US Says Russia Planning FALSE FLAG The Justify Ukrainian Invasion, Meanwhile China Build MORE NUKES.
US Says Russia Planning FALSE FLAG The Justify Ukrainian Invasion, Meanwhile China Build MORE NUKES. But this news comes amid a stunning defeat for Biden on vaccine mandates and a failing approval rating leaving many wondering if this is just a distraction.
Democrats have not been fairing well and this news is oddly timed, just after bad news and on a friday?
Meanwhile conservatives are slamming democrats for rejecting ted Cruz's bill to sanction nord Stream 2 and Chinese denies the expansion of its nuclear arsenal
#Democrats
#Ukraine
#China
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
says it has intelligence that Russia will stage a false flag attack to justify an invasion of Ukraine.
But is this just a distraction from the Biden administration over failing approval ratings and their abysmal domestic policy plans?
In our next story, Joe Rogan once again being slammed by the media, but this time it turns out he's actually right.
I do get one point wrong in this, I believe.
Joe Rogan arguing about myocarditis and vaccines may have been correct.
And in our last story, the feminization of our civilization could be resulting in its collapse.
I give you an assessment of new data from the New York Times talking about how women favor more communal approaches and banning hate speech where men take the opposite position.
Now, if you like this show, please leave a good review and give us five stars.
And if you really like it, share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Today, we have received a shocking new revelation.
The U.S.
intelligence has information that Russia will stage a false flag attack on its own soldiers to justify an invasion of Ukraine.
And I have only one question.
Why do I care about Ukraine?
Why do I care about these foreign conflicts?
You've not explained that to me, Biden administration.
And I want to point something else out, too.
While I certainly think this is newsworthy, and we are going to go in-depth on what's going on in Ukraine, I wonder why it is that just, I don't know, the other day, Joe Biden lost a major court ruling with the Supreme Court striking down his vaccine mandate.
Joe Biden then comes out and says the states and businesses should just have vaccine mandates anyway.
And now all of a sudden, we're getting speculation from U.S.
intelligence.
Not to mention, it's also on a Friday, too.
So I don't know what to say, but I can tell you a few things.
The abruptness by which this information has landed in our lap suggests to me it's possible the Biden administration is trying to shift the narrative off of Joe Biden's failing approval rating and his major defeat in the Supreme Court.
But that being said, It's also possible there actually is intelligence Russia is planning to invade Ukraine.
Well, invade Ukraine more than they already have.
And they're releasing this on a Friday because it would make them look even worse.
But I don't really see what the point is in releasing intelligence that indicates Russia is preparing an operation when they haven't actually done anything yet, other than to distract the American public, I suppose.
Now, I want to be fair, too.
I want to be reasonable.
Look, Russia does want to invade Ukraine.
Russia is building up forces on their western front and Ukraine's eastern front.
It's entirely possible we do see major conflict in the region.
I don't want to get trapped in Biden derangement syndrome where everything is just based upon how bad Joe Biden looks.
The reality is I think there is coming conflict.
But I also want to point out how the news industry controls what we think about and what we think is important.
Right now, we have major information on what China is doing, and the escalation between the conflict between Taiwan and China and the United States.
And I think it's fair to say that the conflict with China is much more pressing and much more relevant to Americans, considering our manufacturing base being shipped overseas, namely to China, as well as the fact that we are directly interacting with the Chinese Navy, or, I don't know, the People's Republic of China, whatever they call it.
Meanwhile, with Ukraine, proxy war?
When I look at Ukraine, my immediate assessment is that Joe Biden and powerful neoliberal and neocon elites were running a grift.
They were running a scam.
And now they stand to lose tons of money from their ridiculous plan related to natural gas.
That's what I see.
When I see China, and the Pacific, and Taiwan, I see a real threat to technology production, silicon chips, the U.S.
Navy, our positioning in the Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii, and I wonder why it is that is not the topic of conversation.
Well, my friends, I do think we still need to talk about what's going on in Ukraine because it can have serious effects on what's going to happen here in the United States.
And I also want to point out one thing.
The individual who wrote this article for CNN, which I'm using, is someone who pushed The Russiagate narrative, to an absurd degree.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
Many people on the right are pointing out that it's very convenient the threat of war looms at a time when Joe Biden is being slammed over failing approval, Quinnipiac having Biden at 33%, and RealClearPolitics having Biden at 41% approval.
War tends to benefit presidents when they are struggling with domestic issues.
But I don't think Joe Biden conspired to put Russian troops near the eastern border of Ukraine.
So if anything, it would seem that there's a real problem here that we need to talk about, and maybe Biden and his administration are trying to exploit the crisis to distract the American public.
But that being said, let's read the news before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support my work and the work of our journalists.
As a member, you are directly funding the journalists at TimCast.com and the hard work they do, and you will get access to exclusive members of the TimCast IRL Podcast.
A ton of really awesome people in our library.
We've got Steve Bannon and Alex Jones, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Mike Rowe recently.
So you'll definitely want to check out that huge library of content.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and share this video right now everywhere you can.
Facebook, Twitter, Getter, Minds, whatever it is you use.
That's the marketing power.
That's organic growth.
It allows us to compete with the likes of CNN.
That's your direct support that is greatly appreciated.
intelligence indicates Russia is preparing operation to justify invasion of Ukraine.
They say the U.S.
has information that indicates Russia has pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine.
A U.S.
official told CNN on Friday, an attempt to create a pretext for an invasion.
The official said the U.S.
has evidence that the operatives are trained in urban warfare.
And in using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia's own proxy forces.
The allegation echoes a statement released by Ukraine's Ministry of Defense on Friday, which said that Russian special services are preparing provocations against Russian forces in an attempt to frame Ukraine.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan hinted at the intelligence during a briefing with reporters on Thursday.
Now I want to pause for a second to just ask this question.
What does this new information from CNN do for us?
And who benefits?
If Russia right now were to stage a false flag attack, would it matter?
The answer is no, it wouldn't.
If they come out and tell you Russia faked it, Well, who cares?
Russia's still gonna invade, right?
Russia's not gonna go, oh drat, they discovered our plot, guess we better not invade.
No.
The point of putting out this information is pretext, that in the event that Russia does invade, or there is a false flag, the U.S.
can claim, see, we told you this first.
The reality is this could be a false flag from Western forces.
The U.S.
could be saying this so that when they stage a preemptive strike on Russia, they can claim, see, we told you it was a false flag.
And when Russia retaliates, they can say, aha, we caught them red handed.
This intelligence does nothing for any of us trying to figure out what's actually going on in the region.
And it says to me that the benefit for the most part in this story is to distract from Joe Biden's The point is, saying this does nothing good for us.
I do not think it was wise to release this information, and it comes from a journalist who previously had claimed Russiagate was definitive fact, and that turns out to be wrong.
the US a pretext to retaliate. The point is, saying this does nothing good for us. I do not think it
was wise to release this information, and it comes from a journalist who previously had claimed
Russiagate was definitive fact, and that turns out to be wrong. The story says, quote,
our intelligence community has developed information.
Oh, has developed information?
What does that mean?
Which has now been downgraded.
That Russia is laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating the pretext for an invasion.
Sullivan said on Thursday.
We saw this playbook in 2014.
They are preparing this playbook again.
And we will have, the administration will have, further details on what we see as this potential laying of the pretext to share with the press over the course of the next 24 hours.
The Ukrainian Defense Ministry said in a statement on Friday that the military units of the aggressor country and its satellites receive orders to prepare for such provocations.
The U.S.
intelligence finding comes after a week's worth of diplomatic meetings between Russia and Western officials over Russia's amassing of tens of thousands of troops along Ukraine's border.
But the talks failed to achieve any breakthroughs, as Russia would not commit to de-escalating, and American and NATO officials said Moscow's demands, including that NATO never admit Ukraine into the alliance, were non-starters.
A number of Ukraine's government websites were hit with a cyber attack on Friday.
A development European officials warned would ratchet up tensions over Ukraine even further.
We are getting something very fascinating here.
I will stress this point again.
Russia is building troops on the border.
At least if you're to believe all of the stories from every country in the region, including Russia.
I mean, I think it's a fair assessment to say that much we know is true.
The challenge here is, who do you trust?
Now I gotta be honest, I don't trust Russia.
I trust the United States way more than I trust Russia.
And as much as I don't like Joe Biden, I don't trust him all that much.
But I'm gonna be honest with you guys, if Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin were standing in front of me, and Putin said, oh, we are not going to stage cyber attack on Ukraine or anything like that, and then Joe Biden was like, he really is, I'd be like, I'm gonna have to go with Biden on this one.
You'd have to have Biden derangement syndrome to think that you're more you're better off trusting Russia.
Now, of course, the U.S.
lies.
Of course, Joe Biden lies.
And boy, howdy, does he.
Kamala Harris is also awful.
unidentified
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
But I still think an honest assessment would be that as much as Kamala and Biden are awful,
nasty and corrupt people, they benefit when the U.S.
benefits, not Russia.
But let's be real.
Is Russia really our biggest threat?
No, I don't think it is.
And I think when it comes to China, I'd still probably... well...
I gotta be honest, if Xi Jinping and Joe Biden were standing in front of me and they both said something, I bet, yo, I ain't listening to either of you guys, to be completely honest.
Based on what I know about what's going on in Ukraine, Gazprom, Viktor Shokin, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, I think it's a fair assessment that the U.S.
wants Ukraine to win, and it may be due to the fact that there's a lot of interests tied into it, namely the Biden family interests.
That, I can trust.
That is corruption I can trust.
When it comes to China, Joe Biden working these private equity deals, flying his son, or I should say, flying his son on Air Force Two, so his son can work private equity deals, in which Joe and Hunter share a bank account, and Hunter promises 10% for the big guy!
I don't know if it was actually Hunter who said that, it may have been one of his partners.
Yeah, in that case, I don't trust their positioning on China, to be completely honest.
But I do think we face something serious coming out of Russia.
Quote, the Russian military plans to begin these activities several weeks before a military invasion, which could begin between mid-January and mid-February, the official said.
We saw this playbook in 2014 with Crimea.
I want to stress another point.
As much as there is a serious possibility of a conflict with Russia, I don't think it's our most pressing issue.
Russia, a regional power with a relatively small economy, and we're gonna act like World War III is coming?
Sorry, I still think the answer is China.
Now, I'm not here to play sides.
I'm not here to put out videos.
Look, there's a lot of developments in domestic policy and culture war issues, and I thought to myself as I'm going through this stuff, I'm seeing a lot of people push Biden derangement syndrome on foreign policy, okay?
I have this story from Reuters, and I'm going to tell you right now, in this instance, I agree with the Democrats.
My criticism and faults with the Democrats is mainly about their elitist, neoliberal, warmongering, and their lies and manipulations, and their crackpot cult-like behavior.
But a broken clock is right twice a day, and I'm not going to sit here and just ignore it when they are right for the sake of being like, they're always wrong.
That's not true.
Take a look at this story.
Ted Cruz's Nord Stream 2 sanction bill fails in U.S.
Senate.
Now, I saw many people say, you know, look, Ted Cruz wanted to impose sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
There were some Democrats who sided with Republicans, but for the most part, Democrats filibustered, blocking the sanctions.
Immediately, I see people on the right saying, why is this?
Ted Cruz is trying to sanction Russia!
Isn't that the playbook?
All the Democrats who blocked this clearly must be Russian agents.
I get the point there.
If the Democrats are going to block this, surely they're defending Russia, right?
Well, the answer is no.
There is another bill being presented, we'll see what happens, that would sanction Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of an invasion.
In my opinion, that seems more effective.
Let me read the news and explain to you what's going on.
Reuters reports.
The Senate on Thursday failed to pass a bill to slap sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline sponsored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the day after Democrats unveiled their own legislation.
The tally was 55 in favor and 44 against the bill that needed 60 votes to pass a major hurdle in the 50-50 Senate.
The vote spanned nearly seven hours as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer considered options on voting rights legislation.
Senator Robert Menendez won the support of many of his fellow Democrats, including Joe Biden, for an alternative bill he introduced on Wednesday.
His legislation would impose sweeping sanctions on top Russian government and military officials and banking institutions if Moscow engages in hostilities against Ukraine.
Now I'm going to pause for a second, say two things.
It's entirely possible Reuters has given me the runaround with this story.
I read similar things in other outlets, but it's entirely possible news comes out and
it shows the Democrats lied and the media backed them up because I don't trust the mainstream
press for the most part.
But I will say if the goal is to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, then setting a penalty
on them if they invade is smarter than just penalizing them now.
If Ted Cruz's bill passed and it would have just put sanctions on Nord Stream two, then
Russia would be like, what have I got to lose?
And thus it makes more sense.
The Democrat bill would put sanctions on if they cross that line.
But I'll also point out Joe Biden is the one who eased the sanctions in the first place
back in May.
back in May.
Nord Stream 2, Biden waves U.S.
sanctions on Russian pipeline.
So, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to have to say this.
The Democrats don't get to claim the high road by saying, we'll use this as leverage, when it was Joe Biden in the first place who eased the sanctions.
You could have just left them on.
But I suppose their strategy, as they said it was, will give Russia this concession, and then hold it against them if they do something we don't like.
That's kind of crazy, to be honest, but maybe it makes sense.
You know, you give your kid that has a temper tantrum, and you say, here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to buy that new Pokemon game.
And then if you act a fool, I'm taking it away.
Give them something nice, and then make them not want to lose it.
That actually makes sense.
I talked about this before.
It's the plot from Fast and the Furious 4, right?
The dude says, give all the poor people something that they'll be scared to lose, and you will own them.
So, right now, seeing this from Democrats, I'm not going to just simply say they're insane or they're wrong for the sake of tribalism.
I actually think their plan makes more sense.
For Reuters, they go on to say, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat who had originally co-sponsored Nord Stream 2 sanctions with Cruz, voted against his bill, saying it risked breaking unity in Washington and in Europe over Russian aggression against Ukraine.
She said Cruz's legislation would drive a wedge between the U.S.
and its allies, particularly Germany.
The U.S., as well as some European countries, including Ukraine and Poland, opposed the pipeline, which would deprive Kiev of transit fees, as well as increase Moscow's leverage over Europe, where gas prices have been soaring.
Previously, I criticized Joe Biden for easing sanctions, where he said he would use it as leverage.
I said, that's ridiculous.
Don't give concessions to Russia.
But I can certainly be willing, I am certainly willing to admit, that right now it seems like this may actually restrict Russia.
In the long term, however, Look, I understand the idea of giving someone something so that you can control their behavior.
If you have no leverage, you have nothing.
I don't think we can keep playing the game of giving things up to Russia and crossing our fingers they don't cross us back.
Because then what happens is Russia learns, okay, all I have to do is threaten the U.S.
and they'll give me whatever I want.
That is untenable.
For the time being.
I get it.
But maybe, it's fair to say, Cruz's position does make sense to walk back what Biden did.
But I will stress the point again.
I'm not an absolutist.
I'm not a moral absolutist.
Many people say like, you know, Tim will do a segment and he'll say one thing but then immediately contradict it.
I hope you understand the purpose of entertaining the nuance in these positions.
There's a lot I don't know.
It may be that Ted Cruz is right about his position on sanctioning Nord Stream 2.
I don't know.
I would just say, in this present moment, Telling Russia we will take something away from you if you invade Ukraine seems that it will be effective.
Not that I like it in the long term, I don't know for sure.
Now the U.S.
has stated they are fully prepared if Russia invades Ukraine.
This is all big news, and I want to point out a news cycle issue as well.
This stuff with war has been going on.
While many of us talk about culture war issues and Biden's approval rating, I think it's important to focus on what may actually end up to be a serious international conflict.
I don't know how the U.S.
would respond.
They say they're ready to respond.
I don't want the U.S.
to get involved in a war in Ukraine.
It may just be NATO, but that invariably will rope in the United States.
It could just be European allies.
Still, I think the conflict is bad.
But it is Russia pushing the border, and this conflict may be inevitable.
As we read already in the first report from CNN, there have been cyber attacks hitting Ukraine as the U.S.
is warning Russia could be preparing for war.
That's a reality.
NBC News.
If Russia launches an attack on Ukraine, what might it look like?
Here are some possibilities.
With troops massed on Ukraine's border, Russia has many options for an attack, experts say, including steps short of full-scale invasion and occupation.
Many countries in Europe will not tolerate Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But let's be real.
Russia already invaded.
They're there.
They have proxy troops.
They've taken Crimea.
I want to talk to you about what I think is the actual foreign policy threat, and something we need to be focused on that I think we are being distracted away from, to put it mildly.
Pentagon worries about Chinese buildup near India.
Why is it that we're talking about Ukraine?
Why is it that we're talking about Russia?
There is this Russia panic attack, I guess.
Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
You know what I think it is?
Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma.
Ukraine natural gas.
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline.
Of course, none of this stuff is a secret.
I've read it all on the internet.
But I believe that Joe Biden was heavily invested, corruptly as it were, with getting a natural gas pipeline in Ukraine to offset Russia's natural gas monopoly in Europe.
They control a large portion, I believe, like 20-30% through Ukraine.
So along comes Hunter Biden, who's on the board of Burisma.
Burisma is a natural gas company.
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline was planned for a long time, and it all falls apart.
Then you get the Ukrainian conflict, and then Donald Trump wins, disrupting all of their plans.
I believe the conflict with Russia and Ukraine has more to do with Joe Biden enriching himself, Hillary Clinton and the neoliberals enriching themselves, and justifying it by saying we're going to get cheaper gas into Europe and they're our ally.
If that were the case, you wouldn't need to put Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma.
Sure, I guess a CIA director, a former, that would make sense.
But why enrich your own family, Joe?
Corruption.
Meanwhile, China is building up near India, and there's a very real possibility of an actual war.
That's the distraction.
Again, I think conflict with Ukraine would be bad, and it's important we pay attention to it.
But the real issue is China.
Here's a story from Popular Mechanics.
China denies remarkable expansion of its nuclear arsenal, which is laughable.
This story from just the other day.
I wonder why it is that in mainstream political spaces, this is not the major headline, that China is expanding its nuclear arsenal.
Popular Mechanics reports.
A senior Chinese official denied reports earlier this month that China is engaged in what he calls a remarkable expansion of the country's nuclear weapons arsenal, but stopped short of denying the country was building more nukes, period.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
Department of Defense claims that China will effectively triple its inventory of nuclear warheads by 2030.
Fu Kong, The Director General of the Department of Arms Control at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China told Chinese state television that China is still committed to the minimum level of nuclear weapons in its arsenal that is required for national defense.
Last summer, the Pentagon's annual report on China warned the country was aiming to build a total of 700 deployable thermonuclear warheads by 2027 and 1,000 warheads by 2030.
The report states that China's pace of warhead construction is so rapid that previous estimates from 2020 have become obsolete in just one year.
In addition to new warheads, the report warns that China is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, which are long-range missiles capable of hitting the U.S.
homeland.
Additionally, a new H-20 nuclear-capable strategic long-range bomber, comparable to the American B-2A Spirit stealth bomber, and a new Type 096 ballistic missile submarine are under development per the report.
China currently has about 100 ICBMs, including the DF-41 pictured above.
Take a look at that.
Hefty.
And six Type 04 Jin-class ballistic missile submarines, each with 12 JL-2 missiles.
China currently has a single type of strategic bomber, the H-6, capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Together, all three form a nuclear triad of air, land, and sea-launched nuclear weapons.
China reportedly has about 350 nuclear warheads to arm these delivery systems.
I believe the United States has 25,000.
I could be wrong about that.
The last number that I read was Russia has 50,000, the U.S.
has 25,000, and China has only 350.
So you may be saying, but hold on, Tim.
Russia has so many more nuclear weapons.
Why do we view China as a bigger threat?
Well, in the event of all-out nuclear war, I can certainly understand why Russia is more concerning to us.
But I don't think anybody is going to be launching nuclear weapons.
It's mutually assured destruction, let alone China.
Russia?
They probably wouldn't do it.
They're doing well.
They're expanding.
They're gaining territory and influence.
So, you know, we'll see.
I'm not convinced anyone's going to fire nukes.
It seems to me that the expansion and control of China is more prescient as it pertains to fourth and fifth generational warfare.
What is more worrying to me is not a nuclear weapon.
It's propaganda, manipulation, intelligence.
What you need to understand about any conflict or supervillain... Here's what I love about comic book villains.
Comic book villains want to destroy the Earth.
But why?
They live here!
You know, that's why I think Lex Luthor is such an excellent supervillain.
You know, he's the guy from Superman.
Many of you probably know that.
Because he just wants control and power.
That's why I think Doctor Doom is a good supervillain.
Because he thinks he should be in charge.
They represent villainy much better than these one-dimensional villains who are like, I'm going to melt the ice caps!
It's like, well dude, you live on this planet too, man.
Why would you destroy it?
Russia doesn't want to blow things up with nukes.
The U.S.
doesn't want to blow things up with nukes.
China doesn't want to either.
They will if there's a cost-risk analysis and they determine that they benefit or would have more resources in the event they use the nukes.
That is to say, if they feel the U.S.
would take action that would restrict their access to resources and a nuclear weapon would preserve, well, they would do it.
If trade continues and they use intelligence, cyber attacks and manipulation,
well, that kind of warfare nets them 200 widgets.
If they use a nuclear weapon, they lose widgets.
But think about this.
If the U.S.
engages in militaristic operations, be it cyberattacks, intelligence hacking, etc., China could actually deplete in how many widgets they end up having.
In which case, fire the nukes, right?
That's what we need to be careful of.
For the time being, it seems we're dealing with fourth and fifth generational warfare, which is a reference to insurgency groups and psychological manipulation.
China, of course, has the Belt and Road Initiative.
They're doing economic expansion.
They're engaged in economic expansion in South America and Africa, and they are outpacing the U.S.
and thus We run the risk of encountering Thucydides' trap.
The fact that China's rapid economic expansion has already outpaced Russia and I believe they're set to be bigger than the U.S.
I think they may be bigger than the U.S.
or they're about to be in a few years.
That's dangerous.
There's a real fear of war.
My concern then is, are there elements within the U.S.
who recognize this and they're deciding that avoiding nuclear war is the most important position to take and thus the U.S.
should cede to China.
These are tough decisions, my friends.
I do not have access to classified information.
I cannot see behind the curtain, and for all I know, there's some intelligence guy behind the scenes laughing, saying, this Tim Pool guy, man, if only he knew.
He thinks he's so smart, reading popular mechanics.
Meanwhile, they've got a report showing that China's already fired the nuclear weapons, and they've got space battles going on.
I have no idea.
Based on the information we have on everything that's happening, I think it's fair to say War with China is much more prescient, much more likely to occur.
Take a look at this.
From Reuters.
U.S.
bill would block defense contractors from using Chinese rare earths.
This work is interesting.
January 14th.
A bipartisan piece of legislation introduced in the U.S.
Senate on Friday would force defense contractors to stop buying rare earths from China by 2026 and use the Pentagon to create a permanent stockpile of strategic minerals.
There are many globalists, neoliberals, who believe trade is how you avoid war.
China won't go to war with the U.S.
if it turns out that it would damage them economically.
Like I said, they want more widgets, not less.
Nuclear war means less for everybody, but if it means more than losing a war, then they'd probably do it.
But what if China has very strong trade relations with the U.S., and the U.S.
separating because of war means they would go without?
Wealthy Chinese individuals in the Communist Party want control, power, and access.
They don't want to lose it, and thus war could be bad for them.
They're better off buying off American politicians and officials so that they just gain more.
Getting into a war is bad news.
So what happens when the U.S.
says, we're bringing our factories back, we're ending free trade, and we're not buying your rare earths anymore?
That segments trade.
And thus, the theory would be, or the hypothesis would be, China has more incentive to attack because they're losing now.
But I'll tell you this.
I don't like the idea of... I don't like the utilitarianism.
This idea that we're going to sacrifice what we have today out of fear of what may come tomorrow.
It is true, I believe, in making long-term investments.
It is true that we need to do everything in our power to avoid war with China.
But that doesn't come at the expense of our own dignity and our own resources.
Giving away our jobs and buying our medicines and our rare earths only from China empowers them, and it's why they're a threat in the first place.
If we cut them off 20 years ago and said, do your thing, we'll do ours, we wouldn't have to worry about war because we would be in control.
It's not easy.
I don't have all the answers, man.
I don't know.
What I do know is, the Russia stuff is probably a distraction.
Serious, sure, but probably a distraction.
From Newsweek, China tries to tone down war talk as military tells Taiwan to surrender now.
From Military.com, Taiwan adds minelaying to defenses against China.
Can the U.S.
defend Taiwan?
Will Taiwan ultimately be the catalyst for a major war, no matter what we do?
It could be.
Taiwan is important.
And there are many questions, though.
Why should we care about Ukraine?
And if that question is to be asked, why should we care about Taiwan?
And we can answer that Taiwan produces silicon chips and we need them.
Why don't we just produce them here in the U.S.?
Why don't we have rare earths here in the U.S.?
We do.
I'm told in Alaska especially.
But we just don't mind them.
They're called rare earths, but they're actually everywhere.
We just rely on China to do all that work for us because they have better deposits, I guess.
Maybe we should start relying on ourselves and not relying on China.
But for the time being, that's what we do.
That's why we defend Taiwan.
Well, another reason why we defend Taiwan could just be that we want to prove to Vietnam, to the Philippines, to Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, etc.
that We're gonna protect them.
That China will not be allowed to expand and colonize the region.
And they probably will try to.
As for Ukraine, well, there's a lot of people there, too, who don't want to live under the boot of Russia.
They want a better economy, and they have, well, it's the most fertile farmland in Europe, so I'm told.
And that's really important for the rest of Europe.
These, you know, they can export food and things like that.
I don't know if they have the same resources like, you know, silicon chips, but I can tell you the lower standard of living, the lower cost of living, makes it really cost-effective for technology companies to hire human labor for coding and development.
Someone who does coding in Ukraine is gonna be making like a thousand times more than your average Ukrainian citizen.
No joke.
I was told that, and it could be, times have changed, but the average Ukrainian monthly salary was the equivalent of $400.
But, somebody who is a developer working on tech programs, mobile apps, they could be making $100,000 per year.
Which is not really a thousand times higher, but it is a lot higher than the average salary.
So for the U.S., having access to Ukrainian labor and tech development is very important.
Maybe almost important as getting silicon chips from Taiwan.
I don't know.
How about this?
How about we hire American citizens and we don't worry about the labor in Ukraine?
I mean, it is benefiting the people there and helping their economy, but how about we just focus on our own economy because we have very serious problems here?
How about we start setting up factories in the U.S., we rely on our own country, our own labor, we secure our own borders, and we stop acting like the world police?
It's easy to say.
It is.
The U.S.
has been, to a certain degree, a stabilizing factor around the world, but let's be real.
It's also been a massively destabilizing figure around the world, particularly in the Middle East.
So while I can sit here and tell you all of these things and speculate wildly, ultimately I end with saying I hope this information was informative, and you are free to agree or disagree because I honestly don't... I don't have all the answers.
I don't want war to happen.
So maybe it's all just one big distraction from Joe Biden's domestic failures.
Or maybe we really do have something on the horizon that will be devastating to the world.
I suppose we will just sit back and see how things develop.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you all then.
Joe Rogan and sedition trending this morning.
Not together.
I just think it's kind of funny that I wake up, get to my computer, and I see the What's Happening tab showing Joe Rogan is trending, and beneath him is sedition.
Just goes to show you what our priorities are these days.
And there is something to talk about when it comes to Joe Rogan, what's going on with this latest controversy.
On the episode of his podcast where he had Josh Zeps, the ABC broadcaster, Australia ABC, not America, He had a conversation about myocarditis risk in kids.
And Joe got criticism because I guess he didn't address it well enough.
And I will actually pile on, I suppose, and say I think Joe didn't address it on his show properly because the issue of myocarditis and vaccination is an interesting one.
And there was a very simple point Joe could have brought up.
But I'm actually not here to criticize Joe.
I will also add, I've done like how many segments about Joe in the past couple of weeks?
I actually find it strange, and I kind of, I didn't want to be doing a segment discussing what's going on around Joe Rogan, but let's be real.
Biggest show, biggest podcast, one of the biggest shows period, one of the biggest political shows period, he just had McMaster on his show.
And Joe has made himself one of the most relevant and politically relevant figures just by the work he's doing.
I'm sure he probably doesn't see it nearly as big as many others do, but it's resulting in a wave of press around these ideas.
And in the culture war, the reason I thought it would be great to address this issue of myocarditis vaccination, Joe Rogan and his podcast, is because Joe Rogan and sedition are trending.
The issue of sedition has to do with the Oath Keepers, 10 of whom were charged with seditious conspiracy, and the 11th being their leader, Stuart Rhodes.
This is very, very serious stuff.
All of a sudden you've got establishment and authoritarian publications saying, Aha!
Sedition!
It's here!
And Glenn Greenwald brings up a really great point.
He said after a year of there being no evidence of sedition and no charges related to insurrection, Merrick Garland, under pressure, says, okay, we will arrest more people and now, a year later, we're getting sedition charges.
So, to anybody paying attention, it's obvious.
The narrative was busted, insurrection wasn't playing out, and all of a sudden Merrick Garland's like, okay, we got it.
Everything that these people are being charged with, we knew about.
It just took them this long to do it.
Because Merrick Garland was under political pressure.
That just goes to show the huge problems we're facing in this country as everything gets ripped apart.
Which brings me now to what I think is also very relevant, and that's Joe Rogan on his show.
Joe tweeted, if anyone was going to make me look dumb on the podcast, I'm glad it's Josh Zeps because
I love him and he's awesome. However, this is why I was confused. You know, Joe Rogan's fantastic.
He's a good dude.
And this just goes to show why he is a good dude.
Josh Zeps, on Joe Rogan's show, he is not a good dude.
He is duplicitous.
He is a liar.
He's a state propagandist.
Joe called him out in many ways, but Joe is still trying to be nice to the guy.
And I respect that because I often do similar things, but I don't think I don't think I'm as nice as Joe.
I try not to insult people, but I've certainly insulted people or just gotten frustrated or angry with them.
Because there's a line, you know, if you get a guy from ABC, this guy Josh Sapps is the guy who came out and said that the quarantine camps where people are being taken without due process were international arrival bungalows, and he said that I was incorrect for calling them out.
Then, sure enough, shortly after, they start detaining people without charge or trial.
Okay, okay, okay, but I feel like I'm off on a tangent.
The story here is, Joe responded to what happened on his show.
He says, the video is cringy, but it's what happens when you stumble in a long-form podcast when you didn't know a subject was going to come up and you wing it.
This is a Substack article on The Nature of Medicine paper revisited by Vinay Prasad.
This is what Joe Rogan has posted.
Now, in the clip, and this is really important stuff, and it's also dangerous stuff, I'm sure YouTube doesn't like it, Joe Rogan said that the risk of myocarditis in children is like, what is it, two to four times, it increases their risk of myocarditis like two to four times, something like that.
There have been many papers, let me slow down, there are a few studies, I want to make sure I'm being precise, that show for young boys, the vaccine increases their risk of myocarditis.
Josh Zeps then correctly states that the risk of myocarditis from COVID is actually higher in children.
Joe says he doesn't think this is true.
Joe is actually correct.
And now I bring you, my friends, to the issue of alternative facts and how it gets really difficult to navigate what's going on in the world.
Josh Zeps was right.
I'm not a fan of the guy.
Obviously, I've been arguing with him for some time.
But the risk of myocarditis from COVID is worse than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.
However, There is one study, we have this from The Guardian from September, boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side effect than COVID suggests study.
This is one study.
And that's important, but there are many more studies showing that myocarditis from COVID is, there's a higher risk of it.
The important thing to understand is, Joe looked at this study, and he said, wow, that's interesting, and then he brought it up.
When we talked about this on TimCast IRL, when this study came out four months ago, I think we did a very good job of trying to break this down, pointing out, look, you get one study, it's reported in the press, it's more reported by right-wing sources than left-wing sources, it doesn't mean it's 100% true, because you still, it's hard to navigate this space.
The Guardian reported, Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to the hospital with a rare side effect of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with COVID itself, U.S.
researchers claim.
Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15 with no underlying medical conditions are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in a hospital with COVID over a four-month period.
But this is not.
My understanding is this is not about myocarditis.
Now, the reason why I say Josh is correct, on the Rogan Podcast, they pull up the latest data which says the risk of myocarditis from COVID is actually higher.
Look, I'm not a medical professional.
I'm not here to tell you what is true or what is not true.
I'm here to try and give you some skepticism, some healthy skepticism, so that ultimately, you talk to a trusted medical professional.
My view is, you go to your doctor and you say, hey, I saw this article in the Guardian.
It says that boys are more at risk from the Pfizer jab side effects than COVID.
What do you think?
If your doctor can't give you satisfactory answers, find a better doctor.
And I say this all the time.
If I hire a carpenter to build a deck, and I say, what's the length of this wood, and what's the weight load of this particular piece of wood relative to, say, a stronger wood, and he says, I don't know, I'd be like, I should probably get someone who actually does know, because I'm going to be standing on this thing.
The point is, we're trying to navigate this space, and you've got politics playing a role in everything.
So naturally, when Joe Rogan, in my opinion, has an honest conversation and brings up these points, he gets attacked because there is a political agenda behind everything.
And yes, there is a political agenda behind many people on the right who are very opposed to the vaccine.
And that's why when this story came out, tons of people on the right were saying like, look, see, look, not every single person, mind you.
And my response was, That's crazy.
It's one study.
Take it into consideration.
Ask your doctors about it.
And there you go.
I mean, I'm not going to look at this and be like, oh, it's definitive truth.
I do think, however, the data has shown There is a risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex.
We have this from MedRxiv.
This was posted, I think Majid Nawaz posted this.
There is a reality here.
Absolutely.
Joe correctly points out in his show as well, that if you're going to vaccinate 300 million people, that means you're going to be giving out 600 million doses, and now with boosters 900 million, Yeah, you're gonna get a high number of adverse events from the vaccination.
That's a fact.
But think of it this way.
What we're really interested in is vaccine adverse events per capita, not necessarily total numbers.
I often see people on the right talking about the VAERS report of like 21,000 deaths reported in VAERS.
Okay, while it is true that VAERS is individuals reporting what happened, it's not...
These reports are not like a doctor that performed an autopsy and said something was true.
It's people saying, hey, my dad got the vaccine within a day.
He had a heart attack, was in the hospital, and things like that.
But the important factor is, people are highlighting this and saying, look at theirs!
Whoa!
When we rolled out this vaccine, there was only a thousand.
Now there's 21,000.
What's happening?
And I'm like, we're doing a mass vaccination rollout.
So the number is larger, meaning adverse events will be a larger number as well.
We need to break it down by percentage.
I am not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your health, man.
This is all on you.
I am here to point out that I think Joe is the honest one in the room, and the other guy is the dishonest one in the room.
Let me tell you.
Let me just put it very simply.
The CDC director, Walensky, said last summer, the one thing the vaccine can't do is prevent transmission.
And I think that's evident by what we're seeing now in New York City, particularly with the Omicron variant.
Well, they're saying it's Omicron.
I don't know how they test for it.
But New York is one of the most vaccinated places in the country, and they're seeing a record surge in COVID cases.
Around 25% of the nation's COVID cases, I believe, come out of New York.
Okay.
Transmission is rampant.
Now here's where it's worth interesting.
In the conversation Joe Rogan had with Josh Epps.
He was correct when he said there was an increased risk of myocarditis from the vaccines.
That's true, we've seen it.
Ultimately, I think it's a cost-benefit analysis that you need to talk to a medical professional about if you're concerned about it.
I believe even the CDC, or was it the FDA, one of them, made an advisory about Johnson & Johnson due to, I think it was blood clots, I'm not sure, but we've seen these reports have come out of the EU.
Regulators have talked about, you know, suspending certain vaccines over fears of myocarditis and blood clots.
These adverse events exist.
But I believe the official response was that the likelihood of you experiencing them is substantially lower than a complication from COVID, which brings me to the bigger point.
If you can still get COVID, then my question is this, and I'll break it down.
Joe's response to Josh Zapp's, in my opinion, should have been, oh wow, I didn't realize that there was a higher risk of myocarditis from COVID according to the latest data, and not the vaccines.
I suppose then, if you give a child a vaccine, but they are still able to get COVID, then they're going to have a higher risk of myocarditis than if they weren't vaccinated, correct?
That's an interesting point, isn't it?
Ultimately, I don't have the full picture, right?
What I mean is, even if you get... Let's say a kid gets vaccinated, and he has a higher risk of myocarditis.
Then he ends up getting COVID.
But if the vaccines reduce the severity of symptoms, which is what, you know, basically all of the mainstream reporting has told us, then maybe he is still better off, even if he has a greater risk of myocarditis.
I guess we can break it down this way.
Myocarditis is not the only complication.
There are many other things to consider.
And I'll tell you, man, I experienced COVID and it was the worst illness I've ever experienced.
I don't know why I had it so bad.
Some people have said, you know, I was asked, do you regret?
Well, you know what?
I'm not going to get too much into it.
Just, I have had people, I've seen people downplay it.
I would not wish COVID on anybody, and I think it's really bad.
I'm not saying... For me, obviously, I was worried enough to call a doctor and get medical treatment.
But I know people who have gotten COVID, and I'm really worried about them.
I know people who have gone to the ER.
Joe says he knows many people who went to the ER due to vaccination adverse events.
I actually do know a handful... Well, a couple people.
I want to make sure I'm very precise in this.
A couple people That I know personally definitively had adverse reactions to the vaccine, but this is, this is, it's, it's a, it's known.
I suppose the challenge here is, conversations like this are impossible to have because of YouTube's threat of censorship.
And so you have a lot of people who are refusing to speak up about it, a lot of people who are scared to speak up about it, and thus, we're not getting a legitimate conversation on cost-benefit analysis.
Which I can't tell you.
I can't tell you what you should choose to do.
Right?
You gotta go to a doctor and you make sure that they give you sound advice.
And aside from not wanting to get banned, I also don't want to be legally responsible for advocating for some kind of, you know, kooky treatment or anything like that.
So I'll just put it this way.
I know people who have gone to the ER.
Actually, I know more people who have gone to the ER from the vaccine than I do from COVID.
And that to me is crazy.
It's hard to break down.
It was different things.
One person had nerve damage, but they were mostly fine.
They were just shaking.
One person actually really sick from the vaccine.
And to me and my family, confirmed.
But if you go to the CDC website, if you go to the FDA website, they will tell you there are adverse events from the vaccine.
They're not saying it's not true.
The problem is this.
The problem is websites like the Daily Beast.
Look, you do have elements of the right that will say, look at all the VAERS reporting.
This proves it.
No, it doesn't.
You need to consider the fact that if you give people, it's the scaling problem I refer to it, if you give a million people a vaccine and there is a 0.1% chance of adverse events and it plays out, well, now you've got a thousand sick people and you get all this news and people are like, there are a lot of stories about this.
And then if you do it to a hundred million people, now you have a hundred thousand people in the hospital, everyone's going to be losing their minds.
The proportion is the same, but because you give it to more people, you get more stories, and humans have that bias.
That's something very important to consider.
Joe Rogan did bring that up, in an honest conversation.
The Daily Beast says, Joe Rogan is mainstreaming right-wing misinformation.
Stupid effing... I won't swear this time like I did yesterday.
What about Joe Rogan as right-wing?
What has he said?
That he's pro-life?
He opposes gay marriage?
He wants traditional families?
What does that even mean?
Right-wing misinformation.
It's The Guardian!
For heaven's sake!
This is the stupidity of the modern era, and this is what I just can't stand about what's, you know... The media reports something, Joe Rogan says it, the media calls him right-wing.
Shut your stupid crackpot mouths!
I'm glad to see Joe Biden's Quinnipiac approval rating at 33%.
Fauci's trust at 31%.
You must be truly stupid to believe these people at this point.
This is what I see when I see Joe Rogan trending alongside sedition.
What that means is Well certainly one is more important than the other in my opinion.
You can see the culture war is so real that Joe Rogan bringing up a Guardian article on his show is called right-wing misinformation because these people are effing psychopathic cult members.
If you are so stupid That four months ago you read The Guardian, and today The Daily Beast tells you it's right-wing misinformation, and you're like, okay, that's correct.
Then please, please, bow out of the political space.
This is the insanity of the modern condition.
The Daily Beast says he's got a bigger audience than Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity combined, and just might be doing more damage.
Media matters, Alex Patterson, Paterson, whatever, says on the latest new abnormal.
I don't care.
The Daily Beast is a crackpot psychopathic website that writes garbage.
And of course, most of you probably knew that, so why am I even bringing it up?
Well, I guess the issue is because Joe Rogan is trending on Twitter because other crackpot cult members are putting out garbage information.
So do me this favor.
Do Joe Rogan this favor.
Share the Guardian article.
Share his tweet.
And ask your cult member friends and family How is it right-wing misinformation when it's reported by The Guardian?
Is The Guardian right-wing?
And see what they say!
Because this is how we break the narrative.
Now, to be fair, we are breaking the narrative.
CNN's ratings are down 90%.
Thank you!
Someone up there must truly be helping us out.
Or maybe it's just evil will not prevail.
CNN's psychotic babbling is now... No, people aren't even watching anymore.
Thank you.
Good.
I ask you this.
In relation to what Joe Rogan is saying, what have I said on my show, Tim Kast IRL, that is right-wing?
Yeah, see, it doesn't mean anything anymore.
You know, we were talking about this the other day, we had Matt Kibbe, Libertarian feller, we were on the show, and I brought this up because we were talking about this, and I was like, what about this show is right-wing?
Luke goes on these anti-Trump rants, and the Trump supporters are like, Luke, rah!
And Ian He slammed Trump heavily, and then I actually defended Trump, and that's always been my position.
My position is like, stop making me defend the guy.
But when you go Trump derangement syndrome, I'm like, dude, right now we've got this post from RNC Research claiming that Kamala Harris told people to do Google.
As if she said, if you want to find information, do Google!
Because she never said that.
And now there's memes going around where it's a quote that says, do Google.
It's so annoying.
I don't want to defend Kamala Harris, but don't lie about what she said.
She did not tell people to do Google.
She said, when people are looking for something across town, they usually do Google it.
That's it?
What?
If you were like, when people are trying to climb a large platform, they usually do jump on it.
You don't say, do jump, to get on top of a ladder.
That's misquoting her, and why are you doing that?
She's stupid enough, you don't need to do it.
I don't care if it's the left or the right, quote people properly, so we can properly inform people, and they can make better decisions for their lives.
But I tell you this, it's the exception on the right, it's the rule on the left.
The Guardian reports this, boys more at risk from Pfizer jab side effect than COVID study suggests.
Does that mean it's definitively true?
No, it's one study.
It was reported by The Guardian.
Ian Sample, the science editor, reported it in September.
Joe Rogan quotes it, and the left mocks him and calls it right-wing misinformation.
Just please, help break people from this cult.
It seems like we're winning, and I'm very happy with that.
The more Joe Rogan talks, the better off we are.
But show him the article from The Guardian.
I am, what I can't stand, you know what I can't stand?
Exactly that Kamala Harris scenario.
They post the quote from her.
I watched the video and I was like, did she really tell people to do Google?
That's crazy.
And then she didn't.
And I said, why are you putting out this trash?
I just can't stand it, man.
I don't care about the left.
I don't care about the right.
I don't care about up, down, whatever.
I care about accurate information.
And, you know, when I see everything they lied about with Trump, it frustrates me.
But I'll get to that point about, you know, IRL, because I got derailed.
What about that show is right-wing, right?
Right and left don't mean anything anymore.
So, on Tim Castile, you know, Luke's a very libertarian, anarcho-capitalist kind of character, not a fan of Trump, the Republicans or the Democrats.
Ian is this weird authoritarian, left-leaning tech guy.
Lydia, our producer, she's just traditional conservative.
Then you have me, which is like center-left, post-liberal, politically homeless, frequently, you know, defending Trump while being somewhat critical of him.
We have an eclectic voice and we have these disagreements, and then we bring on various personalities, guests.
Typically conservative and libertarian types.
Some leftists, we actually just did have a liberal on the show, Batya, and she was fantastic, but the left really doesn't want to come on the show.
They call it right-wing.
They call it right-wing.
And you know what, man?
So be it.
If right-wing just means, like, real world, fine.
I remember that line when Colbert said, reality has a liberal bias.
Perhaps that was the case 20 years ago, good sir, but today y'all live in crack pots.
pot fantasy land where four months after left wing the Guardian publishes data, they're
calling it right wing misinformation.
So please spare me.
Joe Rogan is not right wing.
Nothing he promotes is right wing.
The dude is in favor of universal basic income for heaven's sake.
But here we are.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome to the modern condition, my friends.
But you heard it here.
There you go.
Let me show you this.
Let me show you from the New Republic.
In a six to three ruling, the Supreme Court upholds the COVID pandemic.
Oh, shut up, you lunatics!
But whatever.
It's frustrating, isn't it?
Look.
It would help me out if you share these videos.
I think I do a good job of breaking down my points, and if you think it's effective, please consider sharing this with people who are trapped in the Matrix.
But at the very least, all you need do is take the Daily Beast article and the Guardian article and ask your friends and family about it.
Is Joe Rogan spreading right-wing misinformation?
The article's the Guardian.
Is that right-wing?
How does that make sense?
Unless we lurch so far leftward.
But what does left even mean at this point?
What does right-wing misinformation mean?
It's so dumb.
Right-wing misinformation like what, traditional families are good for children?
Whatever, I'm over it.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Men used to be manlier.
That's not the trope.
It's true.
Reuters has this story from back in 2007.
Men's testosterone levels declined in the last 20 years.
And we have this story from Forbes.
You are not the man your father was.
Among millennial men.
Your T levels are getting low.
Many of you may be familiar with the famous video from the Try Guys.
I think they were with BuzzFeed.
They went out and got their testosterone levels checked, and boy, was it bad.
These young men, who I believe were in their 20s, had testosterone levels equal to that of 80 year old men.
I don't necessarily blame the guys, I guess.
I can blame our culture.
I can blame our parents.
And, you know, one of the things you can do, my understanding, to increase T-levels is exercise, work out, lift some weights, eat some red meat!
But we are a nation of increasing femininity, and we have in the media the constant berating of men being told that they're toxically masculine, which is not true.
There certainly is toxic masculinity, but most men are just positively masculine.
But as we demonize men more and more and more, there is one direction we are headed towards, my friends, and it's very simple, communism!
And you can blame the women.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I'm only half kidding, actually.
Which brings me to the main point of this segment.
A story from the New York Times.
The gender gap is taking us to unexpected places.
How surprising would it be to many of you to find that communism arises out of more feminine viewpoints and cultural desires?
This is not to demonize women or say they're wrong.
In fact, I think the feminine viewpoint is impossible.
important, nay essential to a functioning society.
But as with toxic masculinity, there is also toxic femininity.
And if you have an imbalance is where the problem arises.
And today, my friends, the problem has arisen.
Now, if I take a look at maybe some like traditional values or individuals who express them, you
have the mother and the father, the male, the man's role and the woman's role and how
they complement each other and create a functioning and successful society.
But what happens when women are suppressed and oppressed?
You become cold and violent.
More prone to taking risks, and this is, I'm not making this up, actually data, when females, uh, female influence enters the political space, war is less likely.
This is actually what we're reading from the New York Times.
The problem we face now is an inversion.
It appears that authoritarianism may become more likely as women start getting a disproportionate amount of power.
To put it simply, this is me basically saying it appears, based on my assessment, that the appropriate level of male-female balance is equal.
But we don't have equal right now.
We have, among millennial women, 70% are Democrat, and among Republicans, it's fairly evenly split between men and women, but slightly less women are Republicans.
This says to me that as male testosterone decreases, as many men start behaving very weakly and becoming less charismatic, less prone to risk-taking, you get an overwhelming You get a disproportionate amount of femininity in a government, which leads to authoritarianism.
And I'm going to back this up not just with the science, but I also have an interesting article about the Russian Revolution, and how women at the time were seen as overwhelmingly conservative.
But aha!
Many of you may say, Tim, that makes no sense.
Women are progressives.
They're left.
No.
They're communal and authoritarian, and this explains a whole lot about everything.
But let me start by reading this story from the New York Times, which breaks down, the gender gap is taking us to unexpected places.
Well, I think if you've been reading this news for the past 20 years, you're probably not surprised by this.
I have not been researching this stuff that long, and I'm not surprised by this, because I've read stories like this for a while now, going back several years.
Now they go on to say, you know, blah blah blah, they did studies, they found women are more likely to be in college and all of these things.
They say, while liberal and left identification among female students reached a high in 2016, male students remained far below their 1971 high.
The interesting thing here is that males used to be more left-leaning than women.
But alas, let me just point out, there's something you need to understand about the semantics here, and how left and right shift and change.
I'm gonna make a bold statement right now, and just tell you outright, that if we are going by the classical terminology of left and right, it is fair to say that... It may be fair to say that, say, Hasan, the left wing, as he's called, streamer, is actually further right-wing than I am, as is Vosh.
And this is going back to the classical definitions of left and right, from the French Revolution where the right were the aristocracy, they wanted a status quo, and the left were the revolutionaries.
If you watch my show, or you watch Tim Kest, we're fairly reformist to revolutionary.
We are not overtly revolutionary, non-violent, but we are also very anti-establishment and anti-status quo to a certain extent.
We like the Constitution, but we call for radical changes in this country.
When it comes to massive multinational corporations, the populist view tends to be they're exploding the working class.
Now, you may end up in this weird situation where the aristocracy and the proletariat left, whatever they want to call themselves, are in alignment, which is strange.
But it doesn't mean it's true.
When we do a show on TimCast IRL where we rag on uniparty establishment politics from the left and the right, we're critical of Donald Trump but defend him in certain respects.
We call for, say, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and we want the legalization of recreational drugs.
These are all fairly revolutionary ideas.
Now, we respect the Constitution because it safeguards human rights, but that's not reactionary.
In fact, you know, Luke went on a rant the other day against Donald Trump.
Yeah, for some reason you get the likes of Hassan and Vaush, and I single them out, but they're pro-massive multinational corporation and status quo government mandating medical procedures on people.
That's a big one for me.
That's very, very big.
Now, Hassan has talked about how he wants to nationalize the medical industry, but that's still not revolutionary.
That's actually authoritarian and backs up a lot of my points.
If the power structures are currently in play, like in place, The big pharmaceutical companies.
They're already in power.
And the response from the left is to enshrine their power at a national level that's not left-wing in the classical sense, that's actually in support of the aristocracy.
It would enshrine their powers.
Now, of course, maybe they're saying they want to completely dismantle the system and replace those who are in charge with someone else that still bolsters the intelligentsia and the intellectual elites in their version of the revolution.
I do think it's fair to say, in reality, left and right are completely meaningless, and it's stupid to argue that I or they or anybody is left or right and they're just tribal signifiers at this point.
But let's talk about, let's get back to gender and the significance here.
They go on to say, a Knight Foundation survey in 2017 of 3,014 college students asked, if you had to choose, which do you think is more important?
A diverse and inclusive society, or protecting free speech rights?
Men, 61 to 39 in favor of free speech.
Women, 64 to 35 in favor of diverse society.
Majorities of both male and female college students in the Knight Foundation survey support the view that the First Amendment should not be used to protect hate speech.
But the men were more equivocal, at 56 to 43, than women at 71 to 29.
to 43, then women at 71 to 29. So when you hear hate speech must be banned.
It is women overwhelmingly saying this.
But could it be that it is directly tied to testosterone and those who have taken high levels of testosterone being more, or having natural high levels, being more prone to risk-taking?
That is to say, I understand the problems of hate speech.
However, I think the risk is worth the reward.
We can't just lock down and keep everything safe.
And therein lies the advance towards communism, authoritarianism, corporatism, or fascism.
The more feminine a person is, the more likely they are to prefer safety over risk.
Now, far be it for me to pretend like I'm an evolutionary psychologist, but I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of, say, Brett Weinstein or any other evolutionary biologist and psychologist to discuss the ideas as to why it is women tend to prefer safety and men tend to take risks.
One hypothesis, and this actually may be theoretical, may be considered scientific fact for now, I don't know, is that men are disposable.
So in the early nomadic tribes of humanity, women must be protected and kept safe because they were creating and nurturing life.
However, you don't need that many men to create and nurture life, but you do need many women.
So what happens is, the men are able to take risks, because if they die, you still have some men to have babies with the women.
But the women, those who create life, if you lose women, then you struggle to make more babies, and thus, a natural tendency emerged.
Women that preferred safety tended to survive more, and a society that protected women was more likely to produce more babies, and as such, the majority of humanity tends to flow in that direction.
It's not absolute, but that's how evolution tends to work.
I'm not saying any of that's true.
I'm just saying it's my personal hypothesis off of reading a lot of this information.
Like I want to say, the data on college students reflects trends in the electorate at large.
The Pew Research Center provided the Times with survey data showing that among all voters, Democrats are 56% female, while Republicans are 52% male, for a combined gender gap of 18 points.
Pew found identical gender splits among voters who identify as liberal and those who identify as conservative.
I'd like to throw it back to Vox.com, an article I've referenced quite a bit.
June 20th, 2018.
Republicans have a millennial women problem.
Nearly 70% of young women say they are leaning toward Democratic candidates in the midterms.
Now, why is that?
My opinion is status quo, safety, no taking risks.
I'd like to bring you back in time, my friends, to the Bolshevik Revolution.
From the website Bolshevik.info, not entirely sure if it's the most factual historical assessment, but they do say this and I find it interesting.
Before the revolution, okay, so this is the Soviet revolution, my dude.
Before the revolution, women were seen as the most conservative layer of the working class.
Being directly responsible for care of the family, they often hesitated, and were even opposed to taking strike action.
But this turns into its exact opposite when living conditions had become intolerable.
With the lack of bread, the spiraling inflation, and with many of them with their husbands fighting on the front, thus, women workers especially in textile industries, having reached the limit of what was humanly endurable, decided to take action.
Steve Bannon mentioned this.
We had him on the show.
He said, in the French Revolution, it wasn't until the women came out and marched That the revolution actually happened.
Men are willing to take risks and stand up, but women, less likely so.
It wasn't until in the Bolshevik Revolution that women felt they were so strained that the safest course of action was revolution, that it actually occurred.
What that means is that in the status quo, as bad as everything had gotten, In the post-pre-Soviet Russia, women were unwilling to strike.
Men had pointed out there was a very serious problem, something they were unhappy with.
Food was harder and harder to come by.
And then women said, I don't want to engage.
It is not safe.
Maybe that's an unfair assessment.
By all means, criticize me and comment below as to what you think.
But it seems like women being less risk, more averse to risk, not wanting to engage, it was only when it was so obvious to them that they had no food and change needed to occur, that they actually rose up and took political action.
What do we have now?
Well, in the United States, we have hardcore authoritarianism across the board.
Vaccine mandates.
Why?
It's safe.
Now in my opinion, I actually think it's risky.
But if you are trusting of the establishment and the status quo and they come out and tell you this is safe, you are more likely to adhere to the authority as opposed to risk venturing off and doing something drastic for which you have no data.
I can actually respect the position, but there is a tendency between men and women to differ in this regard.
I once worked for a company.
Where I was one of five directors, and I believe the other four were female.
The company was having very serious problems.
We were the ones running it, so we had to make a decision.
My decision was dramatic, risky change.
It may hurt us in the short term, but our long-term prospects will greatly improve.
I was voted against.
The women said, and this is a direct, I'll paraphrase a bit, but almost a direct quote, I was told, it's just a storm and we must weather it.
Stay the course.
My response was, the ship is sinking, and if we don't take a dramatic change and venture off into a direction for which we know very little, we will sink.
My attitude, and I firmly believe this was, we may not know what lies to the west, but we do know if we keep going straight, we will stay in a storm.
The response from them was, but if we stay through the storm and stay the course, our plan will work and storms happen.
It's not wrong to assume.
But I found it interesting, as I reflected upon it, that my reaction was, take the risk.
We know not what lies in that direction, but it's better than staying in bad weather.
And their response was, what we've done has always worked, so stay the course and the storm will end.
Of course, in the end, I was proven right to a certain degree.
Now, we still don't know what lied due west of our ship in this storm, but the company failed.
And they failed miserably.
A lot of people got fired, things didn't work out very well, and maybe the best bet would have been the risk, even if we didn't succeed.
But when I take a look at these historical revolutions, from the French Revolution to the Communist Revolution, it says to me that, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing, women have a desire to maintain the status quo because it's the safest option.
And that's really important.
Men can do dumb things.
I mean, men speed in cars going 120 miles an hour and crashing and dying, and women don't do those things!
So, what's my point in all this?
To me right now, I think one of the biggest problems in our country is the feminization of men and the disproportionate amount of power among more feminine voices.
Women are essential to a functioning society, and they, in my opinion, need to have a role in government and policy.
But it needs to be well-balanced with the masculine view.
There needs to be an honest assessment of risk-taking versus risk-aversion.
But when you have nothing but risk-aversion, you're driving towards a cliff while someone is screaming at you, look, I understand, we might crash, but we're going to go off a cliff if we don't move.
In some instances.
You will have a guy saying, we have no choice but to turn, and it turns out the woman is correct.
The point is, if you're having a rational and honest discussion about the way we're supposed to be going, it seems like you need a positive male and masculine and feminine voice in this picture, but we're not getting that.
Overwhelmingly, we're getting a more feminine take on things.
And what I mean by this, like to back it up is, When our culture is moving heavily towards censoring hate speech, and that is the feminine perspective, we are imbalanced.
And this is going to create problems.
Yes, I don't like hate speech, but we understand why we accept the risks of it to a certain degree.
The feminine view is, no, no, no, shut it down.
It's unsafe.
And what have we been hearing endlessly?
Safety, safety, safety, safety, vaccine mandates.
And what's happened?
Our economy is collapsing.
It's about time we take the masculine approach, or at least balance out the approach, and say, can we have safety while still accepting some risk?
Because if we only do safety, bad things happen.
From NPR, 2018.
Female voters' marriage gap in the midterms.
Married women tend to have more conservative beliefs and vote for more Republicans, while single women tend to be aligned more with Democrats.
That dynamic may shift in this year's midterms.
That's 2018.
Now it could be that women who are conservative are more likely to get married.
It could be that women with a masculine presence in their lives are more likely to vote Republican.
I don't know.
I do think it's, however, important to point out that 70% of young women are leaning Democratic.
Perhaps.
It is just that women who are conservative get married like I said.
But suffice it to say, as more and more young people aren't getting married and having kids, you are going to get an increasingly more feminine electorate and political body.
In which case, in my opinion, without the proper balance of male and female energy, You could collapse.
You could collapse.
Do you guys see The Matrix?
Spoiler alert for those that didn't see it.
It's been out for some time now.
But that's basically the premise of The Matrix.
Again, I'm gonna say, spoiler alert.
But the premise of the movie, as much as many people tried claiming it was woke and all that, was that the system could not survive without the male and the female presence and the yearning for each other.
I thought that was particularly conservative.
I mean, think about it.
If men and women don't want to be together, the matrix collapses.
That was the premise.
So the idea was the initial matrix didn't survive.
It had anomalies that eventually broke down, Neo being that a culmination of the anomalies.
In this new matrix, by having Neo and Trinity separate but next to each other, constantly yearning for each other, it solidified the system and allowed the matrix to do away with the anomalies as people finally accepted it.
Now it's a silly idea in the movie, but the general metaphor is that if men and women don't desire each other, your civilization will collapse.
Fighting will erupt, politics will become imbalanced, and I think that's a fair point.
I actually agree with it.
I believe, as I've stated, you need an honest balance between masculine and feminine energies, and for a long time we had nothing but masculine energies.
Now we're shifting towards the feminine, and I don't think that's going to help us at all.
In the article for the New York Times, they point out that there is a pacifying effect to women in politics.
I think that makes sense.
I really do.
It makes sense to me, and maybe it's not right, that with a hardcore patriarchy and less women involved in politics, you're more likely to get risk-taking.
So you're going to end up with more chaotic outcomes.
Harder to predict.
Warfare, for instance.
When you bring women into the picture, there's more of a desire for safety, which means there will be a pacifying effect saying, do not go to war if we don't have to.
That can be a good thing.
It can be a bad thing.
But you get an inversion of this problem when you only have safety.
You get people unwilling to take risks to challenge things that need to be challenged, and thus you end up with authoritarianism, you end up with communism and corporatism.
You end up with people, you know, with people voting for or supporting Lockdowns, mandates, etc., which destroy lives.
So it's, in my opinion, you know, I look back at tribal warfare and things like this, and I don't know exactly what it was like, but you did have a matriarch and a patriarch.
After a long enough period of time, conflict started to arise.
Men became, you know, more dominant in politics than women, to a certain degree.
Of course, women always played a role in politics, and thus you ended up with conquest, war, and conflict.
Some may argue that actually greatly benefited mankind, but there also was a lot of death.
So I actually think we can slow down.
We can have progress without burning the system down.
We can recognize that conflict is a natural part of life, be it in the animal kingdom or in human civilization.
And we can also recognize that we need to have that balance of masculine energy and feminine energy.
Feminine energy.
The point is, I see this, and I see this article from the New York Times, and they say, women overwhelmingly favor banning hate speech.
That's what we're seeing now in our civilization.
Big tech companies have an overwhelmingly feminine presence and energy, and they don't care.
They want safety and security.
They don't want to take risks.
Me?
I'm open to taking risks.
I can appreciate and respect the position, but I think risk-taking is the appropriate response.
The scientific data shows this.
Of course there are men who want safety.
Of course there are women who want risks.
But there's a tendency.
I think that tendency is easily reflected by biology, evolutionary biology, biology and psychology.
And I think we need to consider these factors as we watch what's going on.
In no way do I think this solves any of the problems.
I suppose it's just interesting to assess.
That's about it.
There are some people who say things like repeal the 19th.
I don't agree with that.
I certainly think there's an issue though when you have low testosterone males just blindly siding with women because they think it'll get them laid.
That creates an imbalance.
No, we need a good balance of masculine and feminine energy because we are one species of people that have men and women and we all play a role in the society.
Giving a role to any one sex, race, or religion I think is a bad idea.
Hey, I guess what I'm saying is real diversity of thought and opinion helps make us stronger.
What we have right now is not that.
We have homogenization.
We have racial and gender homogenization.
That's not a good thing.
The left will deny it because they don't want to believe it, but their overt tribalism and adherence to authority is burning everything down.
