S5115 - The US Now Prepping For WAR With China, Dispatching Air Force Across Pacific, Taiwan Faces Invasion
The US Is Now Prepping For WAR With China, Dispatches Air Force Across Pacific, Buys Special Weapons. While Republicans have long said China is a bigger threat than Russia Democrats have long been opposed to the idea.
But now joe Biden is granting access to Russia to build a pipeline suggesting that China has become the bigger threat even in the minds of Democrats.
#China
#War
#Democrats
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The U.S., anticipating full-scale war with China, has begun moving the Air Force across the U.S.
to prepare for rocket attacks from China.
They've also begun purchasing special weapons for Pacific warfare.
Now, this doesn't mean war will happen, but there are a lot of factors at play that suggest it just might, and maybe soon.
In our next story, conservatives over at the Daily Wire raised over $100,000 for AOC's grandmother, but then AOC got the fundraiser shut down.
This story is actually kind of sad and kind of funny.
And in our last story, an Amazon driver brutally beat a 67-year-old woman after she refused to check her white privilege and was complaining about a delivery.
If you like this podcast, leave us a good review, give us five stars, and if you really do like the show and want to support us, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Now, I'm not here to debate the veracity of that opinion piece.
I want to point out that it brings us one step closer towards full-scale war with China.
Potentially an absurd statement, but for those who have been paying attention, you know exactly why.
Recently, Chinese state media said, They need to expand their nuclear arsenal and send a shiver down the spine of the American elites that they will be ready for nuclear war and confrontation.
And this came after Joe Biden said we need an investigation into the origins of COVID-19.
And many more prominent personalities, including Fauci himself, have entertained the possibility that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab.
Now again, I'm not here to talk about COVID.
I'm here to point out that it is an escalation of the posturing between the U.S.
and China.
But of course, posturing is just that.
None of this means there will be war with China, but the U.S.
is certainly preparing for it.
Now, they've been preparing for it for some time, and it seems like they're now taking it much more seriously.
Last week I reported, or I should say that I commented on the reporting of Military.com, That the Pentagon has begun buying up bombs for Pacific warfare.
No longer Middle Eastern warfare, which would be targeting ISIS.
Now this could just be that Donald Trump decimated ISIS, and China is the next logical threat.
So let's ramp up our, you know, positioning there.
But we're now learning from Forbes.
Anticipating war with China, the U.S.
Air Force is fanning out across the Pacific.
It's not the only way in which the U.S.
has begun escalating its preparation for a war with China.
And as most of you know, there is the idea of the fourth turning, as well as Thucydides' trap.
And there's some speculation that what we've seen over the past year is, well, it was meant to shore up our defenses for a looming war with China.
It may be just a coincidence theory, but many have pointed out that with people fleeing big cities and decentralizing the economy with more remote workers, We're more robust in the event of a centralized attack on one of our major economic hubs.
And because of COVID, we've begun shoring up our manufacturing here at home, which would protect us in the event of full-scale war with China.
So I can't tell you what will happen.
I can tell you I certainly hope there's not going to be full-scale war with China.
But looming tensions over Taiwan suggest that it's more than just one thing.
A new leaked document is now being covered far and wide.
The U.S.
actually proposed nuking China, mainland China, over Taiwan.
And as China seeks to gain control of this island nation, and major disputes arise culturally over Taiwan, It stands to reason there's a real catalyst for war outside of just COVID, and we could be staring down the barrel of, maybe it sounds silly, but World War III.
I mean, if you look at what China's doing with the Uighur Muslims, there's certainly a moral call from many people for some kind of intervention.
You've got the economic push, and now you've got COVID.
A lot of people might actually start becoming bullish on this, and that to me is worrying.
We don't want war.
But sometimes there's hard moral questions, and I'll tell you this.
Yeah, the Milk Toast Fence-Eater guy?
I don't have all the answers.
I can't tell you what we should or shouldn't do, but I'm typically anti-war.
There's a fear, though, that China will start pushing, and then war will happen no matter what we do.
So I don't have the answers.
But let's take a look at what the U.S.
is doing, why they're doing it, and why there is real fear that war with China could be around the corner.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, click the Members Only button, become a member to help support our work.
It gets you access to our exclusive Members Only section from the TimCast IRL Podcast, but more importantly, supports the work we do so we can expand.
We're doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes.
We've got some new potential employees, we've got a newsroom set to launch very soon, and we are going to be expanding very dramatically.
There will come a time where I will be commenting, for the most part, on original reporting from our staff, including myself, and it's with your support and only because of your support.
So please consider helping out if you like the work that I do, but You can also really help out by sharing this video.
As I often say, I don't have the marketing budget of CNN.
YouTube does not give me preferential, authoritative access like they do CNN.
If you think this video should get more views than CNN's videos do, Share them.
It's the best thing we can do and it really does help me out and the work I'm doing.
If you think the work I'm doing is good, that's one way you can support these videos.
But don't forget to like and subscribe as well.
From Forbes, anticipating war with China, the U.S.
Air Force is fanning out across the Pacific.
Forbes Reports.
For years, the U.S.
Air Force concentrated its warplanes at just two bases in the Western Pacific, for fighters, Kadena Air Force Base in Japan's Okinawa Prefecture, and for bombers and big support planes, Guam's Anderson Air Force Base.
Beijing eyed these megabases and devised a simple strategy for suppressing US air power in the region.
Build a couple thousand non-nuclear ballistic missiles, and in wartime, lob them at the bases until their runways, aprons, hangars, fuel tanks, and warehouses are nothing but craters.
After years of build-up, the Chinese rocket force possesses around 1,300 ground-launched missiles, with sufficient range to hit Kadena and Andersen from mainland China.
The USAF is keenly aware of the threat.
It has its own plan for dodging the missile barrages.
The idea is to spread out hundreds of warplanes across potentially dozens of smaller bases, thus diluting the striking power of China's rocket force.
The Air Force won't say exactly which bases are part of its plan, but it's possible to make educated guesses.
American territories and small island countries offer the most dependable facilities.
Arguably the most important bases in the Philippines are accessible only at the whim of that country's mercurial president.
The emerging map of the USAF's expanding base network also reveals where the service has potential airfield gaps, most glaringly in the Philippine Sea east of Taiwan.
In that gap, the U.S.
Navy's Pacific Fleet might lend its sister service a helping hand and deploy some of its 10 aircraft carriers and big-deck assault ships.
Now, this may just be the U.S.
realizing its vulnerabilities.
It may not actually be in anticipation to full-scale war with China.
But I lean, I'm a little bit more bullish.
I lean towards, I think we're going in the direction.
Both philosophically, I mean if you look at history, if you look at things like the fourth turning and Thucydides trap, there's maybe some speculative reasons why we can anticipate warfare.
Or I should say historical.
It could also be that China is They're ramping up their plans against Taiwan.
They're ramping up their attempts at seizing the South China Sea.
They're bombing Vietnamese fishing boats.
Tensions are escalating.
Of course, now you have the op-ed about COVID, the COVID origins, and what it means for the West, for Europe and the US.
Should our economy have been decimated because of the Wuhan Institute of Virology's lab leak?
If that's true, Grant, you're going to see a lot of people who are very angry.
And they'll demand recompense.
They'll demand some kind of reparation.
China won't be willing to give.
They may just say, you know what, screw it.
Now, right now, China's saying, Australia is exaggerating.
Because, you know, Australia recently came out, there was a report that they suggested war with China was also possible, and Australia has been working with the U.S.
Now the U.S.
all of a sudden is fanning out its air power?
U.S.
military doctrine is predicated upon air superiority, and now we have the U.S.
Air Force fanning out its air force?
Giving it the ability to defend against a very serious assault from China?
We recently heard too, this was months ago now, that the U.S.
was moving many of its bombers out of Guam, out of fear that China could wipe it out.
This is the result of that.
We're getting ready for something.
Maybe nothing happens, but we're certainly getting ready for it.
I want to make sure I stress that.
A lot of people might think anticipation or fear of war, preparation for war, means quite literally war will happen.
I'm not saying that.
And hopefully that's not what happens.
Forbes continues, the Air Force maintains a master list of what General Kenneth Wilsbach,
the head of the Pacific Air Force, has described as every single piece of concrete
in the Pacific region. Quote, we have a plan for all those airfields and some of them meet
the criteria and they are therefore part of what we call clusters.
Wilsbach told Air Force Magazine last year, some of the bases are main hubs in the network, others are spokes.
Aircraft, fuel, weapons, and supplies, not to mention people, would move through the hubs to smaller spoke bases.
The more often people and stuff move, the safer they are from Chinese rockets.
That's the theory.
An alphabet soup of concepts underpins the new base network.
The practice of breaking up 20-plane fighter squadrons and dispersing small detachments of jets to outlying bases is called Agile Combat Deployment, or ACE.
Bomber squadrons are practicing their own dispersal as part of the new Bomber Task Force Operation, or BTF.
The Air Force plans to reinforce the most austere airfields with pre-packed sets of equipment under the so-called Deployable Air Base System, or DABS.
To move munitions along base network, the Flying Branch has developed a procedure it calls Tactical Ferry, or Tac Ferry, whereby a fighter, such as an F-15E, loads up with more bombs than it could ever use in combat and delivers them to whichever small airfield it's going to be flying from.
In essence, saving the weapons for later.
unidentified
Palau Micronesia and the Marianas all small island countries in the mid-pacific are keen to host American forces So I'm less concerned about the nitty-gritty of the the tactics here But I do want to point out it's not just the fanning out of the Pacific Fleet for the Air Force Pentagon eyes new bombs for war with China not Isis now I reported on this last week after China threatened nuclear war over kovat origins I just want to briefly mention it for those who may not have seen that story it is Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax deductible donations.
So go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
They go to mention that the Air Force wants to increase its procurement of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range, stealth cruise missiles, advanced weaponry.
Many of these bombs are good for Pacific warfare, not Middle Eastern warfare.
The speculation could be that we're diverting our attention away from the Middle East and getting ready for Pacific War.
Considering the U.S.
has been deploying more and more military assets to the Middle East, considering Joe Biden, who he is, pushing back our withdrawal from Afghanistan and escalating tensions in Syria, You know, a lot of people might not buy the idea that we're pulling out or we're not buying as many bombs for the Middle East because we've accomplished our mission.
No, I certainly don't think that's the case.
I think it's the case of finite resources and revenue.
The U.S.
can only support so much weaponry, can only buy so much.
So although Joe Biden has been more hawkish towards the Middle East, the U.S.
is now buying up bombs that would better suit them in Pacific war, in my opinion.
The U.S.
is gearing up for war in the Pacific.
War with China, which may come soon, and hopefully doesn't.
I want to stress that.
But what do you say?
Do I say, I see all these things happening and it could just be normal?
A lot of people are of that opinion.
Ah, this is normal.
It's saber rattling.
Nothing's going to happen.
It's Cold War stuff.
Yeah, but maybe.
Maybe.
This new story about the US potentially nuking China over Taiwan, well, it didn't happen.
And the proposal was 1958.
That's good reason to believe.
None of this means much of anything.
Considering, however, the philosophical, the historical, Fourth turning, Thucydides trap.
Yeah, you got me worried, man.
You got me worried.
Check this out.
This one I find really the most interesting.
General Charles Flynn, brother of former National Security Advisor, takes reins of U.S.
Army Pacific.
Why Charles Flynn, of all people?
I have no idea.
You mean Michael Flynn's brother?
Yeah.
They say, General Charles Flynn took command of U.S.
Army Pacific on Friday vowing to continue transforming the 90,000-soldier force into one that can meet the challenge of a rising China.
Quote, Today as China trends on an increasingly concerning path, presenting challenge to the free and open Pacific, the Army is charged to change once more, Flynn said during a livestream ceremony at Fort Shafter.
Media were not allowed to attend the event.
Flynn, the younger brother of Michael Flynn, who briefly served as National Security Advisor under Trump, took the reins from General Paul La Camara, who will move on to command U.S.
forces in Korea.
This could be nothing.
Could literally be a promotion, so they're moving some people around.
Some people I know are getting really conspiratorial with it.
I'm not interested in any of those conspiracies about Michael Flynn's brother now commanding the Pacific Fleet.
This could just be, you know, Paul La Camara moving to Korea to use his experience specifically in an area where North Korea is a threat.
Maybe it makes sense.
But if we're taking someone from the Pacific Fleet commanding U.S.
forces in Korea, it could potentially be war with China is coming.
It could just be nothing.
It could.
I mean, look, there was someone in command of this before Flynn, so... Here's what they go on to say.
Admiral John Aquilino, head of the U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command, welcomed Flynn back to Hawaii during an address at the ceremony.
Addressing the audience, the Army's Chief of Staff, General James McConville, praised La Camara for his part in developing and testing the Army's first multi-domain task force, which is aimed at coordinating air, cyberspace, land, maritime space, and the electromagnetic spectrum in the battle environment.
US Army Pacific is also calibrating its force posture to be more agile through pre-positioning supplies in the theater to sustain the force.
Maybe nothing like I said.
I'm really trying hard not to be like, WAR IT'S COMING EVERYBODY GO AND HIDE!
I think the signs are here, and I think there's a lot to talk about.
Beyond just the breaking news about potential documents from the 50s, we've got actual movements happening.
Now, on April 7th, the AP reported, on April 7th, U.S.
military cites rising risk of Chinese move against Taiwan.
The U.S.
is very much interested in not allowing that to happen, and has been for quite some time.
I bring you now to one of the most alarming stories I've gotten for a while, which comes from last month.
Jacobin Magazine, which most of you know, Socialist Magazine, said, The Pentagon seriously contemplated nuking China in 1958.
Hey, we're serious.
The United States ain't playing around.
Newly leaked documents show that U.S.
officials in 1958 cavalierly planned a nuclear strike on China over a handful of disputed islands.
As Washington once more stokes tension with China, it's a reminder of the callous recklessness at the heart of U.S.
foreign policy.
Interesting time to release this information.
Why was it done?
They mention that this latest leak comes from Daniel Ellsberg.
They say in the middle of this that Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers 50 years ago in an effort to end the Vietnam War, has released dozens of pages from a 1966 study revealing just how close the world came to nuclear war while conflict over Taiwan was brewing in 1958.
The pages show that the U.S.
government's top brass made concerted plans to drop nuclear bombs on China should it try to take not just Taiwan, the headquarters of the anti-communist Chinese nationalists backed by Washington, but several of the offshore islands administrated by it.
Officials today would be asking themselves the same question that these folks were asking in 1958.
Harvard historian Michael Szanyi told the New York Times, which broke the news of the disclosure last week.
Ellsberg similarly told the Times they didn't believe the U.S.
officials who engaged in such reckless talk then were more stupid or thoughtless than those in between or in the current cabinet.
It's important to keep those points in mind while reading the documents themselves, which give a startling view into foreign policy decision-making at the highest levels of the U.S.
government and the warped mindset that underlies it.
I've got some serious questions about the release of this.
Ellsberg, considered to be a hero who helped end the Vietnam War, conveniently drops a document that the U.S.
seriously considered nuking China in 1958, particularly over Taiwan.
At a time when the U.S.
already fears a rising risk from China who wants to take Taiwan, all of a sudden now a document drops where it's like, oh China, by the way, we will nuke you if you do this.
Coincidence?
Convenient?
Useful idiot?
Or attempted deterrence?
I honestly have no idea.
But I think the message here is clear.
The message is to China.
What do you think China, the Chinese officials, the military, the Chinese Communist Party, what do you think they are thinking when they see this?
First of all, they probably knew it already, but this is a public rattle of the saber, and it comes from Daniel Ellsberg?
Okay, so maybe coincidence, but I have to imagine this sends a message.
We know you want Taiwan.
We know you are training to take Taiwan.
Don't forget, we will blow you up with nukes on mainland China if you so much as try it.
Really convenient timing for this really, really old document to drop right now of all times.
I find it strange.
I really, really do.
I find it suspect.
There's a viral meme going around where they say U.S.
intelligence agencies say, you know, weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
They told us a lot of things to get us into war.
Now we're hearing lab leak, we're hearing posturing, saber rattling, now we're getting this.
Man, I am just not a fan of it.
You don't know who to trust.
I can tell you, there are very serious moral questions about entering war that I can't answer.
I can only ask.
Do we sit back as China engages in atrocities and expands its footprint, challenging the U.S.
at every turn?
Do we just sit back as the Uyghur Muslims are abused and put in these concentration camps?
Yikes, man.
Do we sit back if lab leak turns out to be true?
Yikes.
What do we do?
Look, I don't like war.
I don't like the war in the Middle East because we were lied to into getting into it.
So how am I supposed to trust these agencies now when they start saying these things?
I don't know if I believe that either.
And again, the U.S.
intelligence agencies haven't concluded LabLeak is real.
I'm saying, I don't know what to tell you.
My biggest fear is that media like this emerges and we get swept up in the we-must-act mentality.
You know, as most of you know if you follow my videos on this issue, when I had Cassandra Fairbanks on Tim Guest IRL, she said tons of countries engage in atrocities.
We don't intervene in all of them.
That's true.
We don't.
It's a really good point.
It is a really good point.
Why China, though?
Well, China's expanding its military operations in the South China Sea.
China's building more nuclear bombs, or they're advocating for it.
They're expanding into the Pacific.
They're apparently in violation of some of these military conventions about expanding military presence in the Pacific.
They're doing it anyway.
They're sending spies to our colleges.
The Thousand Talents Program.
The U.S.
has been arresting these professors who've been in on the take from China.
Oh, they're acting against us.
There's cyber warfare you can't even see.
They hacked Google a few years back, Gmail, targeting some activists.
Do we just say, war isn't worth it, so we will let you keep playing dirty?
Therein lies the very serious challenge.
At what point do we stop and say, if we do nothing, China takes the world.
At what point do we say we will not allow them to keep making these moves?
The question then becomes, at what point does China say the same thing about us?
Especially with Joe Biden firing missiles into Syria.
I know Trump did too.
I know Obama did too.
At what point do they say, why should we sit back while you guys pull this off?
It's a really good argument for America first.
We shouldn't be involved in this stuff.
The fear then is power vacuum.
What happens when we let China take the Pacific?
What happens when they then take the Panama Canal?
When they take more and more and more?
Do you want to live under their boot?
I suppose if there's anything the woke understand is that they say there is no truth but power.
That's not correct.
But power can crush truth.
And that's the fear here.
Who is it?
Where's the truth?
Is the U.S.
correct?
They weren't right about the Middle East.
They got us involved in that quagmire.
I don't know what to tell you, man, other than I'm worried about what the U.S.
is preparing for, and I'm also worried about what China is doing and what they will do should no one stand in their way.
Now, the people of Taiwan don't think it's going to be a full-scale invasion.
The U.S.
does.
This is from NBC News.
They say Taiwan fears quieter Chinese threat.
They say while officials in Washington sound the alarm about a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, officials and residents on the island say that fails to understand the true dynamics of the region.
What they're saying in this report is that many in Taiwan believe China will use soft power, political pressure, propaganda, manipulation, to gain more and more power in the region.
If China is successful in say undermining the United States, and Taiwan loses confidence the U.S.
would actually defend them, And China walks in.
Literally just walks right in.
And what would Taiwan do about it?
They might fight back, but no one will defend them.
And the US is in a very shaky spot.
Very serious.
I mean, our economy is seriously hurt.
Things have kind of improved a little bit, but it's bad.
Which raises more questions.
Foreign Affairs says the Taiwan temptation, why Beijing might resort to force.
While Taiwan is saying they think it'll be soft power, there's still a reason, and Foreign Affairs covers, they might just come in and take it.
And I think that only happens to the U.S.
fail to shore up its defenses.
Our economy is in shambles, but there's a bigger question at play.
Now, I don't believe in any grand conspiracies or surreptitious plots, but we did talk about this last year.
I wonder if what we're seeing with these lockdowns, the extensions of them, was actually beneficial.
Not saying it was intentional, but maybe.
I don't know.
I don't see evidence to say it is, so I don't think there was a secret plot by Trump and Pompeo, but look at this.
The New York Times reports, Senate poised to pass huge industrial policy bill to counter China.
The broad support of the bill highlights how competition with Beijing is one of the few issues that can still unite both political parties.
This is a massive bill.
Faced with an urgent competitive threat from China, the Senate is poised to pass the most expansive industrial policy legislation in the US, In U.S.
history, blowing past partisan divisions over governmental support for private industry to embrace a nearly quarter trillion dollar investment in building up America's manufacturing and technological edge.
The legislation, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, is expected to pass by a large margin.
That alone is a testament to how commercial and military competition with Beijing has become one of the few issues that can unite both political parties.
Could this be?
The U.S.
is scared of war with China.
We're anticipating it.
We're fanning out the Pacific Fleet because we're worried they might blow us up.
We're not buying bombs for the Middle East anymore.
No, we're buying bombs for the Pacific.
And a bipartisan effort to ramp up and invest in industry in the U.S.?
Yeah.
Last year, it became extremely apparent to the American people that we couldn't even make our own medicine.
We couldn't even make vitamin C. We couldn't even make our own face masks.
Something had to change.
Manufacturing needed to come back.
What would happen if China moved on Taiwan?
How could we defend them?
The moment we did, China would cut off our supply lines.
So something had to change.
Now, we don't know what's really going on behind the scenes.
I don't know what the Pentagon's saying.
I don't know what even some of these analysts are saying.
They say one thing publicly, they say another thing privately, and we don't even know if they really expect war will happen.
But I certainly feel like it's a strong possibility.
How could we ever defend our allies in the Pacific if we were relying on China for our own medicine?
When the crisis hit in COVID, U.S.
companies that were making their face masks in China Their ships got sent out from China heading towards the U.S., stopped, turned around.
Why?
Because those companies, even if they are working for the U.S., they are still loyal to China.
And that PPE gear that we needed so desperately was sent back to China.
Wake up call!
If China stormed the beaches of Taiwan, what could we do about it?
Nothing.
They'd shut down our manufacturing and our economy would crumble.
What if there was a nuclear strike on a major city?
Our economy would be seriously injured.
Seriously crippled.
Okay.
After the lockdowns, tons of people spread out to all different areas, and many of them still work in the same places, just remotely.
That's good.
We've sort of decentralized our economy to a bit, so it's safe from a single point of failure.
What about raw materials and resources and jobs?
Well, guess what?
People aren't working at McDonald's anymore.
People aren't working at these fast food restaurants.
Granted, they're not working at steel mills or farms, but this is a dramatic refocus of what we need. All of a sudden there's a ton of people
who aren't working. They're getting paid not to work basically, as fast food restaurants desperately
beg for labor. What happens when Joe Biden has all of these people who desperately need work,
then he launches his green new deal like plan, trillions of dollars towards infrastructure.
Well, a lot of people don't want to work at McDonald's for 15 bucks an hour.
$16, what happens when Biden comes out and says, we need to build bridges, roads, and infrastructure for $25 an hour?
What happens then when he decides we're cutting off your unemployment?
Joe Biden, with this unemployment package, inadvertently or whatever, has a lot of people not working.
It's his plan, right?
He announces an infrastructure deal.
We're gonna pay good.
We're gonna pay well.
That unemployment's gone.
All of a sudden, all these people sitting by the sidelines, waiting in the dugout for their chance to play, are told, now you gotta work.
Oh, by the way, tons of construction and infrastructure jobs.
Tons of manufacturing jobs.
Speculation.
I have no idea if that's gonna happen.
But it makes me wonder.
You know, behind the scenes, it's not a conspiracy.
It's stupid.
Conspiracy theory.
We know the government has plans.
We know they plan for war.
They strategize.
If you think they don't, I mean, you're nuts.
That's not a conspiracy theory.
It's just me wondering, what is the U.S.
doing?
What are they getting ready for?
What are they scared of?
Well, these moves in the Pacific mean they've probably been well-prepared for war for some time, and now they're making the public moves.
If the U.S.
thought war with China was going to happen, do you think they would announce their movements first?
No.
They would secure resources, the economy, planning, infrastructure.
Then they would start buying up bombs and moving out the fleet.
They don't want to send signals they're getting ready for war when we have no infrastructure to support it.
Nah, the moves come second.
I wonder if this war prep has been happening for some time.
I wonder if this is the last.
China's imports grow at fastest pace in decades as material prices surge.
Interesting.
This story from today.
They say China's imports grew the fastest pace in 10 years, fueled by surging demand for raw materials, although export growth slowed more than expected.
Just speculating.
But they're bringing in tons of raw materials, and they're not sending things out?
I wonder what that's all about.
Could be nothing.
Could be they want internal expansion and they don't want to send away a lot of the things they make, or it could be they're pulling in the raw materials, keeping them ashore for... conflict.
Or to strengthen themselves.
Honestly, who knows?
Okay, so maybe war doesn't happen in the immediate.
Maybe it won't be this year, or next year, or the year after.
Maybe it won't be for five or six years.
Maybe it won't happen at all.
China wants its own GPS system, that's right.
GPS as we know it is U.S.
military tech.
China really wants to rival us.
GPS gives them massive power.
They want to rival ours.
I feel like war is inevitable, and it scares me.
I hope I'm wrong.
But so far the U.S.
is prepping for it, China's threatening it.
And it seems like the signs are being written on the wall.
The Fourth Turning.
Thucydides' Trap.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight at youtube.com slash timcastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we will see you all then.
There's a lot of context in this story, so let me start off with a very cut-and-dry version of what happened.
AOC tweets about her abuela's home in Puerto Rico, her grandmother, being very bad because of the hurricane.
Matt Walsh announces a fundraiser saying, we're gonna help raise money for AOC's grandmother.
AOC then says, I ain't taking your money.
GoFundMe shuts it down.
That's the story, but let me just... Now, we go through the details.
There's a lot to break down.
Let me just stress, what AOC did is the least punk rock thing I have ever seen.
I was really... I was really disappointed by this story, okay?
But let's start from the beginning, and I am going to walk you through why, strangely, the Christian conservative guy is substantially more punk rock counterculture than AOC is in this matter.
Let me just point out, obviously, AOC is totally pro-establishment.
She's been criticized by the left for being pro-establishment.
She's really moved into her lane where she's just like, whatever you say, Nancy Pelosi.
So yeah, very pro-establishment.
But this story is about the left and the right and claims of hypocrisy and it all starts here.
Two days ago, right-wing blogger launches GoFundMe for AOC's Puerto Rico grandmother in latest personal attack.
It's Puerto Rican grandmother, but they said the fundraiser has collected nearly $60,000 on Friday morning.
As of the conclusion of this story, it was over $100,000.
But we're going to start at the beginning because you need to see the context.
Matt Walsh, a blogger for the Daily Wire, has taken to trolling Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez by raising money for her grandmother's home in Puerto Rico.
The strange saga began when Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez posted a message on Twitter criticizing the Trump administration for blocking relief money meant to help Puerto Ricans following Hurricane Maria in 2017.
Trump used the hurricane as a photo op during his administration, famously tossing rolls of paper towels like he was shooting basketballs into a crowd of Puerto Ricans who had gathered after the storm.
To illustrate the ongoing struggles Puerto Ricans face, she shared an image of her grandmother's home in Puerto Rico, where she said she had recently visited.
The photos showed drooping ceiling slats and buckets lined on the floor tile, presumably meant to catch water, from the dripping ceiling.
Mr. Ocasio-Cortez said that many Puerto Ricans were dealing with similar or worse situations, and noted that it was not only the Trump administration that dropped the ball, but also local policies and authorities in Puerto Rico.
She called for changes to policies and audits of relief spending and for more recovery funding to be sent to people in need.
She also noted that her grandmother was fine and had somewhere else she could stay while repairs were underway at her home.
Quote, and for the record, my abuela is doing okay.
It's not about us, but about what's happening to Puerto Ricans across the island.
She had a place to go and to be cared for.
What about the thousands of people who don't?
So here's the tweet AOC puts out, which triggers this very brilliant move from The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh.
She says, just over a week ago, my abuela fell ill.
I went to Puerto Rico to see her, my first time in a year because of COVID.
This is her home.
Hurricane Maria relief hasn't arrived.
Trump blocked relief for Puerto Rico.
People are being forced to flee ancestral homes, and developers are taking them.
Mr. Walsh, seeing an opportunity to attack Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez, a perennial target for conservatives, said it was shameful that you live in luxury while allowing your grandmother to suffer in these squalid conditions.
Attack!
I love this line!
Matt Walsh, talk about brilliant, brilliant posturing.
And I think AOC had an opportunity here.
I think she had a counter move which could have turned this into a positive for everyone.
Instead, she sullied this.
I get it.
The right, you know, Ben Shapiro tweets, I am donating $499, which is an average monthly payment for a Tesla to AOC's abuela, and it's because AOC owns a Tesla, and she parked it incorrectly and got flack for it, which is kind of a dumb story.
But AOC lives in a luxury apartment in DC.
Luxury.
Infinity pool, they say.
And she owns a Tesla.
She ain't doing too bad for herself.
Now, I'm all for success.
People should be allowed to succeed.
But when you want to complain about the conditions that your grandmother's living in, perhaps you shouldn't be driving around in a Tesla and living in luxury.
Perhaps you should put your money into your family.
Now, moving on, they say.
Miss Ocasio-Cortez fired back at the blogger, claiming he could not possibly understand the relationship between her and her grandmother.
You don't even have a concept for the role that first-generation, first-born daughters play in their families, she wrote.
My abuela is okay, but instead of only caring for mine and letting others suffer, I'm calling attention to the systemic injustices you seem totally fine with in having a US colony What did Matt Wall say?
I'm for colonizing Puerto Rico?
He didn't say that!
He was like, hey, why don't you put money towards your abuela's house?
What?
In an attempt to shame Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Wall started a GoFundMe to raise money for the Congresswoman's grandmother's home repairs, paying just under $500 into the fundraiser himself.
Ben Shapiro, another conservative commenter who regularly attacks the Congresswoman, also donated $499, calling on other conservatives to do so.
The fundraiser's goal of just under 50k was met and exceeded by Friday afternoon.
It eventually broke over 100,000.
Hi AOC, we are raising money to help your abuela.
It's been inspiring to see the response so far.
Can you send me a DM so that I can get the necessary information to ensure this money makes it to your grandmother?
Thank you, he wrote on Twitter.
Mr. Walsh's trolling, even if it does help the Congresswoman's grandmother, blankets over the point Ocasio-Cortez was made concerning the broader and more systemic issues keeping many residents of the island in similar or worse conditions.
Unlike her grandmother, many of the affected in Puerto Rico do not have places where they can shelter while waiting for home repairs.
The blogger did not discuss or address the issue in any of his posts, choosing instead to focus on Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez.
I love how the media handled this.
I love how left-wing media handled this.
You can see, according to our Ground.News extension, overwhelmingly reported by right-wing sources, and out of 26, only 9% were left-leaning.
And the ones that were left-leaning are insulting this guy and trying to reframe it, and it is the stupidest thing ever!
They shut it down.
They shut it down.
AOC, for shame.
For shame.
I tweeted, this is disgusting.
Really, it could have turned into something magical.
It could have been an opportunity for de-escalation.
Instead, AOC just fires back, snap back, clap back, insult.
And then everyone's like, he's just trying to insult AOC by giving her $100,000?
Wow, with enemies like that, who needs friends?
But instead, they decide to make it dark.
Okay.
AOC, I think, posted something rather tasteless.
But the fundraiser, which was, obviously they're like poking fun at her, but they literally put the money up.
I'd be like, oh no, they're insulting me.
Thanks for the money, guys.
And AOC could have done something magical.
She could have taken that money.
She could have said, how about I give this to my grandmother to fix up her home, and then we invite people to use the home for shelter from other people.
We can put a bunch of cots up.
They could have used that money for general relief.
unidentified
And people are like, no, they couldn't have done that because it could only go towards exactly what the fundraiser said it could go towards.
If AOC received it, She could do whatever she wants with it.
Matt Walsh said, we're raising money for her abuelita.
Okay?
Then, all he has to do is give the money to AOC's family.
From there, they can use the money for what they want.
The money was given to them.
What they determine makes the most sense.
I don't think you can accuse AOC of fraud if she decides the money would be better spent helping the community.
At that point, it's already transferred hands, and the goal of Matt Walsh was just to get in advance of AOC.
More importantly, if she posted, we are going to use this for repairs for my abuela's home, and to help those in the surrounding neighborhood, and maybe, you know, give out food or something, or in some way, they could have made it excellent.
It's happened before.
Right, so Jodi Shaw recently.
She was from Smith College.
She's the woman who filed a complaint because they were discriminating against her for being white.
The critical race theory stuff.
So, she files a complaint.
She gets fired.
She launches a GoFundMe.
She eventually raises more than her goal and then says, the remaining funds will be used towards helping other people and GoFundMe says, whoa, you can't do that.
And then she went through the motions, like updating the page saying, you know, if everyone, anyone wants a refund, you can ask for it, but here's what we're going to do.
And nobody cared.
And then GoFundMe unlocked it and said, you're good.
They could have done the same thing.
Here's the latest news.
GoFundMe halts fundraiser for AOC's grandma despite $104,000 haul.
They say the fundraising campaign launched by a conservative commentator to help the grandmother of US Rep AOC has been yanked because the lawmaker's family is refusing to accept the $104,000 been raised.
The beneficiary has made clear to our trust and safety team they do not wish to accept the donations.
GoFundMe spokesman Bobby Withhorn told the Post about the Save AOC's Abuela's ancestral home.
Walsh broke the news earlier in the day on the fundraiser's GoFundMe page, writing, Someone in AOC's Abuela's family told GoFundMe that she won't take the money, even though AOC previously claimed that her grandmother was in dire straits and it was Trump's fault.
She seems to think that it is worth $104,000 of her abuela's money to express that she doesn't want money from the likes of us.
But they will tax you, right?
They won't take your money when you say, fine, here it is, free of our own choice.
She won't take it, but she will crank taxes up.
She will advocate for deficit spending, which will strip the value of the working class.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, I don't know what Matt Walsh's net worth is, but Ben Shapiro's probably worth like 50 million or some ridiculously high, actually, I don't know if Ben owns the Daily Wire, but that has gotta be worth several hundred million dollars.
Ben Shapiro, a particularly wealthy individual, Take the money from him!
These people were putting money in.
Choosing to.
Let's read more and then we'll get back into this.
The facetious effort was launched after AOC tweeted a thread.
We went through this already.
Walsh is among those who fired back, shaming her for allowing her granny to suffer in those conditions.
I'm grateful for the outpouring of support for AOC's abuela, even if AOC isn't, Walsh said.
But questions do remain.
Why didn't AOC help her own abuela for nearly four years?
Why did she turn down our help?
Does AOC only want government help?
On my end, I'll consider you fighting to make the world a better place, one abuelita at a time.
Ocasio-Cortez has made much of her Bronx childhood an immigration roots, but has mostly sought to keep her relatives themselves out of the limelight.
She posted a family photograph in 2018 that included a woman identified as her grandmother, Clotilde, who in 2019 was reportedly living with the Congresswoman's mother, Blanca, in Florida.
But her other grandma has not been publicly named, and it's unclear whose damaged home was featured in the photos that she shared on Twitter last week.
AOC reacted with disgust when asked about the Flap Saturday.
You'll have to ask someone else about that, she snapped.
Her communications director did not respond to requests for comment.
GoFundMe will issue refunds to all donors, Whithorn said.
It's gross.
It's sad.
It's gross.
It's sad.
Here's what I'd do.
If I posted a photo and said, hey everybody, look.
A hurricane damaged my grandmother's home.
And then some guy, Matt Walsh, comes out and he's like, let's all raise money for Tim's grandma.
I would first be like, that's actually one of the greatest trolls I've ever seen.
Brilliant.
If you end up getting money to help my family, I would be eternally grateful for this.
I will point out.
If I were AOC, I'd say, listen.
My abuela's home is in trouble.
But we are helping with repairs.
Repairs are currently underway.
We don't necessarily need any of this money.
I just wanted to point out that homes were damaged by this.
And for someone like my grandmother, she doesn't have a young congresswoman on $174,000 a year who's living in luxury who can front some of these bills and help pay for the damages.
That being said, if it were me, I'd say I will accept these funds on the condition they can be used for everyone.
And I will use some for my grandmother's repairs, and I will make sure others around us get access to goods that will help them in need, and maybe contribute some of this to a homeless fund, because that might be better use.
What do you think all of the conservatives who donated would say if that was the condition AOC put forward?
They would come out and be like, done.
And then AOC could have had a moment where she met with... This is what I would have done.
Let's say I tweeted about my grandmother, you know, or a family member living in Squalor.
And then AOC is like, Tim Pool is this famous YouTuber and he can't afford to fix.
I'm gonna put up a GoFundMe and we're all gonna pay for it.
I'd be like...
I don't need the money.
I would prefer to use the money for something more important, but I would like to meet with AOC, thank her, shake her hand, give her a hug, and say, it may have seemed like a silly and facetious effort, but if we can turn political fighting into fundraising for those in need, it is a fight I am willing to start.
A fight over how much we can help those in need.
I've talked about this.
There was a video by Casey Neistat.
You may have seen this one.
It's about Walter Mitty.
So Casey Neistat, famous vlogger dude, right?
He gets a proposition.
We'll give you $25,000 to make a commercial for that movie, The Life of Walter Mitty.
And Casey got a really good idea.
How about I just use all of that money on relief efforts for a hurricane that hit, a typhoon that hit the Philippines?
And they were like, okay.
So instead of doing a commercial for The Life of Walter Mitty, he did.
I think it was called Walter Mitty.
He takes the money, flies to the Philippines, and gives out care packages to people who are in need and says, this is marketing money better spent.
And I said, you are correct.
Imagine if, instead of trying to outwoke each other, imagine if instead of spending 60 million dollars on some dumb woke virtue signal campaign, Coca-Cola was like, This month, our marketing budget is going to be spent setting up a major resource center for those in need, and we are going to make extremely low-budget commercials showing our efforts.
Because, it's remarkable how much they spend on advertising.
And I'm like, dude, can we get to a point where big corporations are arguing with each other and fighting to do more?
Look what we get instead.
Chicken sandwich wars.
That's dumb.
Imagine if KFC was like, we already got a chicken sandwich, but I'll tell you what we're gonna do.
Instead of spending, you know, 10 million, 20 million on this, we are going to do a marketing campaign where we help community centers and help fund, you know, after-school programs and help reduce violent crime through de-escalation.
That would be amazing, wouldn't it?
What if AOC said, I will gladly accept this money and I hereby challenge the... Oh, you know what?
Here's what should have been done.
Here's the right thing to do.
If AOC, or let's say, you know, like, I'm AOC, right?
If I saw that fundraiser, I'd say, I'll tell you what.
The right thinks it's funny that they're going to all put in money for my grandmother.
I'm willing to bet the left can out-fundraise you to provide funding for everyone in Puerto Rico.
AOC just doesn't have that depth of vision, man.
Imagine that.
Imagine AOC says, we'll gladly accept your money.
I'll take every penny, and we will put it into fixing up my abuelita's home.
And then, to prove that we really care, we will counter your facetious GoFundMe, and we will call on all of the left to raise money for a general Puerto Rican relief fund.
Imagine that.
They would have ended up raising like a million bucks.
And that would have been one of the most epic counters ever to the right.
Instead, she said, buzz off.
That's what I tweeted.
I was like, can we do something with that money?
It's a hundred grand, right?
People were giving it away.
They wanted it to go somewhere.
Can we just give that to the people of Puerto Rico?
I mean, there are people who have been suffering since this hurricane four years ago.
Yeah, I guess we don't live in a cool enough place like that.
Maybe that's what should happen now.
Maybe Matt Walsh could still do this.
Maybe Matt could start a new GoFundMe and say, AOC's family said they didn't want to accept our charity.
So let's start a new GoFundMe for the people of Puerto Rico and show that charity works.
It's a big argument from the conservatives.
That charity works and you don't need to tax people.
Put your money where your mouth is, guys.
I'm a fan of charity.
I still think taxes can work.
I say can because I don't know if the U.S.
is doing it properly and I don't like the idea of tax money going to garbage programs and there's a lot of waste and a lot of bloat.
I think if we had some hardcore reforms, maybe we could make something work.
But I do think charity works and it works very well.
Okay, this is an opportunity right now.
So here's what I want to say.
Matt, Daily Wire guys, I want you guys to relaunch a GoFundMe as a general fund for relief in Puerto Rico.
This is a win-win for you guys.
You ride off of the big announcement, the big news you're already getting.
You then can make a point, a statement about how charity can work, see how much you can raise for the people of Puerto Rico, and you can just say AOC clearly doesn't care because her response was politicking, and you know what?
We can play politics, but we can raise a ton of money for the people who are still suffering after Hurricane Maria.
How cool would that be?
Marjorie Taylor Greene dragged AOC over her grandmother's house because AOC is She's well off.
AOC, I wonder if she's the 1% at this point.
I kind of think she is.
Okay, definitely.
Because I think you need to make something like, you know, $400,000 or $500,000 a year now.
It's probably gone up way more to be the 1%.
And I think you need to have like $10 million in assets to be the 1% if you're not making money.
It's a weird, I don't know, whatever.
Some estimates say like a national average of $300,000 to $50,000, but it's probably higher today.
AOC's rich.
She is.
You know, it's funny because rich people never think they're rich.
They're like, I'm not rich, you know.
I grew up in Chicago.
You guys know this, I say it too much.
And I knew tons of people who were in the suburbs who were upper class, families owned multiple homes, and they're like, we're not rich!
It's because they always look up, and there's always someone above them.
And I'm like, dude, go tell any of these poor people you're not rich, they're gonna laugh in your face.
When you got people who are struggling over whether or not they're gonna eat food or pay rent, you wanna talk about what rich means.
Upper class.
Okay, middle class people, not rich, middle class.
Well, here's an opportunity.
Conservatives should relaunch their GoFundMe and say, let's prove that charity can work and it can work better than taxes.
You want to complain about Donald Trump not getting the funding to Puerto Rico?
Sounds like a government problem.
Maybe we can prove we can get a large fund to the people of Puerto Rico to help them right now because many homes have been damaged, like AOC said.
We can also prove that we will do more for the people of Puerto Rico than AOC was willing to do because she rejected the money, and what has she done so far?
She may have tweeted about it, but I don't see her launching a GoFundMe for anybody.
I mean, maybe she launched a GoFundMe for somebody.
I mean, specifically Puerto Rico.
Let's do it.
And you know what?
Maybe if it doesn't happen, I'll have to do it.
I just not one to get particularly politically active in that capacity, but I think if all of that money, if they said, you know, we're gonna prove AOC wrong, they could probably raise a million bucks, even if it was only just $100,000.
I genuinely wish that AOC came back and rallied the left and said, we have to raise more.
Here's what I want to see.
Here's what we'll do.
Okay.
Matt Walsh, relaunch the GoFundMe and say, you will do more for the people of Puerto Rico.
This will be a relief fund for them.
Then AOC, you launch a counter GoFundMe and say, the left will defeat you and we will prove the left cares more than the right.
Think about that.
Who do you think would win?
You have the Matt Walsh GoFundMe, the AOC GoFundMe, both the right and the left engaged in a serious and intense political battle to donate more to prove which side cares the most.
About winning, maybe.
But hey, put that money up.
Help people in need.
That would be one of the coolest things ever!
Right versus left.
Who can raise more money?
Alright, maybe if the Daily Wire guys don't want to do it, I can reach out to some leftists and say, hey, do you want to start a contest of who can raise the most money for the people of Puerto Rico who are suffering?
And in the end, we can smile, shake hands.
You know, there could be some lefty socialist guy who hates my guts and someone I don't agree with.
I don't really hate these people, but maybe they hate my guts.
And I'll shake their hand and be like, at the end of the day, all that matters is we had fun, the political conflict was turned into something beautiful, and now people are going to be better off for it.
I wish that's the kind of world we lived in.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
What do you think happens when academic institutions start demonizing a group of people based on race?
You then start getting prominent personalities, celebrities, demonizing people based on race, which leads to marketing campaigns, which play into these politics, and ultimately politicians demonizing people based on race.
The left likes to claim that they're the ones who oppose the racism.
That's not true, and I guess technically it's never been true because the Republicans who have fought back against slavery and Jim Crow and so, you know, you get the point.
But the left today says it's the Republicans that are racist.
Meanwhile, the left overwhelmingly pushes critical race theory, intersectionality, and leftist identitarianism, which is escalating to a point of literal riots over racial reasons, and now people being beaten simply for being white.
We have the story.
Amazon driver attacks 67-year-old woman during delivery dispute.
Oh, a delivery dispute!
What was that dispute?
The driver told the woman to check her white privilege.
She apparently said no.
Now, there was probably some, you know, words exchanged before this, so sure.
Delivery dispute.
But you see, this is part of the problem.
It's likely only going to get worse.
And I would assume that this attack is a hate crime, right?
I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation.
I think the crime was the attack in the first place.
But now you can see people are starting to be racially motivated in their attacks, and the problem is, Would this individual have attacked this woman if they didn't harbor deep-seated racist values pushed by the left?
I think the answer is probably not.
No, seriously.
I think the white privilege attacking someone based on their race escalates things.
Now, of course, it was the left that has long said, if you allow people to engage in hate speech, it will lead to violence and everything.
Yes.
I mean, yeah, if people go around advocating for violence and being hateful, It very well could.
Which is why I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws.
Because the crime is the violence.
And we don't want institutionalized violence.
But you can't simply tell someone they're not allowed to have an opinion or express that opinion because you're concerned about potential ramifications.
Now my problem with this is they are institutionalizing racism.
So by all means, I can say people should have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean the government should be pushing things that are ideological and will eventually make things a whole lot worse.
Admittedly, there is a very serious conundrum here.
We know that if a society starts engaging in the normalization of racist behaviors, it probably will lead to violence against people based on race, which is why it must be a crime, and it must be enforced that if you commit these crimes, you get shut down.
And it's why everyone must have the value that If you are breaking the law, you will be arrested, and you're allowed to engage in certain opinions, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate that in certain institutions.
It should be, like, bigotry in general should not be allowed to be institutionalized.
However, people should be allowed to have lectures, and I'll give you an example.
First and foremost, I will add, and then we'll read the story.
It's always a fine line, right?
There's a gradient into what people are willing to accept.
The left likes to say, aha, we got you because now you're admitting our point.
It's like, no, I've never, I've always acknowledged hate speech is abhorrent, but it should be the crime and the violence.
Take a look at what happens in these universities, which goes well beyond anything the right has tried defending.
Psychiatrist describes fantasies of murdering white people in Yale lecture.
Yale invited a person to come in who described their fantasies of killing people based on race.
Yet Ann Coulter doesn't do that when they violently attack her.
Ben Shapiro does not do that.
There is a line.
It's interesting.
Tucker Carlson had someone on his show, and they were saying, you're in favor of banning speech because, you know, look, would you allow someone to come on your show who is racist and say racist things?
And Tucker said, no.
You probably wouldn't.
And that's true.
So when we say we're defending free speech, we need to make sure we're defining what that exactly is.
The problem is many conservatives just go full-on free speech.
Hey, that includes the anti-white hatred.
There's a line.
There are social norms.
The issue is the left is engaging in overt racial discrimination.
I'm not a fan of that.
However, on the right, they have no institutional authority, and that's the bigger issue.
Let's read the story, so otherwise I'm plathering on.
Amazon driver attacks 67-year-old woman during delivery dispute, they say.
A 21-year-old Amazon driver has been arrested after savagely attacking a 67-year-old customer Thursday following a dispute over a delivery in Castro Valley, California.
The driver, Itzel Ramirez, engaged in a heated verbal exchange with the unnamed victim before unleashing a horrific onslaught of punches to the back of the head and face of the much older woman.
The vicious encounter was caught on video from multiple angles.
Ramirez reportedly verbally berated the victim about her white privilege before the attack, according to KTVU Fox 2.
Police say that the victim may have called the suspect a B-word before the exchange turned into fisticuffs.
A bish, we'll say that.
I don't know if YouTube cares, but...
The Alameda County Sheriff's Department said the victim suffered visible injuries and perhaps a broken nose.
It was frightening to see an Amazon driver do that.
Somebody who we allow onto the property to provide us service, Doug Smith, the owner
of the Vista Creek Apartments where the attack took place, told KRON 4.
The landlord told reporters, the victim is too shaken up to talk to the media about the
incident.
He said the fight began when the victim received an alert that an Amazon package she had been
waiting for had arrived, but there was no package when she went to the lobby to find
The woman questioned Ramirez standing in the lobby about the package when the verbal exchange quickly escalated into violent confrontation.
Ramirez was arrested and is being held on $100,000 bail and will be arraigned Monday on two counts of elder abuse and battery involving serious injury.
This incident does not reflect the high standards we have for drivers who deliver our packages, Amazon said in a statement.
We take these matters seriously, and this individual is no longer delivering Amazon packages.
This is what you get when you normalize these kinds of, this kind of rhetoric, these kinds of behavior at an institutional level.
It's funny because this is what the left is arguing against.
The only problem is they're the problem.
When they talk about, we can't allow a society to become racist or fascistic and all that stuff, I'm like, you are correct.
But you defeat these ideas by challenging them in the open.
So when this lady comes and lectures at Yale, And says she fantasizes about murdering white people, I say, good!
Now we can all see the insanity and psychosis these individuals are espousing.
And you don't want to cover it up, because then they say in private, and they spread this stuff.
We want to name and shame all of this.
So if somebody wants to get up and say disparaging things about any other race, be it black, asian, latino, or mexican, or whatever, Let them say it.
And then we can say those people are nasty.
And we don't want them around us.
We don't want them on our shows.
Look, they're allowed to have their opinions.
If somebody wants to invite them to speak, they should be allowed to speak.
And I think it's better because sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Actually, you know, that's a funny phrase because quite literally it's not.
You know, if you had something that was, you know, infected surface, you didn't, you know, just put it in the sun.
You have to like, you know, wipe it off.
But you get the point.
Letting these people speak, letting them speak publicly, is probably a good thing.
The problem is that privately, in schools, they are spreading this insanity.
What do you think is going to happen to these kids when they grow up?
You know, we're taught in schools, or we were taught in schools, not to hate people.
Not to be racist.
Judge someone on the basis of their character, not the color of their skin.
We learned that from Dr. King.
Today, no schools are actually saying the opposite.
We have this story from The Federalist, from Jason Rantz.
Washington state mandates critical race theory in all public schools.
While critical race theory training is pitched as a way to ensure equity in the classroom, in truth, it's far more sinister.
Rantz says, As several states move to ban toxic critical race theory from indoctrinating students, the state of Washington is leaning in.
The race-obsessed framework isn't relegated to schools in Seattle, where you'd expect a victim-centered ideology like Critical Race Theory to flourish.
Thanks to the state's Democrat-controlled legislature, a trio of bills just signed into law mandates Critical Race Theory training for all public school teachers.
Another even requires training for medical students, teaching them it's essential to be a social justice activist, as it is to treat patients.
While the critical race theory mandates go into effect in the 2022-23 school year, many districts are already jumping on board.
The Issaquah School District vows it will fight racism.
by identifying and removing bias and systemic and institutional barriers that create marginalization, while Bellingham Public Schools pushes training to guarantee inclusive education for students.
At Seattle Public Schools, they've even developed a racial equity team, a group of far-left educators seeking that schools make all of their decisions through a racialized equity lens to effectively carry out this mission.
They say staff needed training.
Highline Public Schools, a majority-minority district south of Seattle, has mandated similar training for years, even holding an annual race symposium.
where staff express their displeasure with being privileged and white.
Quote, I felt like yesterday.
I realized that I'm white, and I have all the advantages of being part of that group, one white staffer says.
Privileges that I don't really think I fully understood until yesterday.
I was reading White Fragility, and I'm like, oh, okay.
I think I'm taking the next step in my journey to understanding what's happening, what equity is about, what racial equity is about, what anti-racism is about, and what racism is about.
That book, White Fragility, is written by an avowed racist who expresses her displeasure being around minorities.
She literally says she is uncomfortable around black people.
Why is that being used as some kind of guide for ending discrimination?
Well, it's because they don't want to end discrimination.
Anti-racism, as most of you know, is about making more, as Ibram X. Kendi said.
The remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, and then future discrimination.
In which case, they want people to be fighting each other based on race forever.
I certainly don't want that.
I want to be left alone, not judged based on who my family is, but it seems like the left is refusing to let this go.
During hours-long sessions, staff learn race is a social construct that has been adapted to meet the needs of white supremacy culture.
If you get defensive at being labeled a racist, facilitators say it's an example of white supremacy in action.
I told this story about, you know, when I was in Thailand during Chinese New Year.
And I was standing in this shopping area, and I noticed I could see over everyone's head.
It was kind of a weird experience, to be honest.
Because I'm like 5'10", so I'm, you know, basically average, right?
Here in the U.S.
In Thailand, in this massive, crowded space with thousands of people, normally I'd expect to not be able to see anything, unless I, like, tried to stand up.
No, there in Thailand, I was able to just see clear over everyone's head.
Well, it's because there are differences in different regions and different people, and race is typically just a superficial descriptor for averages, I suppose.
The left says race is a social construct.
Okay, kind of.
It is true that certain groups weren't considered dominant or weren't considered white in the past.
And that's why the left says, see, that's what whiteness is.
It's kind of meaningless, especially now when they claim that, like, Slavic people aren't white, and it's like, dude, You guys are losing it.
We don't base modern definitions off of definitions used a hundred years ago.
Otherwise, we'd all be talking very, very differently.
So when you try to take 19th century linguistic and attach it to 21st century conversations in politics, things kind of don't make sense all that much.
So now, I mean, white literally, for most people, just refers to people who are of, you know, white European backgrounds.
Race exists.
There are exceptions to the rule, but when the left says that race is a social construct, they don't have a really good reason as to why that is.
People in Southeast Asia are considered to be of Southeast Asian descent, and people who are Vietnamese are very different on average from people who are, say, Japanese.
I guess the left can't really tell the difference, so they just say everyone is the same and race is a social construct.
And then when it comes to medical practices, We take race and gender into account.
I'm sorry, race and sex into account.
Because different medications tend to have different reactions towards different people.
Different people of different racial backgrounds might have different ailments.
They're trying to deconstruct everything in a way that makes literally no sense.
But anyway, I digress.
The point was, it ultimately results in physical violence like we saw with the story.
Take a look at this story.
Suspect arrested after vicious attack on woman at Gardena gas station without provocation.
A 300 to 350 pound black man exits his vehicle, walks up to a woman, and for no reason, starts brutally beating this woman.
Story went fairly viral.
The point I made on Twitter, facetiously, I said, this man is just a victim of white supremacy.
Why?
It's something that's actually been said by many of these leftists.
That when, you know, someone who is black commits a crime, They make this racist statement that clearly the only reason that they would do something like that is because they were victims.
No, it's because there's bad people of all different races.
There are some pretty nasty white dudes, a lot of them actually, pretty nasty people of all different racial backgrounds, be it Asian, like, you know, I don't know, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, they ain't that great, right?
And then you got, look, you guys don't like Joe Biden or you guys don't like Donald Trump, there you go.
And then you've got Farrakhan, you've got people who are black, you've got people who are Latino.
There's good and bad people.
And some people think some ideas are better or worse.
But we have seen crimes committed.
And we have seen many of the woke say it's only because they're victims of white supremacy that they do things like this.
And I'm like, no, sometimes people are bad people.
That's why they do it.
Well now they teach this stuff to kids.
They say that staffers learn black people cannot be racist because they don't have power, that whites benefit from white privilege even if they experience high poverty, and that virtually every American institution is founded in white supremacy.
It's not.
There are many institutions that are founded in white supremacy.
That's true.
So let me explain the name of the game.
And as a little kid, I remember coming home from school, you know, my mom asks me, like, what did we learn?
And I said, you know, in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, he discovered America.
My mom said, no, he landed in the Bahamas.
You know, America's named for Amerigo Vespucci, and there were already people there, so didn't they discover the Americas?
And I was like, oh yeah, there were already people there, quite simply.
Then we had, you know, on top of that, it's like, well, and also, Leif Erikson came to North America well before everybody else.
Okay, okay, fine.
Well, before every other European settler.
So you realize that, and you're kind of like, hey, wait a minute.
Why are they telling me that Christopher Columbus discovered this place?
Well, from a European colonial perspective, that makes sense.
You see, that's true.
And obvious.
Then they say, everything you know and love is racist because of that.
No, actually, smart people figured out a long time ago that there are other historical perspectives, and it's probably very important that we ask Native Americans about their history, to the extent that it's written down and passed along, so that we can understand how people came to be in North America.
Here's what the left does.
They take one tiny thing.
This is the con game.
You take one tiny morsel and use that to punch a hole that you can use to rip open the veil.
They claim they're awakening people.
It's a manipulation technique.
You tell someone something that seems true and obvious, and then you tack on the things they can't confirm.
Or the things that will radicalize them and make them racists and violent and, you know, just generally tear things down.
It's the starting point.
Find a morsel of truth.
It's what the Chinese, I believe it was the Vietnamese or the Chinese, I think it was the Chinese, what they would do when they had POWs back in, what was this?
Was it the Vietnamese?
I can't remember.
I think it was China in the conflict with Vietnam and all that, they would take American soldiers and ask them to say something simple like, America is not perfect.
Now come on.
Some people think America is perfect, but most people, even the people who love it, will recognize it as false.
We're not absolutists.
They would say, if you want to eat, you must admit your country is not perfect.
And they would say, well, of course, that's no big deal.
We know America's not perfect.
And they would say it.
Then the next time they would say, now we want you to say something that, okay, so now that you've said that, if you want to eat again, tell us why it's not perfect.
What is America, what is one of their faults?
And then someone would be like, oh, you know, well, we had slavery, right?
That wasn't that great.
Over time, they would, one step at a time, get someone to say more and more bad things, these POWs, until eventually the person was saying outright, just like, abhorrent things about the country, about the U.S.
And they were like, what's the big deal, right?
I already said the other thing, I'm only saying a little bit more.
That's how they get you.
They come to you with a simple truth.
America had, in its infancy, I mean, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, they literally talk about Native Americans and call them a disparaging term.
So, yes, there very much was racism in this country.
I mean, come on, slavery literally existed until the Civil War ended it.
But that's kind of the point.
They get you to start by thinking about slavery and say, see, this country was founded on bad things.
And then you counter with, yeah, and then a bunch of people fought and died to end it and won, right?
So the country may have been founded on bad things, but isn't that a hard course correction?
Don't you get to take credit for when good things happen?
Now they're saying we must end racism in this country.
It's resulting in chaos, violence, extremism.
And my response is if we had the Civil Rights Movement, we made those changes.
If we had the Civil War, we made those changes.
You want more and more and more.
The point is, no matter what happens, they keep saying it's never been fixed.
They say, you know, these institutions were made while slavery existed, therefore the institution is bad, and it's like, no, we got rid of slavery.
The institutions actually helped make that possible, and the people who fought and died made it possible.
They say, yeah, well, then there was racism, and there was Jim Crow, and it's like, and then we fought again and won, every step of the way.
This is the racist revenge.
They're trying to bring back all of the ultra-racist stuff.
They're starting with segregation and it's working.
And they're getting lefties, liberals on board through this manipulation technique.
It manifests in really dark ways.
And it may result in something worse than a psychiatrist just fantasizing about murdering people.
Eventually it turns into actual physical violence, which we've seen.
Eventually it turns into race conflict and race war.
And that's what I fear.
This person comes out and says this, and other people just pile on and keep agreeing.
So I'll mention this like I've mentioned it before.
You see the photo of people in Nazi Germany doing the salute, and many people ask, how could it have gotten to that point?
Today, a Yale lecturer was talking about their fantasies of just murdering random white people.
An Amazon driver, an Amazon delivery person, brutally beats an elderly woman, ranting about white privilege.
Now people are marching through the street by the thousands, performing the Red Salute, which was at the start of the 19th century when the Communists and the Fascists were fighting, each had a salute.
The Communists had the Red Salute and the Fascists had the Roman Salute, or I should say the Nazis, and they fought.
And the Communists lost, but not in Russia, where they won and spread to China.
These extremist authoritarians are still pushing.
And now in the U.S.
people are marching around performing the Red Salute, And it's the classical liberals, those who believe in America, the libertarians, who are pushing back.
So how do we get to this point?
One step at a time, through one lie after another, and then people who just want to fit in will march around doing the Red Salute.
People will look back, assuming we're victorious in stopping these extremists, and they'll see the photo of all of these people marching in the street performing the Red Salute, and they'll say, how did America get to that point?
