S5129 - John McAfee's Wife Says He Was NOT Suicidal, Even Prison Guards Are In Disbelief As Narrative Breaks
John McAfee's Wife Says He Was NOT Suic-dal, Even Prison Guards Are In Disbelief As Narrative Breaks. McAfee was reportedly in good spirits, leading a normal life, and told his wife he would call her later in the evening.
This story transcends politics as even establishment Democrats news outlets are breaking from the narrative
Republicans have long accused media of being liars but today it seems no one believes the official statements
#McAfee
#MediaLies
#JohnMcAfee
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The wife of John McAfee says he was not suicidal, and his last words were that he loved her and would call her that evening.
Does not sound like the words of a suicidal man.
Even prison guards are in disbelief.
In our next story, Donald Trump reportedly told the military to shoot protesters, but General Mark Milley refused.
Now, I find this one hard to believe, unless Trump was talking about the murderous looters who killed people like David Dorn.
And in our last story, a new bill to ban critical race theory will backfire on the right and may even be a Trojan horse for the woke.
If you like this podcast, please give us a good review and leave five stars.
And if you really like this podcast, please share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Most of you are probably aware that internet legend and international man of mystery, John
McAfee, has died, reportedly taking his own life.
We don't know for sure.
The autopsy results have not been released yet, but preliminary reports suggest that he did take his own life.
Now, the reason this is shocking to most people, if you haven't been following the story, is that McAfee repeatedly said he would never, never do this.
So much so, they got a tattoo that said, Whacked.
If he ended up dying, it was because someone whacked him.
But McAfee is a strange character.
Perhaps this is all an elaborate plot to troll the world on his way out.
Shortly after he died, someone posted to his Instagram account the giant letter Q. Many people are speculating as to what it might mean, what his dead man switch contains, what's inside the image, but Instagram deleted it.
Now we're getting an interesting development.
The wife of John McAfee says he was not suicidal and that they had spoken just a few hours before he died where he told his wife he loved her and would call her that evening.
In fact, prison authorities even suggest that he was not in any way atypical.
He seemed like he was living a normal life.
But they also say he did ask for quiet time.
Interesting.
Now why would he do that, and then later be found dead, unless the story is just true?
Or, unless the authorities are lying.
But if the authorities were lying, why would they say he was acting typically?
Wouldn't they just say he was acting erratically to cover up whatever misdeeds are happening?
I don't know for sure, but I want to show you what his wife said and just go through what we know and don't know about the story and ask some questions.
Although sometimes just asking questions is misinterpreted, but we don't know the full details of this yet.
It very well may be that John McAfee was just a prominent Internet Troll.
He knew how to play that game, and he wanted to go out with a bang, or maybe he really did have dirt on some bad people working within the government.
I wouldn't be surprised, to be completely honest.
I mean, this is a guy who knows computers, and he wanted to run as a libertarian candidate.
He was not supportive of the establishment.
So surprise, surprise, they came after him, claiming that he had hidden crypto accounts.
We don't know for sure.
What we do know is that even among mainstream media personalities, they're now talking about how, well, the narrative is breaking.
You'd think some of these leftist publications would mock and ridicule someone like me for simply saying I don't trust the reporting coming out and I want to see the evidence.
But no.
Even left-wing personalities are saying they don't believe it.
Even left-wing publications are saying they don't believe it.
And that says a lot.
It's not just about John McAfee.
It's also about the verb people are using.
Epstein'd.
Because most people, left or right, do not believe the official narrative on what happened to Epstein.
We do have some developments on what's happening with the guards and what's happening to some of the victims.
And what they're asserting about what's currently happening with the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Could it be that the establishment, the Trix, the Deep State is failing?
Struggling to retain control of the narrative?
Or could it be that we are all just wrapped up in this movie world perspective where we think life is just more fantastic than it really is?
Maybe life is really just boring.
Maybe John McAfee just couldn't take being a 75 year old man in prison who knew this was the end of the line.
That after he gets extradited he goes to the US and that's it for him.
But he was still able to influence the world with his tweets.
So why would someone who reveled in the attention just end it there?
Truly, we have a mystery on our hands.
So we must take a look at what was said by John McAfee's wife, and look around the circumstances of his arrest, and what the prison officials are saying about what happened, and then talk about the narrative.
That's right, the narrative from the mainstream media.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com Become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, but also to support our work.
Your membership, that money, it supports the infrastructure of the website, and it makes sure we can bring on more amazing journalists.
Why, we just hired Cassandra Fairbanks.
You know her, you love her.
She's writing articles for us.
She's going to be getting her own team, her own newsroom, and we have another writer who is working on paranormal mysteries and stories like this.
When you become a member at TimCast.com, you are ensuring that we can keep doing this work in the face of all of the censorship.
So please go to TimCast.com, sign up.
But don't forget, like this video.
It's very important.
Subscribe to this channel and share this video with your friends because if you truly believe that the videos I'm producing are good and that the work I'm doing is good, or at the very least, maybe you hate me but you hate the likes of CNN more, help me at least to do better than they do, right?
Alright, share this video.
Let's read the story, in fact, from CNN.
Now let me just stop for a second.
There's a reason I chose CNN as the lead source for the story about John McAfee's wife and his life.
Because CNN is considered by many to be untrustworthy.
I find them to be untrustworthy.
And if they're making these claims, it brings up a lot of interesting questions about How far the narrative can go and what people are willing to believe, even CNN.
I'll put it this way.
If CNN is the most trusted name in news, as they say, well then don't get mad at me when I'm reading from them and they say something ain't right.
CNN reports John McAfee was not suicidal, says widow of antivirus software Magnate.
The widow of controversial antivirus software magnate John McAfee said her husband was not suicidal and blamed the U.S.
authorities for this tragedy after he was found dead in his cell in a prison near Barcelona on Wednesday.
The 75-year-old McAfee, who had multiple run-ins with the law, was awaiting extradition after being charged with tax evasion in the U.S.
last year.
Speaking to reporters outside the prison on Friday, Janice McAfee demanded a thorough investigation, saying she wanted answers of how this was able to happen.
The cause of McAfee's death is under investigation, a spokesman for the Superior Court of Catalonia told CNN this week.
Janice McAfee's lawyer, Javier Villalba told reporters Friday his client is waiting for the official autopsy to be done, adding, the family has requested a second and independent one.
Quote, I blame the U.S.
authorities for this tragedy because of these politically motivated charges against him.
My husband is now dead, Janice said during a statement.
His last words to me were, I love you and I will call you in the evening, Janice said.
He would have never quit this way.
He would never take his life this way, ever.
His death came after a ruling from a three-judge panel at Spain's National Court in Madrid last week that McAfee could be extradited to the United States to face charges there.
That decision could still have been appealed to a larger panel of judges at the same court, according to court documents.
Janice said Friday, the Spanish court's decision to extradite him did not come as a surprise, and they had a plan in place to appeal it.
So the fight wasn't even over.
McAfee didn't even lose!
He could have just went on trolling the internet, making his posts, and sitting in his cell with a smile on his face, like the photos show.
What was this really about?
No idea.
McAfee claimed apparently, well I should say some rumors circulate about a lot of wild claims made by McAfee about donating laptops and finding spyware and accusing the U.S.
of wrongdoing.
Perhaps.
There are many prominent dissidents who believe that McAfee really did have evidence against corrupt U.S.
officials.
Maybe even people like Edward Snowden.
Now I don't want to assert what Snowden thinks or may know.
But he then goes on to say something about Julian Assange could be next.
Well, let's keep reading.
They go on to say, McAfee had a cellmate at the prison, but that person was not in the cell around the time that McAfee was found dead.
A prison official, who asked not to be named, told CNN.
The official added that the other person was out doing other normal activities at the prison.
Asked if authorities had imposed special monitoring measures on McAfee in his cell, the official said, I'm not aware of that.
McAfee was arrested in Spain in October after being indicted in the United States for tax evasion months earlier.
He allegedly failed to file taxes for four years despite earning millions in income between 2014 and 2018 from promoting cryptocurrencies, consulting work, speaking engagements, and selling the rights to his life story for a documentary, according to court documents.
The amount he owed was not specified in the indictment.
The Spanish judges approved his extradition to face charges for the 2016, 17, and 18 tax years.
McAfee, founder of the eponymous antivirus software firm with which he is no longer affiliated, was also indicted in March on separate fraud and money laundering charges.
The U.S.
Department of Justice alleged that he and a business partner participated in a scheme that earned more than $13 million by falsely promoting cryptocurrencies to unwitting investors.
unidentified
McAfee, Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America 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.
If that's the case, wouldn't Elon Musk be facing some serious charges as well, perhaps?
Well, that's yet to be seen.
Now, the thing about Elon Musk is, he's not running to other countries.
And if he was, they'd probably just fine him.
But McAfee was...
A maverick, to say the least.
Now, he claims he didn't actually have any of that crypto, that it wasn't true, the accounts were basically empty, the money slipped through the fingers of Team McAfee, they don't have it.
They were alleging that he had hidden crypto accounts.
That's a scary reality.
I mean, think about it.
You could be arrested from crypto trading, and the government could just say, we know you have these accounts, and you have lots of money, we want it.
But what if you don't?
What if you really don't?
How do they know and how do they prove it?
I mean the same is true for anything.
The government could claim that you buried a bunch of gold in your backyard and demand it.
I don't have gold in my backyard, Lyle.
We know you do.
You could have a conversation with someone where you jokingly mention burying gold and then the government could say we demand taxes on the gold you have because we saw the messages and then go after you and then what do you do?
If the government is charging you for something that they can't even prove, you see where this is getting scary?
If they're claiming McAfee had hidden accounts, they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
McAfee doesn't need to prove his innocence.
So why would he take his own life?
I mean, it seems like he still had the opportunity to appeal.
His fight wasn't over.
Interesting, to say the least.
The final hours of John McAfee.
This is where things get interesting.
Questions start popping up.
What do people believe in?
Is the narrative breaking down?
From the Daily Beast.
Mind you, the Daily Beast is a mainstream establishment publication.
They're right.
Hours before news of his death was made public, the multi-millionaire fugitive had reportedly asked Spanish prison guards if he could have some alone time.
They say after the 75-year-old received official word at 4 p.m.
yesterday that he would be extradited to the U.S.
to face tax evasion charges.
McAfee reportedly asked jail workers at the Barcelona prison, located in Sant Esteve de Cesreveres, If he could be alone for a few hours in his cell, according to the Spanish daily Diario AS.
Diario.
That's a terrible word to translate to English.
Normally a prisoner deemed suicidal would be obliged to be accompanied by another inmate.
But McAfee was not considered by prison authorities to be suicidal.
Penitentiary rules also allowed him the right to time alone.
Could it be that whoever had it out for McAfee waited until that moment when he asked for a loan time to move in?
And if that's true, that would mean that they had access to his cell.
What would Occam's Razor suggest?
This is where things get a little bit tricky.
I mean, somebody with access to the cell able to open the door and go in?
Was the door locked?
I don't even know.
Going in and overpowering him?
I don't know.
Maybe this is just a man who got the news that he would be extradited, the fight was over, and this is the end of the rope.
So what did he decide to do?
He decided to troll the world with one of the most epic trolls ever.
But his wife said he wasn't suicidal.
He said he would call her.
Perhaps the phone call was a ruse.
When he said, I'll call you in the evening, he knew that would raise alarm bells.
But that is too conspiratorial!
To assume that John McAfee was planning this elaborate plot saying, I love you, my wife, and I'll call you later, but it was a big trick?
You have to take several leaps of faith to believe that was true.
But then what are you supposed to believe?
That someone snuck into his cell at the opportune moment to end his life?
What a, what a, you know, I feel bad about this story.
I really do.
McAfee was cool.
But whether you like the guy or not, he was a cool dude.
He was this crazy, eccentric, flamboyant, bombastic troll.
He was a smart guy.
So it's shocking to say the least.
Daily Beast say McAfee was nabbed at Barcelona's airport at the request of the U.S.
Justice Department October 3rd, 2020, as he was preparing to board a flight to Istanbul with a British passport.
Law enforcement officials had been alerted to his presence after he posted on social media near Tarragona in Catalonia.
Perhaps a big mistake on the part of McAfee.
He doesn't have a good history with posting photos of where he is and then people finding out where he is, but I'll leave that for another day, that story.
The ruling by Spain's High Court.
The Audiencia Nacional was a critical blow to the entrepreneur known for his penchant for drugs, sex, and scandal.
Ultimately, the court ruled against all of McAfee's claims that he was being politically persecuted for his activism against the U.S.
tax system.
Could it be that he wasn't paying taxes and that was his activism?
Quote, There is no supporting evidence that such a thing could be happening, the high court ruled, maintaining that the internal motivations for why McAfee did not declare his taxes during that period did not matter.
The court added that McAfee's claims had more to do with his subjective convictions and allegedly exculpatory justifications that have no solid base in reality.
The country's top court insisted that the software entrepreneur's importance socially, economically, or in any other area did not give him immunity.
Now, I'll explain something to you guys who aren't familiar with this.
For American citizens, no matter where you are, no matter where you work, you could leave the U.S., get a work visa for Spain, and if you make money, you must pay the U.S., one of the only countries in the world, if not the only, that charges taxes to people who don't even live there.
Could it be that McAfee was saying, I don't live there, I ain't paying these taxes?
Seems like he even admitted that much.
Or could it be that the U.S.
government will make an example of anyone who dares challenge the tax system?
Why?
Probably one of the most threatening things a person could do.
If a lot of people just tax protested, it would be devastating for the U.S.
McAfee was high profile, and he was advocating for this.
Naturally, they can't have that.
There's a story several years ago about a couple in, I believe it was New Hampshire, I'm not entirely sure, that was refusing to pay taxes, and the feds came in, surrounded the house, and it was pretty brutal.
In fact, my friend Luke Rutkowski may know, I believe it was actually there.
The government, I tell you this man, Al Capone got away with so much.
He was a very, very bad dude.
Hanging out with some bad boys.
But they got him on tax evasion, that's the story.
Because you can break the law, but if you cross the IRS, oh boy do they come for you.
That's what I love about taxes.
On tax forms they say, even if you make money selling illicit things, you better report the revenue.
That's what's so funny.
And apparently they won't report you if you claim like, I made money doing things you're not allowed to do.
They're like, just give us our cut and carry on.
McAfee wasn't doing that.
You see how serious things get.
They go on to say, the court was not buying it.
This is not life imprisonment.
Even in the case most unfavorable to his interests, it found.
And in the second case, the court said it did not see that McAfee was suffering from serious health problems, an issue that would at any rate be only taken into account at the moment that extradition is carried out.
While his death is being considered a suicide, prison workers were nevertheless shocked that McAfee had taken his life.
One prison official described McAfee as a prisoner for economic crimes with an absolutely normal life in jail.
McAfee's death has inspired several inexplicable twists, including a suggestion by former NSA consultant and data privacy advocate Edward Snowden that hacker Julian Assange could be the next to die in jail.
Europe should not extradite those accused of non-violent crimes to a court system so unfair and prison systems so cruel.
The native-born defendants would rather die than become subject to it.
Julian Assange could be next, Snowden tweeted on Wednesday.
But it seems that Snowden's real claim is that McAfee actually did take his life because he doesn't want to face what Americans call justice.
I actually think we have a decent justice system in this country, better than many others.
And I don't necessarily agree with Edward Snowden if that is what he's trying to say.
He's implying that Julian Assange would decide to take his own life instead of coming to the United States?
Maybe.
I don't know.
I can't read minds.
In life, McAfee embraced conspiracy theories while in jail.
He wrote that he would never take his own life.
Quote, I am content in here.
I have friends.
The food is good.
All is well.
Know that if I hang myself a la Epstein, it'll be no fault of mine, McAfee tweeted last October.
He has inspired conspiracy theories in his death as well.
On Wednesday, an ominous Instagram post, the letter Q, appeared on his official account shortly after reports of his suicide had been made public.
McAfee's lawyer, Javier Villalba told Reuters on Thursday that McAfee died out of pure fear of what his life would be like having to face U.S.
charges.
This is the result of a cruel system, she proclaimed, that had no reason to keep this man in jail for so long.
prosecutors will likely ask the judge overseeing the case to dismiss the charges against McAfee in light of his death.
Interesting.
Very, very interesting.
There's something else that's coming out of this.
Of course, you still have, uh, I guess derisive posts about conspiracy theories, saying anybody who claims to conspiracy is full of it, blah, blah, blah.
Take a look at this article from the Daily Beast.
Q post on John McAfee's Instagram page unleashes conspiracy wave.
The death of the notorious and allegedly violent software tycoon was always going to be an event.
Somehow it got weirder.
Now, initially, this article incorrectly described my political affiliations.
I reached out to the author and simply and politely asked if they could correct it, and they said, absolutely, and they immediately issued that correction, so thank you and with respect.
When someone makes a mistake and they immediately correct it, I respect that 100%, so thank you to the Daily Beast for removing the incorrect insinuation of my political beliefs.
Now they just call me a person on the right.
That's fine, whatever.
People have their perspective, but The way they described me before was just grossly incorrect.
But that's not what's relevant, okay?
I don't want to harp on that.
Go on the story and talk about what happened.
What's interesting is this.
They say...
Newsmax host Steve Cortez tweeted to his 222,000 followers, quote, So if Jeffrey Epstein got Vincent Foster'd, then did McAfee just get Jeffrey Epstein'd?
Tim Poole, a social media personality on the right, tweeted to his 820,000 followers, Bull effing ish.
I didn't even say what that meant, but Ah, that's what they quote.
Progressive social media personality BrooklynDadDefiant wrote to his more than 900,000 followers, John McAfee died today.
They said it was suicide, but he says he didn't do it.
Wow.
I mean, BrooklynDadDefiant is a leftist anti-Trump personality.
The fact that you are seeing Newsmax on the right, they say I'm on the right, but let's be real, moderate personality Tim Pool, and leftist personality all questioning the narrative.
That says something, doesn't it?
That says something about their ability to maintain control of what people see, hear, and think.
That, to me, is one of the most incredible outcomes of this story, and perhaps what McAfee was really going for.
If this really was McAfee taking his own life, and a major troll, perhaps he decided that with his last effort, he would confuse everyone to the point where no one could believe the mainstream media.
Maybe.
Or maybe he was just a wild and crazy guy who wanted to go out with a bang.
Or maybe he had evidence and somebody wanted to stop him.
Maybe he was, as they say, Epstein'd.
Which brings me to Epstein.
You may have seen the story.
Seems to be that there actually was some kind of conspiracy.
While many people were dragged for insinuating that what happened to Jeffrey Epstein was a conspiracy, we now have criminal charges.
Interesting.
The AP reported on May 21st, about a month ago, or just over a month ago, Epstein guards to skirt jail time and deal with prosecutors.
The AP, the AP is the bastion of mainstream media, they said.
The two Bureau of Prisons workers tasked with guarding Epstein the night he took his own life in a New York jail cell have admitted they falsified records, but they will skirt any time behind bars under a deal with federal prosecutors authorities said Friday.
The prison workers, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, were accused of sleeping and browsing the internet instead of monitoring Epstein the night he took his own life.
They were charged with lying on prison records to make it seem as though they had made required checks on the financier before he was found in his cell.
So think about that.
Not the conspiracy everybody expects.
You know, a lot of people are, what was the joke we heard that McAfee is found with Clinton-esque bruises on his neck?
It's a joke.
Everybody calm down.
I don't think that's true.
It's a joke.
But we do have a conspiracy.
Two prison guards falsified records.
And a conspiracy is, you know, more than one person plotting some criminal activity or unethical activity in secret.
They've pleaded guilty to this.
In private, they did.
Now, does anybody really believe that the official narrative on Epstein is true?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Now, there's some problems here.
Perhaps we all just got wrapped up in the movies and in stories.
Maybe the world is really boring and we pretend like it's fantastical and exciting.
Because otherwise, life is kind of boring and routine.
We're so used to watching movies, so many people believe silencers are a real thing.
You know, pew pew pew, those aren't real, you can't do that with a gun.
Just not true.
But so many people believe it.
So many people watch movies and believe fake movie tropes.
Oh no, someone's firing at you, better hide behind a car, that won't help you.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Is it naive to excuse the fact that there are dirty, manipulative, and corrupt people out there that would do corrupt things?
I mean look at these guards.
Initially they said it was crazy to believe there was a conspiracy and at the very least we got the Level 1 of conspiracies.
On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being like the craziest conspiracy and 1 being like, well, there was a conspiracy, I think we're at a 1.
Maybe a 2.
So it did happen.
These people did conspire to commit a crime.
They've pleaded guilty to it, I guess.
Could it be even worse?
Yeah, we don't have evidence for that, but there are certainly people who are not satisfied with these stories.
Take a look at this story from just the other day from Business Insider.
Jeffrey Epstein accuser says she doesn't believe Ghislaine Maxwell is actually in jail and thinks she may very well be in Trump Tower.
I'm not convinced she's in Trump Tower.
This one seems a little bit out there, to be completely honest.
Insider Reports.
Maria Farmer, an Epstein accuser, doesn't think the Epstein associate is in jail.
Farmer says she wants proof and thinks that Maxwell may be in Trump Tower.
They say, Maxwell, a former socialite, is being held in a Brooklyn, New York jail without bail, while awaiting trial in connection with accusations, the Epstein accusations.
Farmer, however, voiced doubts about Maxwell's whereabouts in a newly released three-part docuseries titled Epstein's Shadow.
Ghislaine Maxwell, which premiered on Peacock on Thursday.
I mean, this is NBC's streaming platform.
Forgive me.
After this giant conspiracy theory I've lived, that I don't believe anything, I want proof I'd like to see her.
She may very well be in Trump Tower.
Was it a conspiracy theory?
Or was it a conspiracy when ABC suppressed the reporting?
Remember this one?
Project Veritas got access to this secret recording.
I think it was Amy Rohrbach?
Was that her name?
Where she said, three years prior, they had him.
They had the interviews.
They had him.
But ABC said no.
Was that a conspiracy?
Or was that just a corrupt media outlet or a callous media outlet not wanting to cover news that could be bad for their friends the Clintons in an election year?
Perhaps.
But we do know the news was suppressed.
It was called a conspiracy theory.
The idea that Epstein was doing anything wrong was a conspiracy theory.
Now we have accusations made about Bill Gates and Bill Clinton being friends with Epstein.
Will those remain conspiracy theories?
The joke now is that, what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the news?
About eight months!
Ha ha!
No, I'm not a big fan of conspiracies simply because you need evidence.
There are a lot of people who are mad that I don't speculate more.
Well, I don't want to assert speculation as fact.
I won't do that.
Certainly, we can have these interesting conversations and talk about what McAfee's wife actually said.
But to entertain a story without evidence, I can't do it.
I can't.
It's just not possible.
But I'll tell you this, man.
We have another story, this time for Poynter.
U.S.
ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media.
Wow.
Reuters Institute report finds just 29% of people surveyed in the U.S.
said they trust the news, compared to 45% in Canada and 54% in Brazil.
Well, I blame CNN and MSNBC because they lie nonstop.
To be fair, there are many Democrats in this country who don't believe Fox News, but any rational person who pays attention to politics knows that Fox News, while biased, does entertain the opposition, probably telling the truth in most of their articles, and CNN lies all the time.
Think about what this means, though.
It could be that McAfee is just somebody who took his own life and it's another tragic story.
I mean, if you're thinking about anything like that, you need to get help, you need to make sure you're checking in on your friends, because it's a sad story.
Could it be that the reality is we just don't trust our media anymore?
We don't believe their narratives.
The narratives are shattered.
This could be a good thing, but it could also be a bad thing.
We need trust in the media, because we need a real media apparatus to challenge the powers that be.
The problem is, in this country, the media has become a tool of the powers that be, so much so that nobody wants to believe anything they say.
Now in the United States, we are dead last among 46 countries, according to the Poynter Institute.
Now Poynter, they're the ones who certify whether or not someone's a fact-checker on Facebook.
Well, I got news for you, Poynter.
There are fact checks on my videos and other content that are lies!
Who watches The Watchmen?
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
I'll tell you what.
I'm going to.
I'm going to hire someone whose job is going to be to just go through fact checks and then write them as true or false.
That's right.
Because I've had a fact-checking organization claim that one of my tweets about Epstein was fake, even though it was 100% true.
They said, yeah, well, we didn't like the way you wrote it.
But it was true.
Yeah, well, too bad.
They then wrote an article confirming everything I tweeted, but said, the way he tweeted it, you know, we didn't like, there was no context.
What do you mean?
Well, it's Twitter.
You get 280 characters.
Used to be less than that.
It's time to fact-check the fact-checkers.
It's time to figure out what's going on.
And while I don't know if we'll ever find out what happened to McAfee, or Epstein, the least we can do is say, with trust being broken, and questions being asked, we need people who are doing the real work to investigate and find answers, which is why all of you should go to TimCast.com, become members, support our work, because we're going to be hiring some excellent people to challenge these stories, to investigate, and try to the best of our abilities to figure out what's really happening in this world and restore trust in the media.
Certainly people trust their own sources.
Conservatives trust conservative outlets.
Democrats trust Democrat outlets.
But something is wrong here.
Maybe the reality is this 29%, it's just we're split down the middle.
Perhaps Democrats just trust MSNBC but hate everybody else.
Conservatives trust Fox but hate everybody else.
So the reality is it's just tribalism.
We got to change that.
We gotta figure out what really happens in these stories, and we have to do a better job.
Otherwise, if people can't trust what's happening because we have deceptive, lying media, then politics will break downstream from this.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
I don't believe it.
These books are usually bullcrap and they kind of just make things up about Trump, but well, he's not president anyway.
Certainly, they're still trying to milk the Orange Man bad narrative.
But, um, I don't think these people understand why other people voted for Donald Trump.
They seem to think that by making Trump look like, uh, like a badass is going to hurt his chances in 2024, and maybe that's the plan.
Sorry.
Uh, I think this is actually a good story for Donald Trump.
We had billions of dollars, billions, in damage from these riots.
People were killed.
So Donald Trump, if he did say, crack their skulls, shoot them, is that wrong?
It all depends on the context.
We don't want violence.
We don't want riots.
We don't like people losing their lives.
But what was Donald Trump talking about?
Was he talking about some peaceful protester waving a little flag saying, please, please, no more brutality?
Or was he talking about the guy who shot David Dorn?
See, context matters.
Well, I'll tell you what's really fascinating these days.
They're trying to run these stories, in my opinion.
They're trying to get a leg up on stopping people like Trump from running again.
And they're going to maintain this narrative.
They're going to keep smearing Trump because Trump probably is going to run again.
Check this out.
From Civics, net support for Black Lives Matter is at 4%.
Amazing.
4% net support.
Before the George Floyd riots, they were enjoying 11% net support.
I mean, just before George Floyd, it was at 17%.
This is amazing, amazing, amazing, amazing.
Black Lives Matter had 17% net support just before George Floyd died.
So, if we do the actual trendline-based support, you can see that 46% of the country supports Black Lives Matter.
42% oppose it.
11% say they're either not sure or oppose it.
Take a look at this.
Around the same time that opposition spiked, those who were unsure decreased.
Meaning, and support decreased.
The riots had a very negative impact on Black Lives Matter.
So when Donald Trump comes out and says, crack their skulls and shoot and beat the F out of them, if he's referring to those who literally got people killed, that's a light response.
Now, Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley refused to do it.
Why?
Because Mark Milley is woke and supports the extremists.
Sorry.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff right now... Wow, Trump should have fired this guy in two seconds.
But Trump didn't understand what he was up against.
He didn't understand the power of the cult and their incursion into our government.
Tucker Carlson does.
Tucker Carlson calls General Mark Milley a pig for critical race theory comments.
Amazing.
Well, let's see if they'll give some more context on why Donald Trump said these things.
According to the Daily Mail, they say, The top U.S.
general rejected then-President Donald Trump's push for the military to crack skulls at civil rights protests across the nation in 2020.
Come on, Daily Mail.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley seemed to be at odds, and at times, the lone dissenting voice against the former president wanting to respond with force to protests over the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died while in police custody in Minneapolis.
Somehow, I just don't believe Donald Trump was looking at a photo of a bunch of sad people crying, holding signs, and him going, just beat him!
That's the narrative they want, though.
It's probably the narrative about firebombing Portland and, you know, people killing David Dorn.
Because they want Trump to seem like a psychopath, sorry.
It comes as Millie yesterday said recruits should be open-minded and widely read amid growing claims the U.S.
military is becoming more woke.
It is.
Passionate exchanges between Millie and Trump were included in Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender's new book, Frankly, We Did Win This Election, the inside story of how Trump lost, of which CNN obtained excerpts.
The military officer spoke out against growing criticism over teaching critical race theory in the military as he was grilled by Republican congressmen.
While watching protests unfold in places like Seattle and Portland, Trump highlighted cops' physical exchanges with protesters and told his administration what he wanted to see, CNN reported.
That's how you're supposed to handle these people, Trump told his top law enforcement and military officials, Bender wrote, according to CNN, crack their skulls.
I don't, I don't, I don't necessarily disbelieve that Trump would tell people to crack some skulls.
I just disbelieve this like this narrative they try to do about civil rights protests and peaceful protests like they burned down a police station and Trump didn't send in military didn't even Tom Cotton said to do it.
Trump also told his team that he wanted the military to go ahead and beat the F out of civil rights protesters, Bender wrote.
You see, that's the lie.
You get a bunch of people wearing all black burning down buildings and Trump says stop them and they go, Trump's trying to beat peaceful protesters!
CNN reported other examples of Trump telling the military to shoot protesters.
At one point, a Trump senior adviser, Stephen Miller, compared the protests to third world countries, which angered Milley.
Milley, who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, shut the f up, Stephen.
CNN reported from one of the excerpts.
Yeah, well, Milley, you are a...
You're a cultist.
Like, I get that you support these insane lunatics who are literally burning down buildings.
I think you need to step back and understand you're indoctrinated, you're a religious ideologue, you don't represent American values, and you're racist.
Mender's new book showed Milley was concerned that Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act, and Tom Cotton wanted him to, which allows the president to deploy the military in cases of rebellion or terror attacks.
Milley reportedly saw the protests as unrest as a political issue, not a military one, and was strongly against implementing the Insurrection Act.
And Trump was a big ol' box of stupid for not firing him and firing Fauci and other people.
In one excerpt, Millie reportedly pointed to a picture of former President Abraham Lincoln's portrait hanging just to the right of Trump.
That guy had an insurrection, Millie said.
What we have, Mr. President, is a protest.
Yes, all across the country, people burning down buildings just to protest.
This guy watched too much CNN.
That's really it.
When our generals don't have access to real intelligence, and they're as dumb as the people on CNN, we're in trouble.
In June 2020, a week after Floyd was killed by Derek Chauvin, who is being sentenced today, by the way.
We'll see what happens.
Protesters were pushed back with pepper balls and smoke bombs before Trump walked in with Millie, and then Defense Secretary Mark Esper to the St.
John's Episcopal Church directly across the street from Lafayette Park for a photo op.
You know what's really funny, DailyMail?
It's definitively proven that wasn't true.
We have the new report from the IG which said they were already planning on clearing the protest to put up a barrier.
Trump incidentally walked out and took a photo.
Isn't it amazing how they still push that lie?
And that lie supports this narrative Orange Man bad.
He posed with a Bible outside the building.
Trump did so just minutes after vowing to dispatch thousands of heavily armed soldiers to stop demonstrators.
Demonstrators?
On Wednesday, Millie also hit back against claims the U.S.
military is becoming more woke.
The military officer slammed criticism over teaching critical race theory in the military and said recruits should be open-minded and widely read.
At first, they said the military was not engaging in critical race theory trainings and wokeness.
Then they admitted it and said, well, you know, okay, we are, but it's, you know, they're defending it outright.
First said it wasn't happening.
Now they're defending it outright.
Is that where we're at right now?
Yep.
See, that's the incrementalism.
They do it slowly over time.
So there's not a big shock to the system.
You've got to be a boiling frog.
They don't want to splash boiling water on the frog.
The frog will jump away.
But the pot's beginning to simmer and we're sitting in it.
What is wrong with understanding, having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?
Well, when you have a bunch of cultists who write propaganda and historical revisionism, you're not understanding things.
You're understanding cultists who are seeking to subvert power.
But maybe people like Millie support them.
Maybe he's not so dumb.
Maybe Millie knows exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it.
He said to himself, you know what?
I'd like some power.
I'd like to be an authoritarian despot.
Okay, then I'll lie too.
Could be that simple.
Or it could be dumb.
You know, either or.
They're going to say the generals stress the need for greater understanding of the driving forces behind the January 6th attack.
Yeah, white rage.
I want to understand white rage.
And I'm white and I want to understand it.
Yeah.
I don't know what we do, but I will tell you this.
We jump on over to the polling for Black Lives Matter, and let me just say this, my friends.
Yeah, we're winning.
This is great news.
Mark Milley has shown his true colors.
Regular Americans are probably going to freak out.
Across this country, we are seeing parents stand up to the school board saying, we will not allow your cult to indoctrinate our children.
You know, we say it's a non-theistic religion.
We've said that for some time.
People like James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose.
A while ago, you know, the people who did the Sokol Squared hoax.
I had a conversation with them about the non-theistic religion.
But I think that's disparaging to religions.
It's a cult.
That's what it is.
And it's spreading.
And their cult ideology is spreading.
And you look at these videos where they're all in the park chanting, I will be a good neighbor, and it is spreading.
But regular people don't want to be involved in this.
It's interesting because this country used to be extremely religious, and there were moral authoritarians among the Christian right.
Now, they're much more libertarian, though some of them are a bit more authoritarian.
I think most of them, at least the prominent ones that I've talked to, are more authoritarian than libertarian, but what I mean by that is they're not on the authoritarian spectrum.
But they're like moderately, hey, we need a rule of law and cultural and social enforcement in this country to a certain degree.
And I actually agree with that.
That's why I'm not like a hardcore anarchist or anything like that.
But I wonder how much change will actually come about due to this.
When Mark Milley comes out and says things that are clearly unpopular.
Amazing.
42% oppose, 46% support.
Just watching those numbers decline gives me great joy.
I don't mind the idea of protesting police brutality.
In fact, I support the idea that we would protest police brutality.
I support the idea that we challenge bad cops.
Because we have seen police officers seize people's guns.
Wrong.
We have seen them kill people because they were scared.
Wrong.
But Black Lives Matter is something else.
They want to disrupt the family.
They're trained Marxists.
They're pushing critical race theory and all these other weird intersectional ideas that are all rooted in critical race theory.
And now we can see.
Here's what I want to show you.
In January of 2020, Black Lives Matter had 10% net support.
Isn't that amazing?
Actually, let me show you the trend line.
Because this is where it gets interesting.
Total support in January for Black Lives Matter was actually 42.
It does have more adherence today.
But opposition was 32%.
Opposition has increased.
Now, we could argue this is actually dangerous polarization, perhaps.
I still see it as a good thing.
The green bar at the bottom.
January 2020, Black Lives Matter support.
24% said neither support nor oppose.
Think about that.
The politically uninitiated have entered the fight, and they've joined us.
Amazing, isn't it?
Yeah.
Let me show you this timeline.
42% supported Black Lives Matter, a minority of this country, but the plurality of those polled.
32% opposed it.
And over time, in May, What is this?
May of 2017.
Opposition was 41%.
Now, to be fair, there was a flippening.
Opposition used to be greater and support was lower.
Over time, more and more people stopped opposing Black Lives Matter and became unsure.
This was good news for the proponents of critical race theory and cultural Marxism, and this identitarianism.
The opposition was saying, you know what, I'm not so sure about Black Lives Matter.
I used to not like them, but now I'm not so sure.
And then, the people decided to burn everything down, and it was a great reversal.
In 2017, 19% said neither support nor oppose, and today, 11% neither support nor oppose.
Those who are unsure were 2% and now 1%.
Cut in half.
I know, not a big number, but opposition is higher today.
than it was in January of 2017 at its other highest point.
Opposition today to Black Lives Matter is higher than it's been in four years because of what they've done.
Now, of course, support is up as well, but if we're going to wake up more and more people to the insanity and the absurdity of the riots and the destruction, I think it's a good thing that they're becoming opposition to the insanity.
When you see these parents come out, When they finally realize what this is, when they don't know and they've never heard of it, and they finally see their kids say it, they freak out.
August 15th, that's what Bannon said.
When these kids go to school and they start telling their moms what they learned and the parents hear what's happening, ooh, they're going to be not too happy about what's going on.
And they're going to learn about critical race theory.
And they're going to hear things from people like Mark Milley.
And they're going to say, wow, I do not like this guy.
Wow, this guy believes that insanity.
And then they're going to be like, perhaps all that stuff they said about Trump was not true.
Perhaps Trump was right about his response to these extremists and those who are destroying all our businesses.
I think so.
I really do.
I'm optimistic, man.
I hope you look at this poll and you feel optimistic.
And if you're a Black Lives Matter supporter, you better be sweating bullets because your net support is down, down, down.
Net support being the, you know, the difference between opposition and support.
Now, I can be fair and say that net support was negative four years ago, so there's still ground being, you know, being controlled.
It's still a positive to a certain degree, but I think this is the downtrend.
Black Lives Matter had its day.
It is actually fizzling out.
We'll see what happens.
People really supported it, man.
They really wanted to support it.
It's really crazy that they saw over 53, is it 53% of people supported Black Lives Matter after George Floyd lost his life.
More than half the country.
And they lost it.
And they're losing it.
Amazing.
Well, Tucker Carlson called Millie a pig for his critical race theory comments.
I don't know if pig is the right word, but they say.
Over at Newsweek, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attacked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Millie, calling him a pig and stupid for defending teaching cadets and service personnel differing viewpoints, including aspects of critical race theory.
I love how they frame this, don't you?
This is why what we do is so important here.
I'm sorry, I gotta do a plug, man.
The more I read these stories, where I'm told I'm biased if I don't read CNN or whatever.
Oh, Tim will only read Fox News.
I read Daily Mail, Murdoch property, and they still call it a peaceful protest and a demonstration.
They weren't.
Some of them were, and I doubt Trump was saying to crack the skulls of, like, an old granny waving a little sign in the street.
That's ridiculous.
He's talking about Portland.
They even mentioned he was talking about Portland, Seattle, where Antifa and Black Lives Matter set up no-go zones and killed people.
That's right.
Some young people were shot up in a truck by these lunatics.
And so Trump said, you got to stop them.
And he was right.
And even the Daily Mail wants to play dirty games.
Sorry.
This is why it's so important what we're doing at TimCast.com.
Because we're not going to frame things like this.
We're not going to play that game.
We're not going to say peaceful protest.
We're going to say civil unrest.
Because civil unrest is a broad stroke.
And where it's a riot, we'll call it a riot.
And where it's vandalism, we'll call it vandalism.
We're not going to play these dirty games.
That's what they do though.
I love this.
They say the theory which quote maps the nature and workings of institutional racism according to Kendall Thomas a law
professor at Columbia University Was little known outside academic circles a few years ago,
but is now at the center of a culture war Republicans in more than 20 states have opposed our past
legislation to ban the theory being taught in schools good On Wednesday General Milley told the House Armed Services
Committee that it was important for members of the US military
military to be open-minded and widely read.
I want to understand white rage, he said.
I think about evolution.
I remember when there was this battle over teaching evolution in schools, and like, evolution is scientific theory, like actual scientific theory.
And creationism or intelligent design is less widely accepted.
However, I still am of the opinion we should teach the prominent thoughts on creation and origin or whatever.
That means if the mainstream science and all scientists accept the current theory of evolution, we should teach it.
If there is 80 million people or so that believe in intelligent design or creation or whatever, I absolutely think that controversy should be taught.
To an extent.
It is difficult though, because scientists do get things wrong.
I remember growing up being taught that dinosaurs were scaly.
Now they say dinosaurs have feathers.
Because science changes.
So it is difficult to know exactly how to handle something like this.
Now, that being said, we can have a debate about questions over origin, and you have a lot of people saying that creation or intelligent design is religious, perhaps, but you can still teach.
I don't know, maybe it's controversial to the secularists and the atheists.
You can still say there are a lot of people right now who are arguing this.
When it comes to critical race theory, there's literally no reason to be applying this theory into teachings.
Making math questions about, you know, people getting arrested makes no sense.
It literally is not historical fact.
It is ideology.
And it would be like if... I'll tell you the difference.
It's one thing to be like, we believe that those primordial goo and self-replicating proteins emerge through a natural process, blah, blah, blah.
And then someone saying, oh, there are many people in this country who have strong religious beliefs, and many who believe that we were created here by some divine creator, or simulation theory, that an advanced species has programmed or created this construct, and we actually exist within some kind of simulation.
Hey, how's that for intelligent design?
That's interesting.
Now imagine if this is what happened.
Your kid goes to school and they say, we don't teach religion here.
We don't teach religious theory or theology.
Nothing with Christianity.
Now open your math books to page 17 and little Johnny, can you read the first problem?
Okay.
Isaiah was talking to God, and God said that those who are faithful to him will receive four apples.
And Jeremiah asked God, and God said, if you are faithful to me, I will provide to your family and children the great bounty of heaven.
You see my point?
That's what they're doing with the application of critical race theory.
They're not having lectures on, you know, Kimberlé Crenshaw's writing.
They're just doing these math problems where they're like, John got pulled over by the police three times last year and Derek got pulled over 413.
What's the percentage difference?
And it shows like a white guy and a black guy.
It is application of the theory and indoctrination in these teachings.
So here's my response.
Here's what I'll say this.
You a Christian?
You a Catholic?
Okay, let's play a game.
Here's what you can do.
Same thing.
Make a curriculum.
Demand it.
Go to the board meetings and say, if they're not teaching, show them.
Get the homework from your kids and the bias trainings and say, if they're not teaching or applying critical race theory, then you should have no problem with these questions.
Jeremiah leaves for Bible study at 7.30 in the morning.
He must make it—he leaves for Bible study at 7.30 in the morning and he must travel 10 miles in order to get there by 8 p.m., you know, 8.30.
How fast should his car travel so that he can make it to worship the Lord?
Do that.
See what they say when you start giving those math questions to kids.
They will rip their hair out screaming.
They won't accept it.
How about this?
John is reading Leviticus, and in it, it says that, you know, whatever.
You get the point.
You get the point.
You make it a math question.
Or you say, for literature today, we're going to be reading scripture.
We're not teaching scripture.
No one is teaching scripture.
It's just, we're reading a book about scripture.
You see how that works?
Yeah.
Don't play those games.
Anyway, Donald Trump cracking skulls.
These people don't get it.
With Black Lives Matter losing support, and all the damage and destruction we've seen, I think this is helping Trump.
But we'll see.
That decline in support, man, it is, it is, it is, it is a bright new day.
And, uh, I don't know.
Sun's shining.
Birds are singing.
I see groundhogs running around, frolicking through the fields and eating trees and knocking them down and nearly destroying my house.
And there are rabbits standing upright, scared of the predators, but enjoying this beautiful summer day.
And, of course, support for Black Lives Matter is dropping to a new low as their support dwindles.
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.
The conflict over critical race theory in schools could be the defining battle that brings regular people into the culture war and turns the tide for the better.
Meaning, those who believe in individual liberties could defeat the woke cult should they have sufficient support from regular people who are finally waking up and realizing that this cult ideology is infecting our schools and our children.
There's a problem, however.
A lot of these politicians have no idea what they're talking about and no idea what their constituents want, and it's probably due to clever tactics on the left.
They constantly change the terms they use.
Things are redefined.
It makes it very hard to pinpoint, and now we have this story.
Bill would ban critical race theory in schools.
Sure.
But the bill would do much more than that.
This bill in Pennsylvania goes way too far and may, in fact, be A Trojan horse for the woke.
Now, I don't think the Republicans in Pennsylvania have drafted this bill saying, yeah, we'll trick Republicans into supporting wokeness.
I think what actually happened is they were like, we have no idea what people are mad about.
So we're going to go over the top and ban people from schools.
And that's not the right move to make.
There is a nuance in discussion about identity.
When it comes to race and gender and sex, it's not so cut and dry as to just say, you can or can't talk about something.
It's about the application of ideology.
And the difficulty that we are having is that while it's very easy to define a separation between church and state, it's really difficult when you're dealing with a new religion that isn't defined by a church and is mainstream.
Many people would argue, critical race theory is academic.
Well, no, it's ideological.
It's basically religious at this point.
You have authors who write what's effectively doctrine, and it's not founded in science, but conjecture.
How do we separate state from ideology?
That's almost impossible.
Because even our religious moral frameworks, whether you're atheist or not, most people in the United States need to understand that you operate under this Judeo-Christian moral framework.
You can reject the religious teaching, but you look at the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment.
I've talked in great detail about this.
It is rooted in ideas from the Bible.
You follow the trail.
You go Fifth Amendment, Blackstone's formulation, story of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.
Not saying that the Bible is perfect or that we should be having moral religious teachings in government.
Not at all.
We can clearly divide When we think some things are faith-based and when some things should be neutral and fair to all parties so that people are free to practice their religion or engage in ideological practices.
When it comes to critical race theory, though, we don't know where that line is.
The United States is a classically liberal country for the most part, but it's become increasingly more authoritarian and socially liberal.
We're now looking at a new religion that is critical race theory, intersectionality, whatever you want to call it, But they don't call it a religion.
And so they are actually indoctrinating people as to these ideas, which is, it is the application of critical race theory in these schools and in these curriculums.
It's very, very different from just telling someone what it is.
If in a public school they said, I'm gonna tell you what Christians believe, That's fine.
If they said, I want to tell you what Muslims believe, absolutely okay.
If they said, I'm going to incorporate the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad into our math literate program, I'd say, okay, now this is where we have to draw that line.
That's what they're doing.
And that may make it easier to separate ideology from State, I suppose.
Well, here's the story.
It's actually from June 8th, so quite a bit ago.
But the bill is going around now because people have actually started to take notice to some really bad ideas.
And I'm going to break down why this bill is bad because it seems like some people are still trying to defend it.
The Times Observer says, several Republicans in the State House of Representatives are backing legislation to prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in Pennsylvania schools.
House Bill 1532 would enact the Teaching Racial and Universal Equality Act to include in state law that no Pennsylvania school district, public post-secondary institution, or state or local government entity shall teach that any race or sex is superior to another.
That any individual based on their race or sex is inherently racist or sexist.
Or that any individual should receive favorable treatment or be discriminated against based on their race or sex.
This does not solve the problem, even if you like these bills, what they are doing.
is they are incorporating the teachings of critical race theory into math and literature and science.
So instead of saying, today we're going to learn about frogs and frog reproduction, they say, today we're going to learn about how the oppressive male frog subjects its females blah blah blah.
Then they'll say, we never taught critical race theory!
Right.
We understand what they're doing.
This bill will not address that, but it's actually worse than that.
They said the legislation is sponsored by Rep.
Russ Diamond, a Republican from Lebanon, and Barbara Glam, a Democrat from Cumberland.
There are 11 Republican co-sponsors.
Quote.
The manner in which important concepts such as racial and gender equality are taught in our schools could not be more important in defining the type of society we have.
Diamond and Gleam wrote in their legislative memorandum, teaching our children that they are inferior or inherently
bad based on immutable characteristics, such as race and sex can be extremely damaging to their
emotional and mental well-being.
Idaho, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have passed similar pieces of legislation in recent days,
according to the AP.
While at least 16 states are considering or have signed into law bills that would limit the teaching of certain ideas linked to critical race theory, which seeks to reframe the narrative of American history.
Its proponents argue that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race, and the country was founded on the theft of land and labor.
There are instances in which good points are made by the left, and that's the Trojan horse by which they incorporate critical race theory.
Like, if someone were to say, Christopher Columbus discovered America.
No, he didn't.
He landed in the Bahamas.
He thought he was going to India, and there were already people here.
Certainly, the Native Americans discovered the land when they migrated across the Bering Strait, or whatever the idea is, right?
Leif Erikson was here before him.
And so, I remember when I was growing up and I heard the story of Christopher Columbus, and I was taught that in school, and when I came home and told my mom, when she asked me what I learned in school, she said, well, Leif Erikson, you know, he was here before Christopher Columbus, and actually there were already people here, so they discovered America, didn't they?
And I was like, oh, good point.
It is from that, people start to say, hey, wait a minute, maybe a European colonial framing of history is limited in teaching us a true understanding of world history and politics.
And it is.
And that's fine.
The problem is then when you start to tear down statues of Thomas Jefferson because you're like, he was a racist!
And it's like, hold on, dude.
We're trying to protect history and teach history, not burn it to the ground.
But that's, of course, what is born out of this critical race theory.
From those very simple morsels of truth, you end up with ideas from CRT like, whiteness is property, and it's like, what?
That's stupid, and that's absurd.
You end up with intersectionality and critical white studies, and all of these things born of critical race theory, which is rooted in critical theory, which is also related to critical gender theory.
Which brings me to where these bills go bad.
These bills go bad.
There are a lot of bad things about them.
First and foremost, I do not believe it is appropriate to ban speakers from schools.
If Robin DiAngelo is invited to speak at university, I believe that is the prerogative of the students and the school to decide whether or not it's appropriate.
Not a law.
If somebody said, we want to have James Lindsay speak at this school, Fine.
If someone said we want to have Ibram Kendi speak at the school, absolutely fine.
I absolutely think so, 100%.
We should not be banning people from expressing their viewpoints.
In fact, this is how we actually challenge them, and I've long maintained this.
Do not bar Robin DiAngelo.
Open up the panel and let people hear what she has to say so she exposes herself.
Now, will people agree with her?
They will.
That means the school should bring in other voices.
So, I'll tell you what I take issue with.
You want to ban critical race theory, and you take issue with identitarianism.
But banning these ideas outright just results in ideas being suppressed, and people being unable to actually have real conversations, challenge these ideas, and shut them down because they're bad.
I want to show you the bill, actually, so we'll jump over to the actual House bill, number 1532.
It says, "...providing for restrictions on racist and sexist concepts for contracts, for penalty, and for private cause of action, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows.
Section 1, short title, this act shall be known and may be cited as the Teaching Racial and Universal Equality Act.
Section 2, definitions."
This work, it's important.
The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Now, they're going to go and mention contractor.
I'm not going to read the definitions of like what a public post-secondary institution is.
They say, well, I will actually.
It's an institution that receives funding in any amount from the Commonwealth.
Now, here's what gets important.
Racist or sexist concept.
Any of the following concepts.
1.
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
2.
An individual by virtue of race or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3.
An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment due to the individual's race or sex.
sex. An individual by virtue of the individual's race or sex bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by members of the individual's
race or sex. 8. Meritocracy or merit-based systems are either racist or sexist.
Yeah, that's just correct.
I mean, meritocracy is not inherently racist or sexist.
Okay, so we get it.
The United States of America, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is fundamentally racist or
sexist.
School district as defined under section 102 of the public school code of 1949.
Okay, so we get it.
Here's what they say.
Jenna, uh, let's see, I'll just keep reading.
Communications and actions by public entities.
A general rule, no communication by a commonwealth county or municipal agency, school district, or public post-secondary institution or an official representative shall adopt, express, or promote any racist or sexist concepts.
Penalty prohibited.
No employee, contractor, staff member, or student in a commonwealth, county, or municipal agency, school district, or public post-secondary institution shall face a penalty or adverse treatment due to a refusal to support, believe, endorse, embrace, confess, act upon, or otherwise assent.
to a racist or sexist concept.
Use of funds prohibited.
No commonwealth, county, or agency, etc., etc., shall use any funds to express, publish, advertise, or promote any racist or sexist concept.
Educational instruction at schools and public post-secondary institutions receiving public funds.
The following shall apply.
No instructor, teacher, or professor at a public school district or public post-secondary institution shall teach, advocate, or encourage the adoption of a racist or sexist concept while instructing students No.
That's wrong.
the treatment of you get the point right you cannot host pay or provide a venue
for a speaker who espouses advocates or promotes any racist or sexist concept or
acquire a student to read view or listen to a book video digital presentation
learning you get the point no that's wrong let's approach this from the left
perspective what if the school said we want you to watch a documentary about
Hitler so you can understand his ideology and we'll discuss why it was
Should they be barred from teaching that?
Of course not!
So I guess, you know, theoretically, They're arguing that the person shouldn't advocate for those views.
But it says, required to read, view, or listen to a book, article, or presentation that espouses, advocates, or promotes a racist or sexist concept.
Well, what if they wanted you to read Mein Kampf or Karl Marx or someone, you know, who was also racist?
What if they want you to read that?
They're not saying believe it.
They're saying learn about it.
You can.
Now, here's where it gets bad.
Let's just be honest and real about this, okay?
There are differences between races and sexes.
Absolutely.
Now, superiority is an interesting term, but ultimately I think this goes too far.
Think about what this would ultimately ban.
Now, you want to have a conversation about the differences between races.
By all means, we absolutely should.
If you want to assert that that makes something better or worse, well, that's a different story.
If you go to Southeast Asia, you'll find the average height of an individual is lower than that of, say, Nordic countries.
This does not mean any one group is better than the other.
But what if you then wanted to say that due to that, on average, one group might actually be superior in the game of basketball?
This is where things start getting tricky.
Absolutely.
Because we can certainly see that in the NBA, for instance, there is.
It's disproportionately black.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you why, but there are absolutely averages across different racial categories.
By all means, you can say that racial groups are a social construct or whatever.
That's fine.
Just because someone is Asian doesn't mean they'll always be short, but there are averages by region.
And then you can say, okay, it's not about their race.
It's about where they live and the region and all that.
Okay, fine.
The point is, how do you even have that conversation if the conversation is banned?
Now, let's talk about sex.
What if someone at a school said that, you know, due to prenatal testosterone, when it comes to weightlifting, men are superior to them?
And I'm not asserting it to be the case.
I'm saying, what if someone were to say that?
That would be banned, which basically means this could actually function as very beneficial to people who believe in critical race theory and critical gender theory.
Now, there are some aspects of it that would make it a problem for the critical race theorists, but across the board, it's greatly beneficial to critical gender theorists.
What if you said, due to the fact that women... What if you just said this?
Women are absolutely superior to men when it comes to birthing children.
I mean, it seems like an obvious statement, right?
Men literally can't birth.
Ah, but hold on.
Trans men can.
And then you have a whole discussion about trans men being men, etc.
Limiting the discussions on these things is wrong.
Not only that, let's just take a broad step back.
What does race and, you know, you're gonna get arguments on the semantics of race and sex and racist and sexist and what it really means.
Now, of course, they define racist and sexist concepts as being specifically of these nine categories.
But you cannot... Let's just go through some again.
So that's my addressing point one.
An individual by virtue of race or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
I agree with that.
You shouldn't be espousing that.
You shouldn't be teaching it.
But why shouldn't someone who believes that be allowed to go to university for a debate?
Let's say you were like, I want James Lindsay to debate Robin DiAngelo.
Sorry, Pennsylvania law makes that illegal.
I don't agree with that.
I believe in free speech, even for really bad people.
And we challenge those bad people with ideas.
Limiting any ideas doesn't make those ideas go away.
It just shuffles them under the rug where they fester and grow in the corner.
And then, it just gets worse.
Now, I understand the intent, and I can respect the fight, but we better make sure we get this right.
Otherwise, we are just banning free speech and shutting down legitimate academic inquiry.
I do not care if a white nationalist wants to debate a critical race theorist.
I do not care if a university wants to pay them.
That's their choice.
Allow the open debate in a public forum.
That's what it's for.
But to outright ban ideas?
We've been complaining about this the whole time.
When the schools shut down right-wing personalities like Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro and threaten them because the left says they're racist, we should not be allowing that exact same thing.
And I think, you know, honestly, if you were to talk to a conservative, they would probably tell you, even some liberals will tell you, that absolutely there are differences based on races, and the left can have an argument about it.
By all means.
How many conservative speakers would say something that would be considered a statement of superiority?
Let me put it this way.
When it comes to language, you need to be very, very specific, especially when it comes to legal law.
It says one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
Does that mean that you literally can't say the word superior?
What if you don't say?
What if you say that, you know, some people are shorter, some people are taller?
Well, you're implying superiority because we know that tall people have privilege blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This will open up the door for a bunch of lawsuits.
It will be used to get tons of speakers banned.
It will be used to get far right and far left and even some classically liberal.
It would this this would listen.
How about this?
How about Charles Murray and the bell curve?
What if he said we did scientific research that found X?
No, you cannot show that.
What if someone did a study where they said, here's women playing volleyball, here's men playing volleyball.
Sorry, you can't show that because this math shows that men perform better in these areas.
There was a study I've shown about grip strength that found that the strongest woman, in terms of grip strength, is about as strong as the average male when it comes to grip strength.
Would you be able to host a scientist showing those findings?
Probably not.
The solution to bad speech is more speech.
But it's not just here.
We also have perhaps some better moves.
Over at TimCast.com, Cassandra Fairbanks writes, Senator Ted Cruz introduces bill to block federal funding for critical race theory training.
Now this might make a bit more sense.
It's one thing to say we're going to ban speakers who espouse certain ideas.
It's another thing to say that we are literally having trainings on this ideology.
Now, that doesn't make sense.
I would not want a white supremacist to be giving trainings on their ideology.
I would not want a critical race theorist to do the same thing.
That's just neither here nor there.
No, we're not going to do that.
Now, I don't know the full details of Ted Cruz's bill, however, but they say, in a quote, the federal government has no right to force a political agenda onto Americans, especially one that aims to tear down our institutions and divide us based on race.
Critical race theory originated out of the critical race studies movement.
It is a Marxist ideology that sees the world as a battle not between the classes, as classical Marxism does, but between the races.
This is inherently bigoted.
On President Biden's first day in office, he rescinded the Trump administration's common-sense executive order, ensuring no government funding goes to anti-American or racist and sexist trainings.
That was good.
The trainings that they were doing were like segregating people and saying, because you're a man, you're bad.
Because you're white, you're bad.
That's not okay.
We gotta be careful about how we do the language on these things and perhaps even some of those bills we should review and make sure we're not restricting our ability to have legitimate conversations.
It's a tough battle.
It is.
The left is now coming out claiming, see, the right was always opposed to free speech.
There's a big difference between being allowed to say something and indoctrinating it, or kids, and applying it into the teachings.
Nah.
Second one.
That's bad.
But if a school wants to host any one of these speakers, they should be allowed to.
That's it.
And I think these bills, we gotta make sure we keep an eye on them, but I'll leave it there.
