer under the boot of the collective.
That, to me, is terrifying.
And that's why, as much as I'm not a fan of Biden, and I don't trust him, I'm hoping this is the right path forward, at least to some degree.
And we have to remain vigilant.
It's tough, I know, isn't it?
We were heavily critical of the Democrats and Biden because of their deference to China, and now we can only hope, we can only hope they're doing the right thing.
Keeping in mind, we have to be active in that fight, and we have to make sure we focus on stories like this.
There are a lot of stories I could have talked about today.
There's a lot of issues pertaining to the culture war.
Hopefully this is something that matters more to you and you're willing to share and get the word out about.
We don't want the U.S.
to fall apart.
We absolutely do not.
And it seems sometimes like it's going that direction.
With all the articles coming out talking about civil war, with even me talking about these articles, it's scary.
Many people say peaceful divorce.
I fear if peaceful divorce even happened, and that's what some people advocate for, China just takes over.
And then how long until our trade and our need for key materials is restricted because we don't abide by their influence, their laws?
We're already getting to that, we're already moving in that direction.
And that to me is horrifying.
Fox goes on to say, Ruffhead told Fox News that while the Trump administration toughened up some policies, BRI is much broader than just being tough on trade.
Quote, We need to put in place policies that address the security risk and economic advantage, or disadvantage, to the United States of China moving faster and more completely into some of the spaces that they've moved into, Ruffhead said, adding there needs to be a broader, more strategic public-private partnership approach.
As for the Biden administration's approach to China, Ruffhead said, the night is young.
I think we have some experienced hands in the Biden administration, particularly as it applies to Asia and China.
But the real question is with the emphasis on domestic issues, COVID, employment, the discord that exists in the country today.
Will there be enough energy and focus on putting together a coherent strategy to tie the many threads together?
Ruff had added that it's early in the Biden administration, but underscored the very good people in the administration that understand China, the implications of what we discuss in the report.
Bill Maher.
Liberal said we were a silly people because of the culture war and we need to focus on China.
Tucker Carlson said effectively the same thing.
The problem is, in the mainstream establishment left, we're not getting that rhetoric.
I understand Bill Maher is essentially a mainstream liberal, but he's not talking to the majority of mainstream liberals.
I mean, his show, I think it's around a million, you know, per episode, which is great and all, but Bill Maher is, he's a dying breed, to put it simply.
A liberal who despises the Republicans and Trump, but believes in free speech and is worried about the expansion of authoritarian Chinese communists.
On the mainstream left, we're getting stories like this from the Washington Post.
Bipartisan political rhetoric about Asia leads to anti-Asian violence here.
Sinophobia today is fueling a wave of domestic hatred.
Okay, I understand that, but that's fringe.
They're calling out Democrat and Republican alike concerns about China.
To me that's strange, and they're using social justice to push this.
They say, the Asian American sense of belonging was already fragile before a white gunman took action and committed atrocity in Atlanta.
They go on to say, he told the police race wasn't his motive.
But it's too simple to blame Trump for what's happening.
They say in the 1980s, officials from both parties cast Japan as the economic enemy.
Now it's China.
One of the few issues about which Democrats and Republicans agree.
And yes, it's true that China is an extremely bad actor when it comes to espionage and human rights.
But decades of official US foreign policy and rhetoric from the pundit class have had a unique effect on Asian Americans.
When the government frets about Russian hacking and election interference, there's little consequence for Americans of Russian heritage.
When officials express fear over China or other Asian countries, Americans immediately turn to a time-worn racial script that questions the loyalty, allegiance, and belonging of 20 million Asian Americans.
Most Americans are not skilled at distinguishing between people of different Asian origins or ancestries, and the result is that whenever China is attacked, so are Asian Americans as a whole.
I highlight this because I'm not here to play this culture war game.
I get it.
Fine.
I don't want anyone attacked.
And I saw this video of these weirdo, fringe, far-left, you know, paramilitary guys or whatever, and they were protesting out in front of a Chinese restaurant.
Yeah, that's nuts.
We should criticize that.
I'm scared the culture war is tearing us apart and is being weaponized by China in order to actually undermine our interests and allow them to gain strength.
And it's coming from our media institutions.
Now look, we see from NPR and CNBC, Joe Biden is sanctioning China.
But we see from the Washington Post and other, you know, outlets, That they're just, they're using it.
They're using the culture war for power.
It's something that we saw James Lindsay mention on the Tim Castaneda podcast when he said, it's political warfare.
And that there was a period where Chinese social media accounts would complain about what's called Baizhua.
That means white left.
They were mocking us for this social justice push.
But one day, all of a sudden they just agreed with it.
These accounts stopped saying it.
Why?
Because they realized it helped them.
The instability in the U.S.
and the culture war was bad for us.
In this article from Channel News Asia, they say, Social media worsens growing anti-China sentiments in Southeast Asia.
Social media movements such as the Milk Tea Alliance are tapping into discontent on the decline of democracy, and fears about the rise of China is part of this heady mix, says ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute visiting fellow.
Here's a sign.
We want democracy, not dictatorship.
Now this is talking about Singapore, but I highlight this because people in social media are starting to talk about what's happening in China and how what they're doing is bad.
That's a good thing.
That's the kind of sentiment that we need.
And then if it results in sanctions or some kind of action against the Chinese Communist Party, that's what we need.
But my fear is, they're going to use the culture war to undermine these very important conversations criticizing China.
The LA Times reports, We agree.
Anti-Chinese insults disrupt stop Asian hate protest authorities investigate
We agree. We don't want violence against any anyone We don't want war
We don't want violence against the Chinese Communist Party.
I'm sure some do, I suppose.
But the goal is to end the fighting and bring about peace.
The problem is, war is not so simple.
I try to explain these circumstances to people.
And I'll give you one example.
Imagine you're in the middle of the woods, in the middle of nowhere.
Absolute middle of nowhere.
You're lost.
You have limited supplies.
You don't know where you are.
And all of a sudden, you know, so you're carrying your weapon.
You've got some food and some water.
But you're running out.
You see off in the distance another person who looks just like you.
They're armed.
They've got water.
They've got food.
What do you do?
This is a hypothetical I ask a lot of people to question what their immediate reaction would be to be lost in the middle of nowhere with limited supplies, no food around, seeing someone carrying similar supplies.
Many people say that they would work together with that individual to survive.
Smart move.
It may actually work.
But sometimes it's not so simple.
What if this individual has a little bit of food and you know if you don't get it, you're in trouble?
What if the person has no food?
What if you see a person who's armed and they don't have food?
Can you trust that they're going to be peaceful and work with you?
What if they use their weapon to take from you your food and water because they would rather survive than die?
What if they're starving?
This is the issue with war.
When it comes to China, they have people to feed.
They have a system to maintain.
They have an ideology that they support.
The U.S.
is similar.
We have our system, our ideology, and our people.
We need to know that we have enough resources to support our people, to keep things stable.
And then eventually both sides look at each other and say, we won't agree.
There is no unity.
We completely disagree with what you're doing.
And we need what you've got.
And then you get war.
There are many people who would say the US should just stop.
That we should essentially just roll over.
And accept our fate.
There are many who would say, no, we must fight to survive.
In the end, I think most life on this planet will fight to survive.
Now, we're not dying.
We're not starving.
In fact, we're eating way too much.
We have more luxury than ever.
But how do we maintain the system?
How do we maintain just enough economic growth to keep Americans satisfied?
How do we prevent instability?
It's not easy.
China will exploit whatever they can, putting us at a disadvantage because we actually have some freedoms in this country.
The media, for instance, can report on whatever they want, for the most part.
There are national security instances where there are restrictions in place.
Typically, that's with agreement from the news outlets because they don't want to cause the U.S.
harm.
But China is authoritarian.
They can shut down conversations, force conversations, and do whatever they want, and nobody stops them because, well, they have the boot on the neck of their citizenry.
Unfortunately, while a major disadvantage to the Chinese people having to live this way, it's a major advantage to the Chinese government.
For us here in the U.S., we have things a little bit better.
Things have been kind of bad throughout the pandemic.
We have infighting, we have the culture war, but we have the freedom to speak, to criticize our political leaders, and try and improve that system.
We can only hope that our ability to criticize the government results not in destruction and division, but in a refining of that system and improvement.
I'm not convinced that'll be the case.
Because China knows they can exploit this weakness.
Because as much as it's a potential strength, there's a weakness in that propaganda, narratives, and manipulation can undermine everything we are doing to protect ourselves.
In the end, I do think we are headed towards a one-world government of sorts.
Not because it's a good thing and not because we want it to happen, but because it's seemingly inevitable due to communications and due to a lack of interest in the conflict.
However, American interests thought that having these trade agreements with China would result in them becoming more like us, and the inverse is true.
What happens then, when both sides say, I will not back down, and I will not live the way you want me to?
War.
And that's effectively Thucydides' trap, which says, when any rising economic power is about to surpass the dominant power, war breaks out.
In 12 of 16 historical instances in the past 500 years, it has happened.
A war between the US and China could theoretically wipe out this planet.
We have nuclear weapons now.
And according to Strauss' Howe Generational Theory, they say that every war will be fought with the most devastating weapons available.
Which means if we do enter war, it will likely be nuclear war and it will be bad for everyone.
So what do we do?
I don't know.
The sanctions may be a bad move.
The sanctions may ultimately result in an escalation of conflict.
I had a conversation with Cassandra Fairbanks on Timcast IRL and she said it's none of our business what they do.
We're not the world police.
We should not go into China.
We should not be trying to stop this.
You know, the human rights abuses because it's their country.
The problem is Hong Kong isn't.
Taiwan isn't.
They claim it is.
The South China Sea isn't.
They claim it is.
What do we do?
We sit back and they just take more and more.
We watch the atrocities.
If we sanction, it could lead to war sooner.
Maybe.
If we do nothing, war may be inevitable.
Think about what was the guy's name?
Neville Chamberlain.
Peace in our time.
If we just appease Germany, it will all end.
And it never did.
Until we made it end.
So what do we do?
I don't know.
I hope the move from the Biden administration is the right move.
I do not want to make a divisive political segment on culture war issues.
I want to say that so long as the Biden administration is actually doing good things to curtail the abuses in China and get these atrocities under control, And bring about a better future.
They will have my respect, but I will criticize them where I need to, particularly with the border crisis, because that's been a disaster.
For now, I don't know.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Yesterday on my main channel, which is youtube.com slash TimCast, it is a different channel from this one, I covered a story about CNN being accused of running a story about a staged coyote smuggling operation.
Basically, smuggling illegal immigrants across the border.
The accusation was that the smuggler was wearing like a bottle of clava and fatigues and it just looked way too on the nose.
Advocacy groups say the smugglers don't actually do this.
They try and blend in.
So they did not believe it was real.
Now...
I certainly would believe CNN would stage something like this, or at the very least, they knew it was staged, and they decided to run the story anyway, because, you know, who cares about the facts, right, CNN?
But in the end, I'll just, you know, what I concluded was, the simplest solution is, they just filmed an illegal border crossing.
The question was, why is it that these people wearing these masks and fatigues, why is it so obvious I gotta tell you, it's a simple solution.
It really is.
There is a boom right now because of Joe Biden's failure, because of the lackadaisical attitude we get from the Biden administration, because of their attempts to appease the woke left.
There are many new smugglers getting into the business now.
You guys ever watch Breaking Bad?
I've only seen a little bit of it, but I remember there's that scene, right?
For those not familiar with that show, it's where the guy, he's a teacher, he's like a science teacher, and then he gets cancer, and then he has to sell drugs to pay off his medical bills.
Okay, so anyway, he wants to, like, do a deal, like sell drugs, and he meets these people out in the middle of the desert, and they're like, what are we doing here?
Like, why don't we just meet at the mall or something?
The point was, this guy, Heisenberg, you know, the main character, He learned about this stuff from movies, which is not real.
Like, if you wanna do a deal, you gotta go in the middle of the desert, which is honestly, like, more obvious.
These weird cars pulling up in the middle of nowhere.
Someone could see him driving out and be like, what are they doing?
As opposed to being in the mall and just handing someone a package.
And that's the point.
Could it be that this incident we saw with the guy wearing the balaclava is just some guy who's like, damn, now's my chance to make some cash!
Because Joe Biden ain't doing nothing about this.
Things are getting worse.
Worse than they've ever been.
So now, you got a bunch of guys who are like, I could do that job.
Not knowing anything about it.
Puts on a ski mask and fatigues and is like, okay, this is what I'm supposed to do, I guess.
And is like giving out masks.
Why?
It might not look normal, but it could just be new, inexperienced smugglers.
Here's the story.
Exclusive.
People are the new dope.
Mexican cartels are seizing on Biden's lax border policies to run multi-million dollar human trafficking scheme and are using families as decoys to smuggle single adults and drugs from elsewhere.
Could it really be that simple, my friends?
CNN didn't need to stage it.
They need only show up with a camera because Biden has done such a terrible job in these first few months and Kamala that it's resulting in cartels and new smugglers rushing.
Now, I will say this.
I actually think the cartels are particularly savvy and efficient, and I gotta tell you, man, you better respect the cartels.
I'm not saying you have to like what they do, but you respect them in that these people don't play games.
I don't think the people who are, like you see in this video, the guy with the ski mask?
Now, that's probably some dude who's new to this, and he's like, is this what I do?
The cartels got well-oiled machines.
They know what's up.
They control these territories, and they shut down anyone who dare oppose them, even the Mexican government.
That's something that even Trump was calling out.
Powerful organizations.
And they found two big... There have been two new things that have emerged since we've started legalizing recreational marijuana.
Across the U.S., more and more states are decriminalizing, is the appropriate way to say it.
In response, the cartels needed to find something else that's worth money.
And surprisingly, there were two big things.
The first was avocados.
No joke!
Avocados, man.
Legit.
I went down to Mexico just over a year ago.
Maybe a year and a half ago at this point.
or like a year and five months.
And I was talking to the locals and they were like, oh yeah, yeah, man, the cartels figured out
avocados are big business.
And I was kind of laughing, I'm like, doesn't that mean they're kind of going like legit?
And they're like, yeah, but they're still the cartels, you know, if they're making more money on avocados,
it's not about drugs, it's about just selling a product.
The next big thing though, people.
Now's the chance.
You've got these caravans coming up from Guatemala.
You've got people coming from Honduras.
They're making their way through, and you got the U.S.
government saying, nah, none of that, under Trump.
Now that Joe Biden stepped in, and the dude is just befuddled, bewildered, and falling downstairs, a lot of people are like, This is our chance.
Don't take my word for it.
Let me give you the proof.
Newsbusters runs this story.
Quote, letting my hopes up, illegal immigrant tells ABC, NBC, Biden is why they're here.
They report.
It was bad news bears for the Biden administration on Sunday, as the ABC's this week and NBC's Sunday today had to reluctantly admit that the crisis on the southern border was happening because of their policies.
But it wasn't some great moral epiphany that led the liberal media to finally tell the truth.
It was the fact illegal immigrants themselves were saying they were crossing because President Biden told them the border was open.
So let me just pause for a second before we read more of this.
The loss of life.
The criminals.
The cartels.
The smugglers.
They are telling you to your face.
This is Joe Biden.
It's Joe Biden.
We knew that Joe Biden was going to be weak on a lot of these issues.
We knew that during the campaign, the Democrats were saying things like, no deportations and a path of citizenship.
That's the kind of rhetoric that even Jake Tapper was roasting Jen Psaki for.
At least, that's my understanding of it.
Like, isn't this encouraging people?
Listen, I want all these people to have a good life.
Each and every one of them deserves a good life.
But you don't give them a good life by telling them to cross over the river where they drown, or to wander through the desert, or to be fugitives from the law.
That's insane.
You need to tell them to come here the proper way, and it's not that easy.
It's the most frustrating thing that you have migrants who come from these countries who do everything right and they come into the United States and they flourish.
And then for some reason you have advocacy groups and Democrats being like, let everybody run through the border.
Why?
So they can be second-class citizens hiding from cops getting paid under the table?
That's not a good life!
Maybe it's better than where they came from and they're desperate, but I do not think that is appropriate.
That's why the Remain in Mexico policy made a lot of sense.
Because it wasn't cruel.
It's like, yo, we're going to process your claims, but you've got to wait here.
Now Mexico wasn't too thrilled about it.
Check us out.
News Buster says, with NBC spending the last week refusing to call what was happening at the border crisis in any way, the network tried to make up for the lost time by throwing out the term at seemingly every opportunity.
And correspondent Dasha Burns was at the Rio Grande Valley where she whined about politicians playing the border blame game.
Burns spoke with one family, via a translator, who explained that they entered the U.S.
illegally because they wanted to take advantage of the opportunities Biden was giving them.
Burns, some say the new president gave them hope for a life in America.
Why did you decide to come now?
The Illegal Immigrant says to take advantage of the opportunities that the President has given to the people who come from Central America to come with their family.
It was the same story on ABC when co-host Martha Raddatz spoke with a father from Brazil who fled to the U.S.
with his family.
He told her that Biden was getting his hopes up.
Reddit says, so did you come here because Joe Biden was elected president?
And the immigrant, the illegal immigrant says, basically, basically, the main thing was the violence in my country.
And the second thing I think was Joe Biden, you know, he's like letting up my hope.
You know what I mean?
Definitely.
When she asked him about trying to enter America illegally under former President Trump, he said he wouldn't dare try.
Definitely not.
Definitely.
We had the chance, you know, but the same violence that's going on today was there last year.
We used to watch the news, and we definitely wouldn't do this.
But Raddatz continued to play defense for the Biden administration when speaking with Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey.
We flew alongside the governor as he took an aerial tour of the border to see the situation for himself.
He says Joe Biden is to blame.
She shrugged and threw her hands when suggesting that Biden did all he could when he told migrants not to comment in an interview with the network last week.
Luckily, Ducey made her look foolish.
Reddit said, You heard President Biden say the other day, don't come.
What more can he do?
Deucey says, Well, he certainly can communicate more often, more clearly, and he should be talking to Mexican President André Manuel López Obrador.
He's got a big microphone.
He needs to use it appropriately.
But the Biden administration has turned back the majority of those crossing into the U.S., many distraught after believing they would find refuge in America, she pouted.
Meanwhile, the broadcast networks were still refusing to show how migrants had crossed over the border illegally earlier this month while wearing shirts and holding signs that said, Biden, please let us in.
And that's true.
They were wearing shirts that said, Biden, please let us in.
I am sick of these pathetic, feckless politicians.
Donald Trump, for all his problems, was the guy going, no, no, uh-uh, no.
And they knew it.
Look, these people come to the border.
They're wearing shirts saying, Biden, please let us in, because they are manipulating the emotions of the Democrat voter base to take advantage of the system that results in detriment for everyone.
I have personally seen this when I was covering what was going on in Sweden.
We need to make sure that when migrants come in and all those people wearing those shirts are placed properly so that they can find work, they are protected by the law, their rights are guaranteed, but just having them waltz on in creates a surf class.
And I get it.
Bernie Sanders said it in 2015.
Open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal.
They want cheap, surf labor.
People that are scared of the law, that won't fight for their rights, and will get paid dirt wages.
It's how they circumvent workers' rights.
The things we've accomplished over the past hundred years.
But for some reason, you see, the left, ever manipulated by their emotions, unfortunately, Agree to things that hurt them.
I love when they're like, since Ronald Reagan, wealth inequality has been skyrocketing.
I'm like, oh yeah, what was the Republican Party doing back then?
What was it?
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
Mass migration.
They were the party of serious immigration.
Now, I'm in favor of immigration.
I absolutely am.
Because we need more workers, and more workers means economic expansion.
That is good for the United States.
And the people who are coming here are the people who legit believe in the American Dream!
Not like many of these, like, young millennial types that don't think it exists.
No, these people are coming here because they know it exists.
Here's the issue.
If they just come in randomly and they're running through the desert, they get sick.
These people could die.
Kids could die.
And they end up in communities laced with violence.
They have no access to their rights.
It is just a disaster.
When they come in properly, we know we can set them up properly.
We know where we can benefit the economy for everybody.
There has to be a basic level of control.
It's remarkable how the Democrats and leftists don't seem to care about any of this.
No, the only thing they really care about is don't don't arrest these people or whatever.
And it's like, dude, let me show you how they really feel.
Kamala Harris under fire for laughing and saying not today when reporter asked her if she will visit the border just hours after release of photos showing the hellhole conditions at Biden's migrant camps.
So, Biden is operating concentration camps?
I mean, that's what AOC was saying about Trump, right?
Biden reopened them, so Biden is now running concentration camps?
Look, he's not.
But where is the left on this one?
Now, there's been some criticism.
AOC has criticized Joe Biden for reopening one of these facilities, but the energy just ain't there.
Look, I'll give AOC respect for slamming the Biden administration for reopening this facility, but where's the...
Where's the photo op?
Where's the coming down and saying, Joe Biden, tear down this wall?
It's just not there.
Now here's the craziest thing about all this.
Kamala Harris, laughing.
I despise this person.
She's laughing!
There are people who are dying at the border.
There are cartels smuggling people across.
It is a crisis.
It is a disaster.
It is the worst crisis we've seen yet.
And Kamala Harris laughs in your face and in their faces.
It's funny to her.
It's always funny.
This woman laughs inappropriately because she enjoys the suffering.
You think about what she did when she was in California, keeping people past their prison sentences to use as cheap labor to fight wildfires.
She took these people and said, you get a dollar an hour or whatever they pay and go fight fires, risk your lives for the state.
And she laughs every time.
You know, it's funny.
It's almost like, how did we get a villain president mocking and laughing at the suffering of others?
The Daily Mail reports, Kamala Harris was asked if she had plans to visit the US-Mexico border on Monday, but appeared to laugh at the question posed by a reporter.
Do you have any plans to visit the border, came a question while in the tarmac.
Not today, she responded before laughing, but I have before and I'm sure I will again.
Was that sarcasm?
Is she being sarcastic?
Not today?
Sure, I'll go again.
Or is she saying, F you and F them, I don't care.
That's what she's really saying, man.
The laughter from this administration as it all burns to the ground.
Could you imagine?
You know, Joe Biden struggles to get up the stairs.
He falls down.
Trump is saying, like, it's going to be Kamala Harris.
She's going to be made president soon.
We're going to have a legit super villain president.
Okay, I'm somewhat kidding, right?
But think about this.
The maniacal laughter at human suffering?
That's Kamala Harris!
And I think even the progressives recognize that.
We're gonna have a president sitting there, and they're gonna be like, Madam President, 23 children were killed in an airstrike.
unidentified
And she's gonna go, Well, you know, we'll have to do it again, I guess.
tim pool
That's Kamala Harris.
She laughs all the time.
One of the weirdest things I've ever seen was when she was asked about Joe Biden being a racist and she just bursts out laughing.
Laughing at you, laughing in your face, laughing in my face, laughing in the face of the progressives Who criticized Joe Biden over the racism.
Kamala Harris laughs in our faces.
Why?
Because she knows she's got a bunch of dumb liberals who will just vote for her and Biden no matter what because they hate Trump.
And you know what, progressives?
While she's sitting there laughing in your face as people are questioning Joe Biden as a racist, she's sitting there laughing in your face.
Y'all vote for her anyway.
Now, she's laughing in the faces of the families that are suffering.
It's disgusting.
And we knew this is who she was.
And this is what the administration is.
The worst crisis we've seen probably in a generation or more.
Maybe the worst border crisis we've ever seen.
Joe Biden's unable to handle it.
He's nowhere to be found.
These people are being encouraged to come by his policies and Kamala is laughing about the whole thing.
Remarkable.
The Vice President's response led to sharp criticism online.
Hey Kamala, you better get down there.
She laughs off a lot of questions because she's incompetent.
No.
She's not laughing because she's incompetent.
She's laughing at you.
She's laughing at all of us.
Because she knows she can do whatever she wants.
She can mock, belittle, smear, deride, and gloat in the human suffering of others because she is a bad person.
That's why it was so powerful when Tulsi Gabbard smacked her down.
You know, when Kamala mocked smoking, like laughed about smoking weed, but then was locking up people for smoking weed.
When she threatened and laughed about locking up single mothers because their kids weren't in school.
She is a psychopath.
Who enjoys human suffering.
That's why she is laughing.
When they were like, you called Biden racist, she busts out laughing.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
Because she knows y'all can't do nothing about it.
She knew that even though She called Joe Biden a racist and the media was calling it out.
She laughs her ass off because she knew he'd get elected anyway.
She knows she can act with impunity.
She can laugh in your face, spit in your face, disrespect you, and deride those who are suffering.
And she knows she will get elected anyway.
That's the sickness that our country is dealing with.
Someone said, translation, no, she wasn't talking about your vacation plans.
Kamala Harris, there's a crisis you are ignoring.
Not a joke, not funny, and people deserve real answers.
I'm sure I will again, said another furious contributor.
Biden also said on Sunday that he'll be making the trip at some point, despite previously saying he had no plans to visit.
Harris was in Florida as she promoted the passage of the 1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.
She posted this photo, she's like, help is here, Florida!
Florida's doing fine.
I mean, except for the riots at spring break and the women, you know, twerking on cop cars and stuff, but that's something totally different.
Will they be made to answer for laughing about the crisis?
I think the answer is no.
Maybe the journalists might actually ask a real question.
But I would like to see, you know, if we had a real press, a real press corps, every single one would say to Jen Psaki at the next press briefing, why is Vice President Harris laughing at what's going on at the border?
And then when she gives you some dumb non-answer, well, I think she was just laughing to alleviate tension.
No, no, no, no.
Why is she laughing at all?
I don't care.
Do you think it's appropriate that she's laughing while children are being locked in cages?
Now listen, photos have come out showing these kids in these facilities, and it's bad.
It's real bad.
People are talking about the pandemic, and these kids are lying next to each other, like shoulder to shoulder, basically touching.
So yeah, COVID's going to be a huge problem.
They're claiming that, you know, under Trump, it was kids in cages.
I'd like to see the same level of scrutiny now.
Now in my personal opinion, I don't blame the administration for having kids in these facilities.
I don't know what else to tell you.
I do think it's really funny to see conservatives all of a sudden being like, look what Biden is doing, and this is what really annoys me about politics.
Nah.
The Biden administration is doing the right thing with these kids.
Is it perfect?
No.
Can they give them better facilities?
Probably.
But they can't just have the kids wander the desert.
It's not funny.
It's sick.
It's a net negative.
It's a horrifying position we find ourselves in.
Biden deserves to be criticized by the left for their own principles, but they won't do it, which now you have conservatives doing it, and it's the stupidest thing ever.
Trump was not wrong to operate facilities to hold these children when we don't know where their parents are.
Biden is not wrong to do the exact same thing.
Biden is, however, the spineless and pathetic leadership That is causing the problem to become worse.
And Kamala Harris knows, and she thinks it's hilarious.
She thinks it's funny.
And that's what we get with President Joe Biden.
He makes it worse.
The migrants say, I am coming because of him.
And then Kamala laughs about it.
The cartels are using this.
The cartels are...
They're getting in the business.
They know.
Think about how insanely weak Joe Biden is.
That he's opened the door to such crime.
To such suffering.
Man.
I thought the Biden administration was going to be slipping on banana peels and stuff.
And it is.
It is.
I just thought it would be funnier than that.
Not sad and twisted.
And the Kamala Harris thing makes it all just so much worse.
The mockery, the laughter.
It's disgusting.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I'm sure by now many of you have heard about the tragic incident that occurred in Boulder, Colorado.
I'm not going to get into graphic detail because I want to focus on the arguments that are affecting us politically from things like this.
First and foremost, the culprit in this tragic incident, they said, many progressives, was a white man because preliminary photos came out showing what appeared to be a white man.
As it turns out, I guess technically it's not a white guy.
I don't know how the rules work on the left, but this guy is apparently a Muslim who hated Trump, hated conservatives, and had sympathies for ISIS, which is another stereotypical type, you know, culprit, I suppose.
We have a few tweets that are included in a post from the Post Millennial.
Ian Miles Chong says from the suspect's now removed Facebook page, he said, quote,
he inherited a growing economy and the unemployment rate was low. The economy was on an upwards
spiral. He won because of racism. These are comments that the culprit in Boulder said about
Donald Trump.
The reason I bring this up is not because this segment is going to be about this man.
This segment is going to be about gun control and political manipulation.
The left, there was one tweet, it was Amy Siskind, said, you know, obviously it was a white man that did this.
And then once the name came out, and there was an L in front of it, and people realized it was not your typical white male, this was You know, a guy accused of having ISIS sympathies.
Now she said something like, let's not glorify the shooter and focus on his name.
All right.
Well, as you can probably expect, this is all moving in one direction.
Gun control.
And I gotta tell you, my friends, having become a gun owner in the past year, it's really insane reading tweets from many of these people, because right now the big trend on Twitter is AR-15, Second Amendment, gun control, etc.
And it's amazing how little these people know, but they're driven by tribalism.
That's it.
They're not driven by solutions, right?
Many of these people say they want gun control because they want to minimize harm.
I would believe that if they actually sat down and had a conversation with somebody who understood anything about guns.
When I try explaining to people anything about guns, they recoil, go full tribal, and say, why are you defending the person, or we just want to save lives, or they change the subject.
Give a shout out to my good friend Cameron Kasky.
Who normally, I like the tweets he posts.
He's, you know, a bit of a, you know, traditional leftist.
Well, I shouldn't say leftist.
He's more of a traditional liberal, you know, pro-Democrat type personality.
He has those typical Democrat talking points.
And when I point out a few things, notably, He said he mocks Second Amendment rights individuals, which includes leftists, and I'll prove it.
He says, you know, he's laughing at these people who think that they're going to be able to defend themselves against the U.S.
government and things like that.
My response was, you know, ask the Viet Cong or the Taliban.
Hellfire missiles cannot occupy city streets.
Instead of responding with any kind of defense of his idea, he just breaks down and starts making snarky jokes.
Alright, fine, I get it.
You're trolling.
You don't actually believe what you're saying.
Alright, I guess.
I walked into that trap and Caskey doesn't actually believe what he purports to post about.
Fine.
If I got trolled, I got trolled.
But there are many people who are following him and responding who don't know anything about this stuff.
And when I make a simple point about what is a hunting rifle versus what is an actual weapon of war, people don't like the truth.
For those that aren't familiar, before we get into the news about the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I have on the screen, and we're going to talk about manipulation, media propaganda, and tribalism, I would just like to say, To all the people who are saying ban AR-15s, you're not saying anything.
Like, I don't understand what it is you actually want to ban.
Because there's a bunch of other kinds of guns that function similarly, semi-automatic rifles, and the AR-15 is just one of many.
Would banning the AR-15 mean not banning the AR-10?
Would that mean that like Vectors and, you know, Rugers, those are all fine?
Are you saying you don't want semi-automatic rifles?
Are you talking specifically about like 5.56 NATO?
I don't know what you mean when you say this.
And they try and do this thing where they're like, look at every single one of these instances where a tragedy has happened and it's all AR-15s.
And I'm like, that's like saying gun.
It's like, look at all of these incidences with guns and they used a gun.
I'm like, okay.
You know what's really crazy?
And I'd rather want to get into this because I've become much more of a gun...
I don't necessarily want to say advocate, I suppose, but as a gun owner and someone who actually knows about this stuff, it's getting really frustrating for me, because I'll tell you this.
I do believe there are regulations and laws that could actually help solve these problems.
I know.
And all of the staunch 2A people recoil in disgust and horror, Tim.
Hold on.
I didn't say where those regulations would lie, and I think we need to have a legitimate conversation about whether or not background checks work, and whether or not there's an issue with mental health.
You see the problem?
The regulation to stop gun violence doesn't need to be, necessarily, on guns.
There's other things that can be done in other areas.
How about everyone's allowed to keep and bear arms, but then you have specific, I don't know, you have guards, you prepare for these things.
I'm just saying.
Simply put, a legitimate conversation about gun control and gun rights doesn't necessarily mean the solution is putting laws on guns, ammunition, and gun accessories, especially with 3D printing.
There's photos of people, they 3D print and mill their own weapons, man.
Cat's out of the bag.
Well, here we go, baby.
The New York Post.
Senate Judiciary Committee to hold gun violence hearing Tuesday.
A top Senate committee will convene Tuesday for a hearing on gun violence less than 24 hours after the tragedy in Boulder.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will kick off its constitutional and common-sense steps to reduce gun violence hearing at 10 a.m., which will consider public health, law enforcement, and community-based approaches aimed at saving lives and making communities safer.
I got no problem with that.
The issue I will say is likely, which I will likely have a problem with, is that it's all a disguise for just taking away people's rights.
The left and the right are in complete agreement.
People have a right to keep and bear arms.
I know, I know, all of a sudden everyone's saying, what are you talking about?
The left wants to ban guns.
They don't.
Because I don't consider authoritarian right corporate Democrats to be leftists.
And that is, maybe I should clarify and we should adapt our speaking on this, because I've often referred to the Democrats as the left in a colloquial sense.
But in the true left, the Marxists, the socialists, I always point out These people love guns, and Karl Marx told them to.
Now, as the Democrats are starting to push this narrative, and we do have these tragedies, I want to show you just how depraved things can really be.
Check this out.
A few weeks ago, we saw what looked like a coordinated series of fake stories.
Look at this.
Mass shooting surge in Pennsylvania as nation faces record high.
Mass shooting surge in Missouri as nation faces record high.
In Florida, record high.
Tennessee, record high.
In Wisconsin.
In New York.
Mass shootings fall, but nation faces record high.
What's with all of these identical stories that are written the exact same way, which are lying?
Well, I shouldn't necessarily say lying, but poorly framed to mislead people into not realizing what's going on.
You may have heard about what happened in Boulder, Atlanta, and these are horrifying stories, and it breaks my heart when I hear these things.
But you don't hear about what happened in Chicago, did you?
Did y'all hear about what happened in Chicago last weekend?
You didn't.
Now why is that?
Why is it that you didn't hear about what happened in Chicago a week ago?
Because it was, I don't know, equally or worse?
Equally as bad or worse than these tragedies?
I think it's because the woke left.
These are white progressives from the suburbs.
They are not moved or inspired by a story about inner-city black youth engaging in acts of violence against other inner-city black youth.
I am motivated by this.
Because I see these stories, and I think it's a nightmare.
I lived those stories.
I grew up in Chicago.
I saw these things play out.
I saw fights devolve into shootouts.
Or almost shootouts.
But I've seen people in Chicago shoot guns.
I've been shot at randomly in Chicago.
Don't know why.
When I hear these stories about Chicago, it breaks my heart.
And then I look around, and they don't tell that story.
You know why?
I think they're actually targeting well-to-do white liberals.
They're not leftists.
They're white liberals.
They're authoritarian right corporate democrat types.
These are people who want to be in the tribe and want to push the narrative.
And so, do they relate to Chicago inner-city youth violence?
No, of course not.
That story's not going to motivate anybody.
You'd think they could play up the racism angle and say it's these poor communities.
The problem is, the crime is among minorities targeting minorities.
So what do they do?
They focus on other instances where they can make it about a different race attacking a different race, thus racism.
They tried to do that with Boulder.
It turns out the guy was actually a Muslim, so I don't know how that plays out with their narrative.
But let's talk about gun control, my friends.
And I'm going to get into some of what we're seeing on social media.
The first thing I want to do is show you how, uh, the best quote probably from Karl Marx.
Now, Karl Marx has one of the best quotes ever.
Yeah, that's right.
I can hear all the communists, all the capitalists cringing, but it's true and I'll read it for you.
Carl Marx said, under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered.
Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary.
unidentified
Woo!
tim pool
Carl Marx!
He's got it on that one.
Gotta give it to him.
I think the reality is, Karl Marx may have had a fairly dumb ideology, but he had a lot of things right.
He pointed out a lot of important things.
The problem is his solutions not good.
I think it's fair to say that Marx identified some problems and pointed out some areas like this where under no pretext should you give up your arms or ammunition.
The problem is his ideology ultimately led dictators to weaponize it for the opposite of what he probably actually intended.
That's too bad.
A lot of his ideas Made sense.
And I would say his solutions are nightmarish and childish.
But when it comes to this, he pointed out something correct.
And there's a quote you'll see from many leftists.
They'll say it on Twitter.
Under no pretext.
I love it.
That's a fantastic phrase.
And I'll use it now.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered.
I agree.
And I gotta tell you, it's not about, in my opinion, a tyrannical government.
For many people it is.
Not for me.
For me it's about, for one, I, as an individual, am not going to be left to the whims of some lunatic who wants to break into my house and kill and rob me because he doesn't care about the law.
I do care about the law.
Which means as a law-abiding citizen, I abide by the laws as it pertains to firearms.
If they ban certain firearms, guess what?
Depending on how the laws work, if they're grandfathered in, then, you know, we're fine.
But if they said you can't have a certain thing, yeah, I'd give it up.
Because I follow the law, and therein lies the big problem.
We law-abiding citizens don't want conflict, war, or crisis.
But we want the right to defend ourselves.
I especially, I've been already told in certain states, where they're like, you're not allowed to have a gun unless you have a legitimate reason.
They're like, oh yeah, you definitely do.
Because I have stalkers, and creepy people have tried breaking into my home.
Should I not have the right to defend myself?
So then they say, yeah, but we only want to ban the AR-15.
And I'm like, fine, but that makes no sense.
What are you really banning?
So any other weapon that can fire a 5.56 or a 2.23 is fine?
Just not that specific model, that specific build?
You're not telling me anything.
But let's take a look at how we're doing.
The Onion.
You may have seen this.
No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens.
It's amazing.
I made fun of several news outlets for fact-checking the Babylon Bee.
But, man, it is a sad day when we have to remind people what a joke is.
Because people on the left believe the onion is real.
So I can understand that issue when, you know, Snopes had to fact-check the Babylon Bee.
It's because many of these liberal Democrat types, not the leftists.
The leftists, I think, believe dumb things, but hey, we can agree on certain things, right?
It's these traditional Democrat types that think satire is real.
They think it's real.
They think this is a real story.
We're the only nation where this regularly happens.
Did you just Google search it?
That's not true!
It's amazing.
So I googled searched it.
Mass shootings by country 2021 per capita.
The US is number 66 in terms of mass shootings.
Now because we are a very large country with 330 million people, yeah of course we have more mass shootings.
But that's just hard numbers.
It doesn't actually take into account the culture of the issue.
Europe has more.
unidentified
Apparently, Svalbard has more.
tim pool
Oh, I'm sorry, it's Norway.
But you can see Norway has the death rate per 1 million is 1.8.
unidentified
The U.S.
is .089.
tim pool
Remarkable.
US is point zero eight nine.
Remarkable.
So it's just not true.
My next question is Chicago, New York, LA.
How many mass shootings, like, how many of these, like, you know, just shooting events do we have in, say, Texas, where people got, you know, armed to the teeth, or West Virginia, where people are especially armed to the teeth, and you have constitutional carry?
It's just not there, is it?
It's weird, isn't it?
Let me show you something.
We have this post from Muslim Marine, a verified Twitter user.
He posts, An AR-15 uses the same exact round my M16 used when I served in the Marines.
Even as an active duty Marine, our weapons were stocked, locked in an armory and only permitted during training or war.
P.S.
An AR-15 is a weapon of war and should not belong in the hands of everyday citizens.
No, it isn't.
An M16 is.
That's why we have the civilian variant, the AR-15.
Here's what I don't understand.
I mean, I guess I do get it.
Narrative, right?
This guy, Muslim Marine, is a verified user.
He got 2,300 retweets on this post.
And it's just lies.
All lies.
If I want to sit down with you and have a conversation about what weapons we do want to ban and why, you have to at least be honest with me.
But they're not.
They're authoritarian, Authoritarian right.
They're not libertarian right.
They're not authoritarian left.
They're like center-right authoritarian.
They want a mixed system where capitalism works for the powers that be.
They want to take away your rights.
They are not about any kind of distribution.
They're kind of in the middle, I suppose.
So maybe there's authoritarian center.
Hey, kind of like the Nazis.
Let's break this down.
An AR-15 is not a weapon of war.
Quite literally not.
Depending on which round you have it chambered for, it could be for a variety of purposes.
An AR-15 is functionally just a modern semi-automatic rifle.
So is a Ruger 10-22.
You gonna ban that next?
I guess.
It fires 22, so sure, whatever.
The point is, this is a lie.
It's a manipulation.
unidentified
Alright?
tim pool
Let me show you the Bushmaster.
For those that aren't familiar, okay?
Because I know many of you probably know a lot more about guns than I do, but as someone who has, you know, recently been purchasing more weapons and learning about their functions and their uses, I give you...
The 450 Bushmaster versus the 223 Remington.
The 223 Remington is what you're going to find in this, I believe, the M16, for which Muslim Marine is referring to, is chambered for 5.56.
That's his weapon of war.
This is functionally identical.
The 223 Remington and the 5.56 are interchangeable, almost the same thing.
The 5.56, I'm not entirely sure.
The difference is I think it's higher pressure.
So the .223 Remington is still a powerful round.
Now, on the left, on the screen, I'm displaying a .450 Bushmaster with a polymer tip.
This is larger.
A larger round, designed to one-shot big game.
It is more powerful and more devastating.
And interestingly, it can fit... I don't know if that's true, but this is my understanding.
I could be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, for those that know their guns more than me.
The .450 Bushmaster Can fit in a magazine that is supposed to be for the staggered 2, 2, 3, or 5, 5, 6.
Meaning the magazines are functionally interchangeable.
So let me tell you something.
The round on the left, which is bigger.
It's bigger.
was designed specifically for hunting.
It was literally designed to one-shot big game.
Hogs and deer.
So when you are hunting, you're not firing too many rounds.
Five-five-six is not going to cut it.
You need something better.
An AR-15 can be chambered in 450.
And in fact, that's fairly common.
In the Wikipedia article for 450 Bushmaster, they actually show an AR-15.
So when this guy says the AR-15 uses the same round, what does that mean?
That's like just saying a car can have an engine.
So you had a 5.56, now we're talking about a totally different round for a different purpose.
In which case, the 450 Bushmaster is a hunting round designed for hunting, used in a rifle that is used for hunting.
Why would that get banned?
What's the issue?
It's simple.
There's two things.
Most of you probably know this.
Most of you probably know more than me.
But it's just a lie to manipulate.
And I'll go through some of the tweets here.
Second Amendment is trending.
People are discussing the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of people to keep and bear arms after an incident in Boulder, Colorado.
One person says, reality check, the Second Amendment was written about muskets.
Was it?
What's the definition of arms?
Pretty sure people had private warships back in the day, so I'm not entirely convinced that's correct.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks says, Quick quiz!
What is the only thing in the U.S.
Constitution that mentions regulations?
Answer, Second Amendment.
It clearly states people with weapons must be well regulated.
In America, that has been interpreted to mean that is the one thing that should have absolutely no regulations.
Insanity.
This, to me, is proof that Cenk Uygur is not a leftist.
He is an authoritarian right corporate democrat masquerading as a leftist to rope up progressive votes for the Democrats.
Of course, I've said that for a long time.
All right, let's fix this one.
The actual language of the original article before it was put into the Bill of Rights actually clarified you need not be in the military to bear arms.
They got rid of it out of a fear that they thought it could be construed to prevent conscription, which was very important at the time.
Okay.
Well-regulated.
What does that mean?
Well, we can have an argument all day and night about it, but it's irrelevant.
The text of the Second Amendment is a well-regulated militia, you know, being necessary for a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Perhaps the Founding Fathers should have just put the last part of that in there, but the first part was not referring to a government-regulated militia.
The general idea, if you actually read history, was well-regulated in the sense that Regular people, normal people in their homes, should have functional, clean, operating weapons.
Because the militia was not the National Guard.
The militia was not the army.
They were farmers who had guns and were called upon when the defense was needed.
What does that mean?
Well-regulated could basically mean when called upon, not government telling you can't have the weapon.
That's the opposite of what it says.
Think about what they're saying here with this paradox of language.
A well-regulated militia being, you know, necessary for a free state, etc.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Keep and bear arms.
It certainly has been infringed.
Many states you can't bear arms at all for any reason.
No joke.
But why is it that it would say a well-regulated militia is necessary and that you should keep, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
How is Cenk Uygur construing it to mean, quite literally, they can restrict what arms you have?
It says, not be infringed, the right to keep and bear arms.
Written about muskets.
Sure, but there were a bunch of, like, there were a bunch of weapons back then that were devastating.
I mean, they had artillery, they had cannons.
So what?
The issue is We fought a revolutionary war, the Boston Massacre, gun control, all of this stuff played a role, and the Founding Fathers knew what that meant.
The idea is, and I think conservatives get this one wrong too, they think the Second Amendment is about tyrannical government.
It's not.
It's partly.
It's about defending a free state, period.
Let's say we are these United States, and a foreign invader invades our soil.
There is a gun behind every blade of grass.
You know what that means?
To maintain a free state from enemies both foreign and domestic, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Perhaps that was the appropriate language they should have used.
They didn't.
We can argue all day and night, but one thing is clear.
The people on the left have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to how guns function, and what they're for, and why we should or should not have them.
And that's my biggest problem with it.
And it's always been my problem with it.
I've never been a staunch anti-two-way person.
I've never been one of these liberals saying, ban guns.
No, because I grew up as like a far-left anarchist type, and don't trust the government.
But, at a certain point, I was kind of like, we do need some regulations.
And I'll put it this way.
I think we need national reciprocity.
We need uniform code for the entire country.
So here's what this means.
Many states, like Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, would have their regulations relaxed.
It would mean that some states would have regulations increased.
To what extent?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think a conversation needs to be had about it.
I don't believe in a gun registry.
I don't believe in gun insurance.
I used to actually think gun insurance made sense.
The problem is the Constitution.
And it's not the problem for us, it's the problem for them.
They want to change the rules, and they want to add these things, then they need to amend the Constitution.
You get the states on board with that, then we'll have a talk.
For the time being, I am interested in saying to certain states where there's just like Look, you could drive to Indiana.
You live in Chicago.
This is what they do.
They drive to Indiana, they buy a gun, they bring it back to Illinois illegally.
They're already breaking the law.
So I don't know what else you change when they're already breaking the law.
But maybe some kind of uniformity.
That's about it.
Ultimately, what I view as being appropriate is every state sees a reduction in gun control measures.
What you're allowed to own.
And a slight increase in... I don't know where the slight increase is, to be completely honest.
I just don't know.
I think it's fair to say that many of these blue states need to have many of their restrictions absolutely removed to align properly with the Second Amendment.
And perhaps that's where we stop.
I don't think red flag laws work, and I think as long as the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms, we have a challenge that if you want to pass these laws, then you've got to change the Constitution.
Now there's the possibility of precedent.
When I say that I think there should be some increase in some states, I'm basically referring to... I don't know how to put it.
I had a conversation with a guy in New Jersey who does trainings and trained the police, and he just said he thought that it was too easy in some states to acquire weapons, and that's something we should consider, but...
If we're looking at it like blue states have too many regulations and some states have too few, the bigger problem is it's 9 out of 10, the blue states with too many regulations and too many federal regulations and the ATF is too confusing and the whole system is broken.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is, to make sure I'm making this clear for everybody, I think we need, like, a 95-99% reduction in all regulation, and then a very simple, uniform code that affects the entire country, which would probably mean some states would see some kind of increase.
But, over well, everybody would see, like, a 90-95% drop in gun control.
Laws.
Alright, I can't make this one too long.
You get the point.
I'm not an expert on guns.
I'm just a dude who started buying weapons and learning about it in the past year.
So I probably get a lot wrong.
There are some people, and I had this conversation on TimCast IRL, you might want to check out the show, where I was basically like, dude, so long as Second Amendment says it, there can't be laws blocking this.
The right to free speech?
The only thing you can't do is incite someone to commit violence or commit a crime.
There's a challenge there in that if they just keep increasing laws and increasing crime, then they can eventually criminalize hate speech.
They can pass a law saying, You know, something having to do with incitement, and then they can claim that hate speech is incitement.
We must defend our rights.
Yeah, well, I guess I'll put it that way, because this is a conversation that could probably just be had 50 billion times for 10 hours, so I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Export Selection