Democrats PANIC After PA Court Rules Mail in Voting UNCONSTITUTIONAL Proving Republicans RIGHT
Democrats PANIC After PA Court Rules Mail in Voting UNCONSTITUTIONAL Proving Republicans RIGHT. The lawsuit arose following the claims by republicans Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell, among others, that the universal mail in voting was unconstitutional.
In fact both democrats and republicans are currently trying to amend the constitution to make it constitutional proving that even they knew the law was no good.
Joe Biden and Trump may be set for a 2024 rematch and in the meantime the 2022 midterms could be a disaster for democrats especially following this ruling.
#Democrats
#Republicans
#Biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A Pennsylvania court has ruled that Pennsylvania's universal mail-in voting law is unconstitutional, proving Republicans right and throwing the upcoming election into question.
But what does this mean for 2020?
Because this is big news.
In our next story, the smear campaign against Joe Rogan continues with hashtag cancel Spotify trending and websites jumping on to explain to people how to do it.
Joe Rogan's show is important.
So naturally, the cult members in the establishment can't stand for this.
In our last story, the anti-work movement has accidentally exposed themselves as lazy millennials who feel entitled.
But there's something to what they're saying.
They're not completely wrong.
Now before we get started, leave us a good review, tell your friends about the show.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In a major, shocking development, a Pennsylvania court strikes down expansive mail-in voting law.
A statewide court says Pennsylvania's expansive two-year-old mail-in voting law is unconstitutional, agreeing with challenges by Republicans who soured on mail-in voting after then-President Donald Trump began baselessly attacking it as rife with fraud in 2020's campaign.
This challenge goes back to 2019, where it all began.
The challenge came out in 2020, but in 2019, Republicans struck a deal with Democrats to expand universal mail-in voting in violation of the state constitution.
And they all knew it was unconstitutional.
How do we know they advanced a constitutional amendment which would require approval in
two back to back sessions?
And I'm also being told this one I haven't verified that it would then need to go into
three newspapers in every county to be voted on by the public by the people of Pennsylvania.
What we can say is there is an ongoing effort to amend the Pennsylvania state constitution
to eliminate absentee ballot requirements, which says to me and any reasonable person,
the Democrats and the Republicans in Pennsylvania knew this expansion was unconstitutional.
Or I should say, at the very least, very, very little.
This has everything to do with policy, procedure, and the constitutionality of the election in 2020.
The way I see it, right now, it appears all of these mail-in votes, as far as we can tell, at least as far as we can tell, Legitimate votes.
There are some questions about some, but that's the normal parameters of an election.
The question is, if the election was held under unconstitutional means, what does this mean?
Now, to be fair and to be honest, and unfortunately for many of the Trump supporters, it could mean absolutely nothing.
The election's long since passed.
But therein lies the big problem.
One of the reasons that this original challenge was blocked during, or just after the 2020 election, was that the judge basically said, these judges were like, look, you had how long to challenge universal mail-in voting?
You could have done it during the primaries, you could have done it during other elections, but you wait a year until after your party loses, and in fact one of the plaintiffs, Sean Parnell, had lost, and then try and challenge the law?
I gotta be honest, guys.
I actually respect the judges questioning why someone would come out after already losing to challenge these votes.
Here's the thing.
The deal that was struck between Republicans and Democrats in 2019 sought to benefit Republicans, too.
The Republicans wanted to get rid of down-ballot voting.
See, in Pennsylvania, you could go in, hit a button, boom, you vote for every Democrat.
I actually, I personally don't like it, but I don't have a big deal, I don't take issue with it on a practical matter.
I'm not a fan of it.
Well, Republicans were like, yo, we want to get rid of that.
And the Democrats said, okay, well then we want universal mail-in voting.
The Republicans agreed.
They all knew, based on the attempts to amend the Constitution, what they were doing was wrong.
And this is the fault of the Republicans.
So for the Republicans then to come out later and be like, hey, we kind of don't like this.
Granted, the people who filed the challenge are not necessarily the same people who tried sneaking by this change in the rules.
But certainly Republicans thought this would benefit them.
And it didn't.
But I don't care about partisanship.
I care about whether or not this was done constitutionally.
And then the question is, who's truly to blame?
And the answer is, my friends, it's the Democrats.
They agreed to a deal Republicans could not make.
So I'll put it this way.
If you go out to buy a car, and you give the guy money, and then later you get arrested for stealing a car because it turns out he didn't own it, well, I understand you're not the one who's criminally liable for defrauding someone, but that guy never had the right to sell you the car, so you are the one getting screwed out.
So certainly, put the Republicans at fault 100% for expanding universal mail-in voting in violation of the Constitution.
However, you don't get to keep the car.
We can certainly say, well, you got defrauded, that guy's the problem, but sorry, you lost your money and you lose the car.
You see my point?
The Democrats struck a deal the Republicans had no right to make.
And now here we are.
This is huge.
I don't know if this matters for the 2020 election, to be honest.
We're past this.
I don't know what you could do about it.
But what this means for the midterm is huge.
Democrats' principal advantage, gone.
Now I'll break down why mail-in voting is so advantageous to Democrats, and it's not fraud.
I'm sorry.
I don't play that game.
I think you better come out with the votes, with the evidence.
There's certainly been some questionable instances.
Bill Barr himself has come out and questioned instances of fraud.
Admittedly, I don't think Bill Barr did a good enough investigation, but I don't think we need to waste time.
On that conversation, because the process, the constitutionality, is the first question.
And that question is extremely easy to answer, and we can.
The fraud narrative is rife with political landmines.
Become a member to help support all of our journalists who are doing hard work every day, many who are going on the ground and doing field reporting, and as a member, you get an ad-free experience and access to members-only segments of all of our different shows, notably the TimCast IRL Podcast, where we have a ton of awesome guests like Steve Vannon, Alex Jones, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and more to come!
You don't want to miss it.
But don't forget, smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, and the most important thing you can do is copy the URL, CTRL-C, go to your social media platforms, CTRL-V, paste it.
We don't have big marketing budgets.
I've never spent marketing money on promoting this show or TimCast IRL.
It's all organic growth, because we don't have the advantages of these big companies.
It's something simple, it costs you nothing, and it helps immensely.
Let's read the news, because this one, my friends, is a doozy.
No wonder it's coming out on a Friday, where news goes to die.
U.S.
News reports, a statewide court declared Friday that Pennsylvania's expansive two-year-old mail-in voting law is unconstitutional, agreeing with challenges by Republicans who soured on mail-in voting after then-President Donald Trump began baselessly attacking it as rife with fraud in 2020's campaign.
The decision by a five-judge Commonwealth Court panel of three Republicans and two Democrats could be put on hold immediately by an appeal from government Tom Wolf's administration to the Supreme Court now.
That's what we're hearing so far.
They have filed the appeal.
I don't know if there's going to be a stay or anything just yet.
Still, the decision throws Pennsylvania's voting laws into doubt as the presidential battleground states voters prepare to elect a new governor and a new U.S.
senator in 2022.
Just over 2.5 million people voted under the law's expansion of mail-in voting in 2020.
Most of them Democrats, out of 6.9 million total cast.
Wolf's office had no immediate comment.
Trump quickly lauded the decision, quote, big news out of Pennsylvania. Great patriotic spirit is
developing at a level that nobody thought possible make America great again. The three
Republican judges agreed with Republican challengers, including 11 Republican lawmakers who actually
voted for the law.
Isn't that funny?
And ruled that no excuse mail-in voting is prohibited under the state's constitution until the constitution is changed to allow it.
The two Democrats on the panel dissented.
The state Supreme Court, where an appeal was expected shortly, has a 5-2 Democratic majority.
But this is something to behold!
It may be on party lines right now, but the Supreme Court may be Democratic majority, but there is evidence to suggest even the Democrats knew the entire time they were making a deal, Republicans had no right to offer.
It's gonna put the Democrats in a tough spot.
If they agree with this, if they agree with this, well, they're likely going to lose.
They need this advantage.
The advantage is ground game, and I'll get into that in a minute.
If they disagree with this, it's partisan, party line, and it brings up a ton of insane questions about why the state is currently trying to amend its constitution to actually allow universal mail-in voting when they already passed a law allowing it when the constitution clearly says you can't do this!
The Democrats are going to have to pretend the Constitution does not say what it does say, which is bad news for them.
They're going to say, Pennsylvania's Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement, the opinion will be immediately appealed and will not have any immediate impact on Pennsylvania's upcoming elections.
Shapiro, a Democrat who is running for governor, said he is confident the state Supreme Court will uphold the mail-in voting law as constitutional and criticize the lower court's opinion as based on twisted logic and faulty reasoning and is wrong on the law.
No.
Don't get me wrong, I mean, there's arguments to be made, but any reasonable person can simply look at what the legislature is trying to do with this act presented on Ballotopedia, Pennsylvania No-Excuse Absentee Voting Amendment 2022.
They are currently trying to amend their constitution to allow what the Democrats in Pennsylvania are saying is already constitutional.
If that's the case, withdraw this legislation and then see what happens in the courts.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
And I don't know how much longer this country can stand things like this.
They're going to say, in 2019, the Republican-controlled legislature authorized no-excuse mail-in voting for all voters, expanding upon a provision in the state's constitution that required the state to provide the option for people to vote if they're unable to vote in person for specific reasons.
Those reasons include being out of town, business illness, physical disability, election day duties, or religious observance.
Nowhere does it say, for any reason.
And because of these specific reasons, it requires the Constitution to be amended.
They're gonna say.
Every Republican lawmaker except one voted for the bill in a deal with Wolf, who had sought the mail-in voting provision.
In exchange, Wolf agreed to get rid of the straight-ticket voting option that Republicans had sought as a way to protect their suburban candidates from an anti-Trump wave in 2020's election.
The Constitution does not explicitly say that the legislature cannot extend absentee voting to others.
However, Republican challengers say the Constitution intended that absentee voting be strictly limited.
Citing a passage that says voters must live in an election district for at least 60 days where they shall offer to vote.
Well, hold on there, U.S.
News.
Let me actually show you.
In the Constitution.
There is a section that the Democrats and Republicans are seeking to strike, which actually says the reasons for which you are allowed to cast an absentee ballot.
It says, because of their duties, occupation, or business, require them to be somewhere else, the occurrence of any election, unable to attend at their proper polling place, because of illness or physical disability, there needs to be a reason.
What this means is, it is very broad.
You can use mail-in voting for a lot of reasons, particularly the elderly.
But universally, you cannot.
The reasons are explicit, and that's why they are actively trying to amend the Constitution.
But, Ballotopedia says you have to pass the provision in two back-to-back legislative sessions.
Now, I'm told by some of those involved in the case, you're also required to get the changes, the bill, announced in three separate newspapers in every county, and then it goes to ballot referendum.
If the people haven't even voted on these changes yet, how could this possibly be constitutional?
They're gonna say.
In the opinion, the three Republican judges agreed, saying that the passage had been cited in two prior state Supreme Court decisions to invalidate laws passed in 1839 and 1923 to expand absentee voting.
The dissenting Democrats on the panel say a separate provision of the Constitution empowered lawmakers to provide no-excuse mail-in voting by law.
That provision says, all elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.
But that is a bunk argument!
Yes, it says that, and then it says, also, absentee ballot requires these things.
Imagine someone said, you are allowed to enter my home.
Except on Sunday.
And then someone comes in your house on Sunday.
And then the cops come, and they say, you're under arrest for trespassing.
They say, no, no, no, no, no!
The permission says you can enter the house.
Yes.
And then below it, it says, except on Sunday.
So you can't just pretend that the direct rules in the Constitution don't exist because these are the exemptions.
These are the specifics.
That's an insane argument.
Man, if the Democratic Supreme Court of Pennsylvania strikes this ruling down, there's just... I don't even know what to say about this country.
Because it's clear.
The Republicans are pointing out that in the past, the courts have blocked other laws for the same reason.
What has changed to allow them to do this?
Nothing.
They're actively trying to make those changes.
They say in one post-election lawsuit in 2020, Republicans sought to invalidate the mail-in voting law and throw out ballots cast under it, which would have effectively overturned Biden's victory.
The state Supreme Court threw it out, saying the plaintiffs, including Rep.
Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell, failed to act with due diligence in waiting to challenge the law until after they saw Trump had lost the election.
The election wasn't about Trump.
In fact, it may have been about Sean Parnell, who was a plaintiff and had lost.
But none of that really matters.
You know, I think there's a problem.
It's a fair point, and judges have this discretion, to say, you guys knew we were all voting by mail, and you waited until after the election to challenge this?
I think the challenge may have been just before, but the point stands.
Come on, man.
I mean, I gotta say, come on.
You guys, the plaintiffs, for whatever reason, you missed it.
You missed the bus.
You missed the train.
But I don't know if that's good enough reason to not rule on the merits.
Now, I don't know, I don't believe that the Republicans were actually seeking the ballots to be thrown out.
At least, my understanding when I talked to Sean Parnell was that they were just trying to get it addressed and they didn't know what the remedy would be.
Of course, stands to reason the only real remedy would be to throw out the ballots.
But now we're beyond this.
We're not in the 2020 election, and we're about a year away from the midterms.
Now is the perfect time to be addressing this issue.
There's no good reason the Democratic Supreme Court would toss this out.
They need to address it.
I want to bring you now to the specifics.
Pennsylvania no-excuse absentee voting amendment of 2022.
Ballotopedia says in the 2019-2020 legislative session, the constitutional amendment was introduced, Senate Bill 413.
It was nearly unanimous.
99.51% of those in the Pennsylvania House supported it.
98% of those in the Pennsylvania Senate supported it voting yes, but it has to be voted on back-to-back.
Ballotopedia says 2021 to 2022, the Pennsylvania General Assembly will need to approve the constitutional amendment again during the 2021-2022 legislative session to place the ballot measure before voters.
So here we are.
They already passed the law while still actively trying to make it legal or constitutional.
That doesn't make sense to me.
How are you gonna do that?
It hasn't even gone before the voters!
I mean, look, let's be real.
It's gotta pass two sessions, then go before the voters, then you can have universal mail-in voting.
Yeah, I think it's fair to say it is completely unconstitutional.
Let me get you into the nitty-gritty of what's going on here, though.
Let's go back to November 29th of 2020.
NPR, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, rejects Republican suit to throw out ballots.
They say, the suit filed by Mike Kelly and others on November 21st, so it was after the election, requested the state reject mail ballots submitted under that law or allow state lawmakers to select presidential electors.
The justices contended that if the plaintiffs had constitutional concerns of the mail-in voting law, that their suit would have been filed earlier and not after millions of mail-in ballots were cast in the 2020 primary and general election.
The justices further noted that the plaintiffs waited until after the votes had been tallied and their preferred presidential candidate lost the state.
Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadow of the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians.
I don't disagree.
I think the Republicans totally screwed this one up.
You see, hindsight is 20-20.
Betting on universal mail-in voting was a huge error on the Republicans' part.
But hey, Republicans knowing how to win elections?
Yeah, I'm not surprised.
Their ground game is in the gutter.
Let me explain something to you guys.
I've explained this before, but in this context, it's important to reiterate.
In New York City, you have some of the densest population, you know, one of the densest populations in the world.
Not the, but it's up there.
This means that a Democrat activist can go into one building and talk to a hundred different people.
One building.
They walk in.
Knock on the door.
No answer.
Next.
Knock on the door.
No answer.
Next.
Knock on the door.
Someone answers.
Hey, have you voted yet?
There's your mail-in ballot.
Can you fill it out?
And the guy goes, I don't care.
Just fill it out, man.
Come on.
Take 10 seconds.
Vote for Joe Biden.
And he goes, fine, sure, whatever.
You fill it out.
He puts it back in the mailbox.
That easy.
Just like that.
Now, for many of these mail carriers, you know, their mailboxes are downstairs, but you can go door-to-door inside of a building.
Let's say there are 100 apartment units in one building, and Democratic activists have a success rate of 30%.
So, they get 30 votes per house.
Now, let's say that more than one person lives in those houses.
Now, they're getting maybe 60 votes.
Maybe they have some college-age kids who live there, too.
Oh, now it could be triple.
Let's say that for every ten doors they knock on, only one answers.
Now let's throw it to the Republican.
The Republican goes to the rural areas in the suburbs.
They get in their car, and they drive, and they go to a house, and they knock on the door.
No answer.
So they walk to the next door neighbor, which is several hundred, you know, a couple hundred feet away, a more rural area.
Knock on the door.
No answer.
That whole process took them about five minutes.
Inside a dense urban population, that whole process can literally take you 30 seconds.
You see, this is why mail-in voting greatly advantages Democrats.
It's why Democrats have a ground game advantage, because they hold urban centers.
When you knock on the door and tell someone, can you go and vote?
It's a lot harder for them to actually go and vote.
So let's say a Democrat knocks on 100 doors, speaks to 30 people, and they say, you're polling places around the corner.
How many of them are gonna go, ugh, I don't, sure, whatever.
And then they never go vote.
But let's say the mail-in ballot is at their doorstep.
You knock on the door and say, look, normally you wouldn't have voted, right?
But your ballot is right there.
Just fill it out and put it in the mailbox and you're done.
And they go, okay, fine, geez, whatever.
How about this?
I pointed out that you've got activist kids or parents and the parents go to their young kids and say, I want you to go vote.
The kids say, I don't wanna go vote.
And they go, you need to vote.
No, I don't want it.
Your ballot's right here, fill it out.
The kids go fine.
Or, the college kids come home and go, Mom, did you vote?
She goes, No, I'm not gonna- Mom, fill out the universal ballot.
Just fill it out.
Democrats have the collectivist ground game.
I'm not saying that universal mail-in voting is the end-all be-all to help Democrats.
I'm saying it just skews slightly in terms of favoring Democrats, because they can hit more doors doing ground activism, and people are more likely to just be like, I gotta fill this out and then I'm done.
Okay, fine, whatever.
It makes it easier.
It's true regardless of universal mail-in voting that Democrats will still be advantaged by population density.
But, how many people in cities don't care and won't vote?
How many people in rural areas don't care and won't vote?
Probably the same, right?
Well, there's a greater chance that Democrats will gain votes with the help of mail-in voting.
Now, Republicans, Trump supporters want to say that mail-in voting is insecure and can lead to fraud.
That's true, but I don't think matters.
I think if you look at the Time Magazine article, The Shadow Campaign to Save the Election, you take a look at the unconstitutionality of this ruling right now, and you say, guys, you don't need to argue that.
It is a political pit trap.
It's hard to prove.
It's nebulous.
It's, you know, we've had these hearings that where is anything?
I don't even know.
You know what I can tell you?
When you discuss process, it is plain for anyone to see.
A court has just ruled.
And you can look at what they're trying to do in Pennsylvania with this amendment.
They know it was never constitutional.
I blame the Republicans, to be completely honest.
They offered up a deal they had no right to offer up, and it backfired on them.
But maybe they were savvy, trying to trick the Democrats, and now the Democrats are the ones who might get screwed over by it because the Republicans win out in the end.
Maybe 2022 they'll take back the power.
Well, the Democrats, they're not stopping there.
59 Republicans who joined electoral voter fraud scheme for Trump could face prison.
Blah, blah, blah.
That's their game.
Republicans filled out elector sheets.
It's normal because there was courts, cases still in play.
They ended up not being used.
So what's the issue?
They did it in Hawaii in 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy.
And no one cared.
I mean, that's it.
It's what happens.
The Democrats are taking it a step further to say, No, this time we're going to call it crime.
We're going to call it a crime.
That's their play.
They know they're losing.
I think the Democrats might lose out on this one in Pennsylvania.
I think they made a mistake.
I think the Republicans played them.
I think the Republicans should be criticized for it.
It's dirty politics, for sure.
But in the end, the question of constitutionality, it's a real question.
Let's take a look at where we're going in November.
I got this for you.
270 to win.
Let's take a look at why this matters.
Now, this is the 2023 House Congressional Interactive Map, contested.
As we can see, it's hard to know exactly what's going to happen because we have a bunch of gray areas.
These states that are in gray haven't yet released their redistricting.
And in this map of Tennessee, they haven't yet applied the new polling numbers and new district mapping numbers to the new maps that have been released.
We can see that in many areas, up for grabs, but it seems like there's a slight favoring of Democrats for the time being.
Still, based on redistricting in Tennessee, it's gonna eliminate the seat of a Democrat, Jim Cooper, who's now not even running.
It's going to expand the area, I think, to three Republican seats, and 538 has said, even though it looks good for Democrats for now, When the full maps come out, it is going to heavily favor Republicans.
Republicans will likely win.
Let's take a look at the Senate.
This is where it gets interesting.
Pennsylvania is a toss-up state for the Senate.
If the Republicans win, one.
Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, toss-ups.
If they win, one.
They take control of the Senate.
That's it.
Not enough to bypass the filibuster.
Perhaps they could then break the filibuster and eliminate it.
Go nuclear.
That would be very dangerous for our country, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
And that's why Democrats are mad at Cinnamon Mansion for blocking it.
Because they're like, yo, the Republicans are going to do this!
I'm not entirely convinced Republicans will.
But if they did, I would not be surprised.
Right now, Republicans are favored.
49 to 47.
Pennsylvania's a toss-up.
You eliminate Pennsylvania's mail-in voting provision, Democrats lose that advantage, Republicans then have a better chance of winning.
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.
Arizona very well could go Republican or Progressive.
It's hard to say.
I think it might lean Republican, but we'll see.
Kyrsten Sinema's a moderate.
She voted against eliminating the filibuster.
Progressives are mad.
I don't think Progressives have the ability to actually win.
But wait, there's more.
Pennsylvania is a gubernatorial toss-up state.
You eliminate the advantage the Democrats have, it could be that in this governorship election, Republican wins.
But that's, none of this matters.
I mean, it matters, it does, it does.
But something matters more.
My friends, I give you the real map.
This is absolutely incredible.
Republicans are going to take this country.
Right now, we are looking at the interactive map of the state houses.
As you can see, 32 Republicans.
32 states are controlled by Republicans.
16 by Democrats.
Just 16.
And Maine is a toss-up.
Some of these areas are grayed out, we don't know where they'll go.
If Republicans can take two-thirds of the states, I believe there's a little bit more, they could call a convention of states, and they could change everything.
They could amend the Constitution as they see fit.
And that would be something to behold.
If you guys go out and vote in your state elections, you can change the world.
Take a look at New Mexico.
It's leaning blue.
Colorado, leaning blue.
These Democrat voters, they do go out and vote, but the average person doesn't vote in state elections.
They vote down-ballot, they mostly ignore it.
If you go out, if you get Egypt- right now, do this.
Message your friends.
Did you register to vote yet?
Get them to register to vote.
That is how the game is played.
Take it from Scott Pressler.
That dude is registering people.
He should probably win an award for it or break some record.
You get your friends to register and you go out on primary day and you vote.
You go out and you make sure you vote in your state and local elections.
Take a look at this.
Let's say Colorado, leaning blue, actually ends up flipping red.
New Mexico, leaning blue, actually ends up flipping red.
Nevada.
Oregon.
Here's what we can see.
36 states Republican.
Let's say Nebraska.
It's not letting me change Nebraska.
I don't know what the rule is for that.
But let's say they actually end up winning this.
Look at this even.
Connecticut is only leaning blue.
Now I know it's a long shot to claim that these leaning blue states could actually end up flipping red.
It's a long shot.
But possible.
We've seen things in Texas and in Florida that were very surprising to people.
Areas that should have voted Democrat voting Republican.
I don't like the Republican Party, to be completely honest.
But we're talking about... I should even say Maine going red, because that's a toss-up.
38 Republican states to 11 Democrat states.
They can have all the senators they want.
They can have all the members of federal Congress they want.
But when the states are controlled by the Republicans, the Republicans will set the constitutional policy.
It could be bad.
Or it could be good.
I don't know.
But if these individuals, at the state level, They seem to be more locally oriented, regular people, America first, national populist, whatever.
If they take control because you go out, you lead the charge, and you vote, this is how you win.
Let Biden say what Biden wants.
And then these Republican states pass constitutional amendments to their heart's content in a convention of states.
Some people have warned against it.
They fear that opening up a convention of states could just be bad in the long run.
Perhaps.
I don't know.
But I tell you this.
The one thing you get from control of these states is redistricting.
Which is already happening, so it's not going to happen for some time again.
But if you make sure you win at the state level, you will win at the federal level.
Right now, the claim is from people like Colbert.
The Democrats represent 41 million more people than the Republican Senators do.
The Democrat Senators.
But that's just wrong.
I mean, it's technically the truth.
But those 41 million people, many of them could be Republicans.
They just live in blue areas.
Take a look at New York.
Ocasio-Cortez's district.
She won with I think like 170,000 votes, was it?
In the congressional election.
She won the primary with like 15,000 or 17,000.
Microscopic.
But because it's a D plus, you know, 14 or I think it's like a D plus 28 state district, she wins.
Because people are just gonna go there and vote Democrat no matter what.
Imagine if every single Republican in New York, in this district, 20% about, is Republican.
Imagine if they all actually went out and voted.
They'd win.
They would win!
Because it would be just enough.
Or they'd get close to it.
The problem is, even Republicans, for the most part, aren't paying attention.
And I don't know if Republicans are the answer, but I would certainly take any political competition to what we have now.
So here's what you gotta do.
There is a path to victory.
All is not lost.
You've gotta go out, register your friends to vote, register your family to vote.
Anybody who's ever said something about, I'm tired of this, I'm tired of the lockdowns, I'm tired of the failing economy, you gotta be like, please, register and vote.
Make sure you are the leader.
I'll tell you this, man.
Don't wait for somebody.
You're the leader.
You.
It is your responsibility to go to people and be like, I will drive you to... We will all get in the car, we will all go together, because Democrats do this.
It is up to you.
Because no one's gonna do it for you.
No one.
I'll make sure to do it on my end.
I'll make sure me and all my friends, I'm gonna make sure that everybody gets a good day off on election day to go and vote.
And you know what?
I'm not gonna tell them who to vote for.
I don't care.
I want them to be a part of that process.
I want to see us win.
I want to see freedom win.
That means everyone needs to stand up.
It's big news, this court case.
It's good news for Republicans.
A lot to criticize them for, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
For the past two weeks, there's been an ongoing social media and media smear campaign against Joe Rogan, trying to get him booted off of Spotify.
Now, in my opinion, it's kind of stupid of many of these people, considering the massive contract Joe Rogan has with Spotify, they're not going to boot him off.
I was told that Joe has stated, because I haven't heard Joe say this, but, you know, when I've talked about this on IRL and stuff, people say, Joe's mentioned his contract is ironclad, so they can't do anything about it.
Doesn't mean much.
It really doesn't.
Contracts are just pieces of paper.
Seriously.
Now, the reported deal with Joe and Spotify is $100 million, and if Joe were to get booted off the platform, he'd probably be able to get that plus more, and I'm sure he wouldn't be too upset about it, because he can bring his show wherever he wants.
The show is him, not Spotify, so Spotify's not likely to give him up.
But over on social media, let's get into the nitty gritty.
I wake up to three different Twitter trends.
Delete Spotify, Cancel Spotify, and Joe Rogaine.
Because people on the left are just insulting him.
I don't think that these Twitter leftists, many of which are probably just sock puppet accounts and bots, to be completely honest, I don't think they actually care about Joe Rogan's show.
I don't think they actually care about what Joe says or who Joe is.
I think the left is a chaotic and destructive force that latches onto things and doesn't let go.
They are like fire.
It just spreads, it burns, and destroys.
But I also think the media pushing these stories, they're concerned.
Joe Rogan, podcasting, shows like mine, for instance, are their competition.
So any opportunity to shut him down, they will take.
I always find it weird talking about Joe Rogan.
For one, because I know the guy.
And secondly, because it's like, it's a dude who hangs out and talks about stuff.
I don't view him as a leader of the free world or anything like that, but when we had him on TimCast IRL, people were commenting that Joe Rogan was the leader of the free world.
Isn't that weird?
Isn't that crazy?
Now, it's not...
Well, I guess in my opinion, I don't think Joe Rogan is the leader of the free world.
I think people are being somewhat facetious and hyperbolic on purpose.
But Joe's show has quickly become one of the most important media platforms in the world.
Isn't that crazy?
But it's because the media is full of it.
Because the media lies, because we know they lie.
So who are these people desperately trying to defend a decaying and dead news media apparatus?
Cult members?
Someone pointed out on my Tim Pool Daily Show podcast, they were like, Tim, you refer to these people as city urban liberal types.
Did you do that on purpose?
Because of course that spells out, it's the acronym cult.
And I was like, no, but I will take credit for that.
The city urban liberal types don't like Joe Rogan.
And it's not because of what Joe says, it's because he allows people to have their opinions.
And it started to a great degree with Robert Malone.
But here's why I want to talk to you about what's going on today.
For one, with a nearly two week long, over two weeks, that the media has constantly been slamming Joe Rogan, ramping things up, I feel like we need to have a similarly sustained positive campaign in support of Joe.
And the reason for this is, guys, I really do think, I don't know what Joe would say about this, I didn't ask him, and I don't know what's physically or legally possible, Do not underestimate the ability of companies to break contracts when they feel threatened.
It's a cost-benefit analysis.
If the contract with Joe says something like, we will give you a hundred million dollars over three years to have the Joe Rogan experience, I'm sure it's something like that.
I don't know.
But, you know, a lot of people mentioned, I think it was the Wall Street Journal said, Joe Rogan got $100 million.
That doesn't mean they just handed him a check for $100 million.
It's probably a year term of some sort.
I don't know what the term is.
For all we know, it could be five.
A lot of people are like, $100 million, look how much money he got.
It could be a 10-year term.
Seriously.
I really doubt it, to be completely honest.
But for all we know, it was like, we'll give you $10 million a year for 10 years.
I really doubt Joe would take that much money, because honestly, it's low for what his show's value is.
I'd be willing to bet it was something like two years.
That's fairly standard in a lot of these, you know, contracts they do.
When I worked for Fusion, they wanted me for three years.
I said two, and they were like, well, three is standard.
I said, no, it isn't.
Two is.
Two years.
It's kind of a long time.
So, I think it's entirely possible, I really do, that if Spotify does the cost-benefit analysis and says, we lost Neil Young, that's six million monthly listeners, we're losing tens of thousands of users, because that's what people are saying, they're cancelling and deleting Spotify, they're going to weigh the cost and the risks.
To be honest, the left would have to mount such an immense pressure campaign to actually overcome that hill.
I don't necessarily believe it's likely.
But it is possible.
If Spotify says, we did this deal with Joe Rogan, we're gonna lose a hundred million dollars.
However, because of the people hating him, we're gonna lose a hundred and one million dollars, you know what Spotify would do.
They'll say, okay, break the contract, pay Joe his a hundred, we save him a million bucks.
That's literally what they would do.
They would not risk losing their platform over Joe Rogan.
And it's not even necessarily about the $100 million versus whatever Spotify could make.
It's about yearly prospects growth and shares.
Now when Joe is signed on to Spotify, their stocks skyrocket.
So don't expect them to just dump him anytime soon.
But I think it's fair to point out that if there is no effort, if no one who likes his show speaks out and cares, what happens is, It's not so much about the money, it's about the culture.
If there's a show on TV, and there is 10,000 people who won't shut up complaining about it, but no one is speaking out in support of it, the company just says, look, nobody is backing this show, why are we dealing with this?
Because the cost isn't just what we're gonna lose from these users, it's the sustained pressure campaign, it's legal, it's PR, it's all of that stacked on top, and if there's no support for the show, I don't care.
Of course, Joe's a big show, they can see it in the numbers, but I think it's important to speak out and push back and make sure that there is a narrative that exists that is, Joe Rogan's show is important, maybe because it's Joe, maybe not, I don't know, but it's a massive platform for a regular guy who embodies regular people to have conversations with varying opinions, whether positive or negative, and allow us to decide for ourselves.
I want to show you some stuff.
There is a viral post that people are sharing.
Michael Malice posted it, and it says that Neil Young sold his music to hypnosis, which has a deal with Blackstone, who has invested in a pharmaceutical, you know, biotech therapeutics company.
Surprise, surprise.
And I see this and I'm like, guys, Blackstone owns everything.
It's not that hard to make a tighter connection.
So let me show you what I posted on Instagram, but I want to make sure I can be a bit rational and break this down.
Over on Instagram, I highlight this story from, I believe it was Rolling Stone.
Neil Young sells catalog rights to Mercuriatis' Hypnosis.
It's H-I-P-G.
It's hypnosis, but there's a G in there, and the G is silent, I guess.
So Hypnosis founder Mercuriatus bought Young's Publishing, promises fans there will never be a burger of gold fast food commercial.
Alright.
Then we have August 2020.
Blackstone announces appointment of Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as senior advisor.
October 2021. Blackstone and Hypnosis song management launch $1 billion partnership to
invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties.
And then, finally, January 26, Spotify to pull Neil Young's music after artists'
objections to Joe Rogan. The artist had published, then taken down an open letter calling on Spotify to take
down his music because of vaccine misinformation from Joe Rogan's podcast. I'm not saying
That everybody within six degrees of context is connected to Kevin Bacon.
That was the joke.
Kevin Bacon, of course, being the movie star.
And the idea is...
You know, your mom has a friend from college whose cousin married a guy who hung out with Kevin, you know, who knows Kevin Bacon or whatever.
Like six degrees of separation.
I don't know why they chose Kevin Bacon for that, but six degrees, it's so exponentially large that of course you can literally find yourself connected to anybody.
You could find out that you are somehow related to some knights of old or something.
Yeah, because there were very few people back then.
We look back in history, and there are very famous individuals, but when there were only 2 million people on the planet, there's a strong likelihood you have some relationship with, you know, one of these historical figures.
I want to make sure that's clear.
Because just because Neil Young's catalog was sold to Hypnosis, just because Hypnosis has a deal with Blackstone, just because Blackstone hired the former Pfizer CEO as an advisor, doesn't mean that this is directly involved in why Neil Young is complaining.
Neil Young sold the rights.
That doesn't explain why Neil Young himself personally would be like, I want my music off, right?
But a lot of people pointed something out too, on TimCastIRaw, they said, Neil Young couldn't get his music pulled because he sold the rights to it.
Yet here we are, Spotify is pulling the rights to his music.
So it's not about Neil Young and what he says, it's about they're actually doing it.
Now, I do think there is a... it is feasible.
It is possible, nay, somewhat likely.
Not saying greater than 51% chance, but I think it's possible that, you know, Pfizer and, you know, Moderna and these other pharmaceuticals, of course they've had conversations about Joe Rogan.
You know they did.
There was a release from Judicial Watch showing that Pfizer was talking about Project Veritas.
Joe Rogan is substantially larger than Project Veritas.
So how much do you want to bet when someone's getting 200 and some odd million downloads per month?
Joe Rogan.
11 million per episode.
And he comes out with an episode with Robert Malone, which many people have claimed has reached 60 million downloads.
I don't know if that's true, but I think it's entirely possible, to be completely honest, because that was a big cultural moment.
You have to imagine That level of viewership is going to send a shockwave through this industry.
They're going to see it in their bottom line.
They're going to see it in policy.
And these companies, like Pfizer, have a vested interest in vaccine mandates.
And now we have a massive trucker protest.
Why?
Joe Rogan's influence.
Yo, I know many people probably don't want to admit it, or the left would probably downplay that.
And I gotta point out as well, it seems like the guy who's most involved in this, and the least involved in this, is Joe Rogan himself.
But, I gotta be honest, man, it's the biggest political and cultural show probably on the planet.
I mean, maybe there's something else, I don't know, maybe that's just my bubble, but when you look at Joe Rogan's episodes, and he does four per week, I believe, 11 million each, and then you look at primetime cable and they can't get anywhere near that.
They're getting, well, they're getting three to four.
So he's getting double, triple their views, especially CNN.
Yo, Joe Rogan owns in the narrative.
And so when you start seeing politicians back away from mandates, you know Pfizer's going, we are going to lose how much money?
Because some dude who smokes pot is talking smack with some random dude?
I ain't playing that.
So I don't know for sure, but I'm saying there's a possibility, considering these companies are all connected, that, you know, the Pfizer senior advisor over at Blackstone just said, look guys, you know, you've got, you have investments in these companies.
We've got friends who work there.
We're losing a lot of money over this Rogan guy.
Is there any, anything we can do to get this, to get, you know, push back?
I'm like, well, We do have a deal with, um, Hypnosis, I mean, they've got access to big catalogs, maybe we can put some pressure on Spotify.
Yo, that is probably, completely normal, and probably happens all the time.
At the highest levels of industry, this is why, this is the problem I have with the, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, to be honest.
You know, I want to see evidence.
The problem I have with the anti-conspiracy theory people is that they believe that at the top of industry is like 50 billion people.
Okay?
At least several million.
You know, at the tops of the Fortune 500 companies are 500 CEOs.
I'm sure maybe some of these companies have co-CEOs.
But even if you expand the board to include their C-suite, we're talking about the biggest companies in the world having a couple thousand people?
You know, they all know each other!
So how hard is it for Blackstone, which has a piece of all of these different companies, to say, you know, this Joe Rogan stuff is causing us problems.
What about you, Hypnosis?
Oh yeah, let me call up the Hypnosis guy, see if we can put some pressure.
It's one degree of separation!
One!
Blackstone, one company, Pfizer Advisor, and media company that owns Neil Young's music.
I do not think it is improbable I mean, maybe it is not, you know, I don't want to say like, I believe this absolutely happened.
I'm just saying there's a strong possibility that behind the scenes, these big companies don't like the message.
They don't like that it hurts their profits.
So they push back.
I mean, come on.
They're activists who try to get right-wing personalities cancelled, and the right-wing personalities muster up their support and push back.
Why would Blackstone not do that?
Why would Hypnosis not do that?
Why would anybody who's worried about this not do it?
Leverage whatever they could to push back and try and take down Joe Rogan.
Let me show you how crazy this is.
Tech Times.
Spotify account guide.
How to delete your account and cancel your premium subscription.
You see, here's what happens.
Whether it's an intentional coordinated campaign from the billionaire elites who don't like Joe Rogan and are concerned about their profits, or not.
Or if it's just an organic movement from the left, which seems more likely to be honest because they're a chaotic and destructive force.
Once they push that sustained campaign, eventually, capitalism takes hold.
The Tech Times realizes, there's a lot of people trying to figure out how to cancel Spotify accounts.
Hey, let's make an article telling them how to do it, so we can get a bunch of money.
What happens is, they write this article, the people then start sharing it as part of their movement, Tech Times generates ad revenue and gets a few thousand dollars.
This results in people actually canceling their Spotify accounts, exacerbating the crisis, and then Spotify is, you know, forced into a position.
Look at this.
You know, there comes a time when you want to switch to Apple Music.
Here's what you need to know.
And then it just basically breaks down how to cancel your Spotify account.
But this story is from the 27th of January, 2022.
They just wrote it.
We know why they wrote it.
Yo.
It's crazy to me that there has been a multi-week-long campaign against Joe.
And it's been longer than that, to be completely honest.
Now, they're coming after Joe Rogan for hosting Jordan Peterson.
CNN.
Scientists slam Joe Rogan's podcast episode with Jordan Peterson as absurd and dangerous.
They go on to mention Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson in waffling remarks that there's
no such thing as climate, right?
He then went on to mock climate types, who he said typically suggest that climate is
about everything.
I almost feel like Joe's show needs like a media trainer or something like that.
Like what I mean is, something I am cognizant of when we do Tim Guest IRL, whether people in the audience realize it or not, is media manipulation, left-wing attacks, psychology, etc.
I used to hang out with a bunch of hackers, social engineering.
So here's what would happen if we were doing Tim Guest IRL.
And the guest said, there's no such thing as climate, right?
Now, to be honest, it's one of the reasons some people don't like the show.
They say, Tim, you interrupt your guests too much.
Well, I do it for this reason.
If I was on the show with Jordan Peterson, and he said there's no such thing as climate, he then went on to mock climate types, I'd say, what do you mean by that?
Now, Joe does get adversarial sometimes, but I'd spot that immediately, like, what do you mean there's no such thing as climate?
Elaborate.
And then when, you know, he does, I'd make sure that that point was clarified to the best degree possible.
What Jordan Peterson was saying is that when it comes to the discussion around climate change, people basically say that everything, everywhere, is related to climate.
Like, you know, animal ecosystems, endangered species, all of this stuff.
So it's not that he was saying there's no such thing as climate.
That's a mischaracterization of his point.
His point was, climate is our entire ecosystem and planet, and how do you map for that?
When you're doing science, you say climate is changing, but you use climate to refer to anything.
That's the point he was making.
That's the kind of stuff you gotta be careful of, because what they do is, they look for any point at which they can misrepresent.
But to be fair, you know, I can maybe talk big and say, like, oh, I would have caught this.
It's... I try my best, and I think, something like this, I may have caught.
But the reality is, they get me out of contact same as everybody else.
They manipulate same as everybody else.
And at a certain point, you just gotta recognize, you can't take these people seriously.
And CNN does show this.
Peterson said, your models are based on everything.
Your models are based on a set number of variables.
So that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set.
But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?
And they go on to say, blah, blah, blah, Spotify, Spotify, Spotify.
This story is from yesterday night.
Yesterday night, CNN writes this.
The reason why I bring this up and the reason why I find myself talking about Joe again is that This is, I suppose, whether it's intentional or not, a sustained campaign to go after Joe Rogan's show, and rest assured, no one is invincible.
It starts with 270 doctors.
Then it turns out they weren't even doctors.
Some of them were, but most of them weren't.
It was like only 87 were practicing medicine.
There's like a veterinarian, and a dentist, and a podcast, and podcast hosts!
More than one!
So that narrative breaks down.
They push another narrative.
Now it's grown to a thousand medical professionals and experts.
And it's like, still, these people don't matter.
Then they come out with the Jordan Peterson smear.
They come out with the Neil Young smear.
And when this starts bubbling up and becoming prominent among the left, you will get more Neil Young stories.
They are trying to mount a serious pressure campaign to damage Spotify to hurt Joe Rogan's show.
Maybe... Joe Rogan doesn't need me to come to his defense.
His show's substantially larger.
It's like 20 times larger than my show.
So, there you go.
So maybe it's kind of pointless for me to bring up, but I just think it's important, especially when I wake up and see these three trends on Twitter about canceling Spotify and blaming Spotify and all that stuff.
His show isn't invincible, but I'll say this.
If Joe were to be kicked off of Spotify, what I think would happen is he would probably just go on Rumble.
Or back on YouTube and just make more money.
They'd have to pay him out.
He'd have a strong lawsuit.
They wouldn't want to do that.
I'd be willing to bet that other companies would immediately be like, Joe, how much do you want?
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you would see, so Rumble, they're about to get, they're looking at $400 million.
If Joe Rogan ended his contract with Spotify, I would not be surprised if Rumble said, you know what?
We needed this money for infrastructure, but we will put our entire creative budget into the Joe Rogan experience.
I would absolutely not be surprised if that were the case.
Hundred million dollars.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were like, yo, we'll give you a hundred million dollars for one year.
Just give us one year.
Because it's the biggest show in the world.
When Joe was leaving iTunes, I said, I thought that this was gonna be bad for Joe, it was gonna hurt him.
Why?
When people first explore podcasts, the first thing they would ever see was Joe Rogan experience, because he was number one.
First in and best dressed, is what they say.
So because Joe had been doing this podcast for so long, it had grown in popularity, for one, Joe's talented, he's funny, obviously, and the show is really, really good.
It's one of the best shows, period.
But there are a lot of good podcasts that don't get nearly as big and they fight for that position.
But when you are in the top position and new users keep coming in and seeing a show and the show is good, that's a recipe for success.
Joe had the best real estate for any podcast show.
The number one spot on iTunes.
Always there every time you open the app.
On YouTube, he had constantly recommended videos because they were doing so well.
When Joe walked away from that to do the exclusive deal with Spotify, Spotify is a substantially smaller platform for podcasting, I said, it's probably going to hurt his audience size, because he's getting a lot of natural pull from those platforms.
Just like, you know, Jim Acosta goes on CNN and gets half a million viewers, even though no one in their right mind would actually choose to watch the guy.
Well, it's because people are watching CNN and he happens to be on it.
Well, I should say I was wrong to a certain degree.
I think, I don't know how many views he was getting.
I think he's getting more now on Spotify than he was before.
I think it's gone up.
I don't know why, but Joe said he had thought about it.
He said it's gonna work out, and he was right.
My understanding is that he used to get like three or four million.
Actually, so let me clarify.
He used to get, in my understanding, more viewership with his YouTube views and iTunes and Spotify.
By going exclusive to Spotify, he's getting overall less, but more per podcast episode.
So, like, a very large amount.
Which has... Podcast viewership is more influential, to be completely honest.
By getting off of YouTube and going on Spotify, a good portion of those YouTube viewers went to Spotify as well.
That's what Spotify was hoping.
And though it may mean less viewership, the truth is YouTube viewership is worth a tenth of a podcast view.
No joke.
I'm going to be straight with you guys.
When I do an ad read on YouTube, it can be several thousand dollars.
When I do an ad read on a podcast, with a tenth of the viewership, it can be tens of thousands of dollars.
No joke.
Now, to be honest, we only do, I think, like six ad reads per month, so it's not that much money, and they're YouTube ad reads.
We do.
I do have podcast ad reads, but again, that's also like three or four per month.
So, it can be substantial, but I will also be completely honest with you guys, TimCast.com memberships is what makes all of this operate.
If we lost all our ad revenue from our sponsors, I'd just be like, oh, it's not that much.
The operation we run here, we have 30 plus employees.
It's expensive.
It is very, very expensive.
We have a lot of people doing a lot of stuff.
The point is, I think Joe knew the deal he was going to get with Spotify was big bucks, and I'm pretty sure he's keeping all the ad revenue.
And ad revenue on Spotify is bigger, so think about what Joe must have been thinking.
YouTube ad reads, not worth a whole lot.
In fact, he probably was, I don't even know if he was doing YouTube ad reads.
You move even 10% of the, you get 300,000 out of the 3 million on average who watched his YouTube version, and send him to Spotify, he's gonna be able to do way more ad reads, and we only get like 100,000 downloads per episode on IRL, and we're getting, we get, you can get, no joke, low tens of thousands for some of these ad reads.
It's just way, way more money.
So Joe is like, I may have less viewership, but it's going to be way, way better for the business.
Anyway, I digress.
If Joe were to leave Spotify, I believe he could easily take those viewers anywhere, including Rumble, and that would be one of the best things possible.
So it may actually be that one of the best things that could happen is Joe does get taken down from Spotify, and then announces he's going to be on Rumble, and Rumble pays him his $100 million.
He keeps all the money.
The viewership actually increases because now you've got a social media platform like Actually, that probably would be the best thing ever.
So maybe it would be good.
Hey, maybe the left should cancel Joe Rogan.
I just hope that whatever happens, it works out for Joe.
Joe does his thing, unimpeded.
And I just want to make sure that we continue to have an opposition to the ongoing smear campaign against him.
Joe knows that, you know, I support him, of course.
It's a massive show.
It's a massive opportunity.
I'm eternally grateful for every opportunity Joe gave me to have on his show, but I also am deeply inspired by the work he does.
He's an inspiration to the work that I do.
When I do interviews, some people have said that, you know, Timcast IRL, because I used to do these monologues principally as like my main content, the Tim Pool Daily Show on iTunes and Spotify, And then they were like, Tim made IRL to try and be like Joe Rogan.
And that's just absolutely not true.
The show is a totally, it's a different format.
But to be fair, I am inspired by the work Joe did in doing Timcast IRL.
Absolutely.
A lot of what most podcasts have done are modeled off of the dude who's got the biggest show in the world when it comes to it.
So I want to see his continued success.
And I also think it's important for our culture and for our politics to have a dude.
Look, I went on a rant last night about that Australian guy who smeared me.
Joe defended me, I appreciate it, but Joe's willing to put that guy on a platform and give him several hours to speak his mind.
Joe is not some sycophantic right-wing shill.
He's doing real work.
Man, some people have called him Walter Cronkite or Larry King.
It's like, it's kind of crazy.
But you see, the thing is, our establishments, the establishment institutions have failed us.
And that's the reality.
Joe is a regular guy.
He's a comedian.
He's a celebrity.
He's talented.
He built up this platform and personality.
And as someone who is somewhat just a regular guy, it speaks so much more to authenticity.
To what people really want to hear.
So go look at the iTunes charts.
Last night, the 13th biggest podcast in the world was the Joe Rogan Experience Review Podcast.
Yeah, well, to be honest, in the past couple of weeks, that's basically what we've been doing.
But, uh, no, let's be real.
What do I do on this show and on TimCast IRL?
Criticize the mainstream media.
Criticize the New York Times and CNN when they put out lies and manipulation.
When Joe Rogan's show has become the dominant platform for TV shows, it needs to be talked about.
When Joe has people on who say bad things or when there's things to criticize, I will.
I was critical of when he did the performance at Madison Square Garden with the Vax Mandate.
There's not a whole lot to be critical of.
I mean, I think I should, and anyone should, be like, hey man, if you're gonna speak out about Vax Mandates, you shouldn't be doing these shows.
But as I and many others pointed out, they sprung it on Joe at the last minute.
He didn't agree to do the show with the Vax Mandate, and him and a bunch of other people have already said they wouldn't do it again.
And so it's like, okay, you know, look, I gotta be honest.
When I look at CNN, liars.
When I look at Joe, a guy trying his best to be authentic.
I hope that's the direction this country goes, to be honest.
Authenticity, reality.
Seems to be the case.
But if it is going to be the case, it means that we have to speak up for what we believe in and why we believe in it, lend our support to shows like Joe Rogan's, and, you know, ask him to just keep doing his thing.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The anti-work movement is growing.
And it's unfortunate, it really is.
Because the anti-work movement is leftist radicalization by their own admission.
They're taking genuine grievances that I think most people have, and then construing it to be a problem of capitalism where the only solution is not working at all, being lazy, and communism.
I'm not kidding.
Now they may try and claim, through their propagandistic efforts, that their actual movement is about just helping the workers live better lives.
But when you read their actual ideological documents, no, they outright say abolish work, there's no such thing as being lazy.
And when you look at their memes in the post and the things they support, they very much fundamentally misunderstand reality.
And when you look at this story, the Fox News interview Jesse Waters with a moderator from the anti-work subreddit, you actually get a little bit of the exposure of who these people really are.
Now, this story is a couple days old, but there's some updates.
It started with an interview.
Well, actually, I'll say this.
It started with the explosion of people signing up, people following, anti-work on Reddit.
Reddit, of course, most of you are probably familiar with.
There is a subreddit, basically a forum, for people who don't like the idea of working.
Now, many of these people say, no, no, no, it's just about having better conditions.
Well, that's called work reform.
Anti-work is quite literally telling people you should not have to work at all.
Things like guaranteed basic income, ideas they support, but it's a bit of a mixed message.
Well, the subreddit exploded.
1.7 million users.
90,000 active members at any given moment.
Fluctuating a bit.
And then it leads to an interview on Fox News.
Jesse Waters interviewing one of the moderators.
The moderator was exactly what any conservative or moderate or libertarian or liberal or regular mature adult expected.
It was a young person who doesn't work, who can't make eye contact, who says, I shouldn't have to do any work at all.
I want to teach and be a philosopher.
And you know what?
I'm not a fan of Jesse's interview.
I like Jesse Waters.
He's alright.
You know, I've been on his show a couple times.
Several times, actually.
But I think we've got to address some of these issues in the interview with Jesse Waters and this individual, Doreen.
Jesse is a bit smarmy, smug, condescending.
And that doesn't work for people.
Not everybody in this country is a suit-wearing wealthy TV host who can mock the idea that someone doesn't like their job.
In fact, many young people, most young people in this country probably don't like their jobs.
And like I said initially, the anti-work movement is taking genuine grievances, real problems, And when people say, I identify with those problems, they turn around and offer up corruption, evil, communism, ideology.
It's how cults work.
And city urban liberal types tend to be the ones pushing it and the ones susceptible to it.
It doesn't help us when you have someone criticizing and mocking and laughing and otherwise being, well, as they describe it on the subreddit, smarmy.
That's what they said.
Now, of course, this interview led to the collapse of the anti-work subreddit.
It went private, people were freaking out, and all across Reddit, everyone's mocking this movement.
Now, I hate to say it, because they do have real grievances, and I will absolutely address those grievances.
I'm going to go to their subreddit, I'm going to show you what this is all about, and I believe this actually just shows everything we've thought.
I'm not conservative.
I mean, the left can try and claim it all day and night, but it's just not the case.
I am a city urban liberal type myself.
The only issue is the cult didn't get to me, and I left the city.
I think I was fortunate enough growing up to have a Catholic school upbringing for the first 10 or so years, and then switch to public school and get, you know, to dip my feet into two different communities.
And have an understanding of what people think and why they think differently and how people live.
And so when I look at this stuff, you know, I can easily see through the lies and manipulation of these city urban liberal types.
But it doesn't help when we're starting to get, you know, look, there's a compilation that Trevor Noah did on The Daily Show of all these right-wing media sources like Newsmax, Fox News, and some others making fun of Joe Biden for getting ice cream.
And it is infuriating.
I made fun of CNN when they talked about Trump's two scoops of ice cream.
Why the?
Would I care that Joe Biden's getting two scoops of ice cream?
You see?
Everybody deserves a little criticism here and there.
Well, so we have this story.
Moderator fired from anti-work subreddit after disastrous Fox News interview.
The anti-work movement has taken off on Reddit, particularly during COVID, but it is in turmoil after TV spot.
Well, the big update is they're back, and now you are able to look at all of their memes and posts to better understand their worldview.
I want you to see right here, on the right, if you can see it, 1.68 million readers.
Currently 23,000 not working, it says.
Those are the active users on the subreddit right now, which includes me because I'm here.
These people, 1.6 million, they're feeling something.
They have questions about work.
They're wondering why it is they wake up, Brush their teeth, take a shower, eat breakfast, get in their car for an hour, throw a commute, get to a job, to make very little money, money for someone else, to go home and do it all over again every single day.
It's mindless.
It's painful.
It's, in many ways, suffering.
The problem isn't work.
The problem is, well, here I'm going to trigger the anti-work individuals.
The problem is these people, as individuals.
You see, let me go through some of these and break things down for you, where I will agree and disagree with the anti-work movement.
What I want to say first and foremost is that anti-work is just a leftist manipulation indoctrination subreddit taking people's pain and turning it into an ideological front where they can use to gain political power.
That is despicable.
What these people actually need is an awakening, not ideology.
And I will say, it's not laissez-faire capitalism.
It is not communism.
It is personal.
It is individualist.
It is an awakening of yourself and an awakening to reality.
On the related subreddits, as I highlighted last time, you have anarchism, which is leftist anarchism, not right anarchism.
You have Socialism 101, Lost Generation, IWW, Anarchy 101.
It's all far leftist.
It's manipulation.
It's an attempt to trick you, my poor, poor peers and friends.
Let me show you some of these, and I think showing you the posts they make will help you understand this group and help you understand the lost generation, the millennial generation.
They are lost completely, in more ways than one.
First, they have Del Monte strike megathreat.
Good for the strikers.
I got nothing but agreement there.
If you go on strike, by all means, that's your right and your prerogative.
We have this post.
It says, To all employees due to high and rising food costs, we can no longer allow anyone to take food or drinks home at the end of the shift.
This includes mistakes, leftover break food, and or paid-for food.
Thank you.
Okay.
Let's address this number one post on anti-work.
Paid for food.
Well, that's stupid.
You should be allowed to pay for food and take it with you.
So I don't know why they'd be borrowing that.
There must be some context I don't understand, or it's a really dumb idea.
You can't take home mistakes and leftover break food.
Well, this I understand.
Leftover break food can still be eaten by employees later on, and everybody should have a chance to get some food.
So if the store, like, so we did this all the time, we order food very, very often for the crew.
We have it in the vlog recently.
If there's food left over, for the most part, we're like, I don't care, you can have whatever you want, take what you want.
However, when we cooked this beef up, I said, make sure we leave some, the leftovers, because there are other people who haven't gotten any, and they're not here, they don't work the same shifts as you.
See, that makes sense, right?
Mistakes.
And this I also understand.
There are people who will make a mistake on purpose.
They do it all the time.
Look, I'm not a big fan of big corporate chains or anything like that, but I certainly understand problems arise if an individual employee says, I hate my job.
Oops, I put the wrong sauce on the pizza.
Guess we got to take it home.
And then they start taking things home.
I don't know if the answer is just throw it in the garbage, but maybe I would say this, if a mistake is made, it should become break food for the crew.
There's a happy medium there, right?
Alright, let's see what else they got.
Honestly, never thought about it this way.
Let's read this second post from Anti-Work.
Rich kids being able to do art for a living may be a reflection of their privilege, but it seems to me like a reflection of the fact that a human, that a human that doesn't have to worry about money will often choose art.
Everyone is an artist until rent is due.
I wish we all had that right.
It's nonsense.
I'm sorry.
I'm just gonna say it's nonsense.
Rich kids don't just do art.
Many of them work in finance.
They're day traders or they're managers.
This idea that they're able to do art unless they do is someone making up a scenario in their mind and then claiming it's reality.
This is a perfect reflection of the anti-work movement.
I know rich people.
Many of whom don't work.
But the reality is, the overwhelming majority of them are working on something all the time.
And it ain't art!
It's not art.
Now, certainly there are people who do art, but there are poor people who do art.
I was an artist.
I played music.
And I'd play in the subway.
And I was broke the whole time.
Actually, I gotta be honest.
Playing guitar in the subway made me like... Okay, if I played original songs, I'd make about $7 an hour.
Kinda sucks.
Now, this was back 17 years ago, so $7 an hour went a little bit further, but still, really bad.
Then I started playing Top 40s.
I'd play, like, Credence Clearwater, I'd play Oasis, songs that I knew and liked, wasn't my passion.
And then I started making $40 an hour.
No joke.
I'd be in the subway, and I'd be singing Have You Ever Seen the Rain.
And people would walk by and be like, have you ever seen the rain?
And they'd throw money down.
And I was making good money.
I would go to Wrigley Field.
There's only a couple times.
And you wait for the game to come out and you'd play guitar.
And all the drunk people, I made like 150 bucks an hour playing guitar as an artist.
The issue is not rich kids.
I was poor as poor can be, except I was making good money playing music.
I worked a crummy job paying $10 an hour.
I slept in my car very often.
I bought a guitar for a couple hundred bucks.
It's the Fender Strat Acoustic.
I don't know if they make it anymore.
I still got it in the other room.
It's amazing.
It's the first guitar I ever bought.
And I used that to play outside, and I started doing better.
You can be an artist if you choose to be an artist.
The problem is, these people think they deserve certain standards.
They deserve things they have not worked for to produce.
Let's take a look at this one.
Nothing to be said.
Here is a guy.
It's a Simpsons meme.
It's a guy with Smithers got a gun to his back.
Me saying it's always been my passion to work for company.
Smithers saying, me needing money to exchange for food and shelter.
That's right, big smile, everybody's happy.
This is their view of things.
Their view of things is that they should just be given food and shelter.
Who maintains the building?
Who pays for the electricity?
Who guarantees the plumbing that makes the water go into that building?
Workers.
How do the workers get paid?
Taxes.
Where do the taxes come from?
The wages, the sales, the property of individuals who are working within the system.
Money and labor is not just free, it's just a peer.
The problem with this mentality among millennials is that they think other people should be doing work and they shouldn't be.
Look, the person who's fixing the pipes that lead to your building needs to get paid and to eat, too.
And their response is, well, they should get free food and shelter, too!
Okay?
Well, let's go back to your post about being an artist.
If everyone is an artist, who's gonna be doing the plumbing?
You know what, man?
Rich kids being able to do art proves.
Everyone is an artist until rent is due.
I wish we all had that right.
Certainly, I understand that people want to be driven by their passions.
But some people are passionate about doing plumbing.
Some people aren't.
The real issue, I think, in this country is that we should be driving passion.
You know, we had Mike Rowe on Tim Castellao, and he says, don't follow your passions, follow your talents, or something to that effect.
And I'm like, well, well, hold on.
Let's nurture talent into a passion.
When someone is a little kid, and we can see that they're taking interest in a certain task, we should be like, we want to make you the best of the best this task, and you can live your life as an expert, proud of the work you do, and driven by doing a better job every time.
Unfortunately, most kids, as they're growing up, ride their bikes, play video games, do nothing.
I was talking to a friend of mine years ago, 17 years ago.
She told me she didn't know what she wanted to be when she got out of college or whatever.
She's a little bit older than me.
She's like a year older.
And I was like, what are you in college for?
And she's like, business management.
I don't know.
And then I was like, okay, what were you doing when you were 13?
And she was like, riding my bikes with my friends.
And I was like, wouldn't you love to own your own bar?
And she went, oh man, that would be so awesome.
I'm like, yes, because owning a bar is a public gathering place.
When you were 13, what were you doing?
You were gathering with your friends and talking and having a good time and smiling and laughing.
And opening a bar is a lot of work, but that's the adult version of hanging out with your friends, providing a place where people can unwind and have a good time.
You were a kid doing that.
You would enjoy doing that today, right?
Well, unfortunately for us in the United States, They, we foster nothing but that.
People get older, and not everybody can run a bar, not everybody can run a restaurant or a gathering space, but I think a lot of people would be happy doing something like that.
Not everybody.
What were you doing when you were a kid?
For me, I was reading.
I gotta be honest, I was reading the internet.
I've been reading the internet my whole life.
And I've always loved reading stories online, exploring the news, learning about how the world works.
Plus, I've been skateboarding and playing guitar, and I do all of those things still.
I've always pursued them.
Those are the things I did when I was little.
I never stopped.
Could I be an artist?
I wasn't born rich.
I didn't grow up rich.
But I have a collection of guitars now, and I write songs.
And we've got, uh, we're working on like three or four more songs.
Wow, I'm an artist?
And yes.
Yes, unfortunately, I must admit, it is because I have the means to do so.
But hold on there a minute.
I've been writing songs since I was 13.
I've been playing drums since I was 7.
I don't really write drums on the songs.
But, uh, how is that the case?
I didn't come from a rich family.
No, we were quite, uh, not rich.
Lower middle class to upper lower class, if you want to describe it.
Let's take a look at some of these.
This is a good one.
In America, if you make enough money, you can continue to have teeth.
Yeah.
That's true.
Your teeth fall out.
There's no cure for stopping your teeth from falling out.
I don't know what to say to this.
Life sucks?
Aging and decay are a part of life?
Here's one idea.
There's a myth I hear all the time about how it's easier to eat fast food, it's cheaper to eat fast food.
That's a lie.
It is outright a lie.
In some ways, fast food is easier for poor people.
I've been through this.
So here's what I used to do.
When I lived in LA, And I was busking.
I would go to Hollywood Boulevard.
Yep, I did this too, because you want to make money, you go out, you figure out how to make money.
I'd make about $35 a night.
Not a whole lot, but I was only playing guitar for about two or three hours.
It's rough, singing and belting and jamming.
And I'd make about $35, I'd put it in the ATM right away, and then go home.
So I didn't have a whole lot of money to spend.
I had to play constantly to be able to pay my rent, but my rent was only a couple hundred bucks because I was splitting a studio apartment with two other people.
It was actually a decently nice studio, to be honest.
It had a kitchen, no bedrooms, and it had a big window.
It was very cool.
Had a bathroom, how about that?
And we split it, we shared it, and it was actually kind of fun.
I enjoyed it.
I was like 22 at the time.
And I would go to the supermarket, and I would buy some fruits and vegetables for about a buck.
No, for about a buck.
I'd get a pack of tortillas for about a buck.
And I'd get a little thing of mayo for about a buck.
Three dollars.
And I would have... I wouldn't call it good eating.
No, no, no.
But I would have way better food and more nutrients than I would get from eating fast food.
Periodically.
I would go to the local Carl's Jr., get a burger and some fries, because, you know, I'll get some of the stuff that I wasn't getting, get more protein and things like that.
As for your teeth, Eat better.
That's the best thing I can say.
But the reality is, yeah, if you make enough money you can continue to have teeth.
Let me just tell you guys about reality.
Go stand in the woods.
Take off all your clothes.
And stand in the woods.
And welcome to the real world.
You live in a luxury bubble.
Your dental care today, be it expensive I understand, is better than Rockefeller's dental care a hundred years ago.
They don't get that.
They really don't get it.
Now, I will, I will agree with them on the America portion of this because many people in the United States will take a trip down to Mexico or Costa Rica because dental work is much, much cheaper and in many ways better.
In Mexico, they do this thing where they take your own blood and they inject it around the dental site so it heals faster.
That's amazing!
The U.S.
certainly has its problem with healthcare.
I agree with you on that one.
But you can't just come out and be like, life is a certain way and I should be able to live without having to do stuff.
That's the truth.
This one says, I don't think boomers realize how many of us actually want to work as librarians, gardeners, and teachers.
Those jobs just don't pay us enough to feed us.
So we have to take jobs we hate to get paid more.
It's actually your fault, by the way.
This is the problem I have with leftist propaganda.
Librarians, gardeners, and teachers?
Okay.
The teacher thing is a big problem.
I think the problem with teaching is that it's been institutionalized and subsidized to the point where it's considered worthless in the market.
That's it.
There's no market incentive for someone needing kids.
So I'll tell you this.
If you got rid of public schooling, and you had only private schooling, maybe you would actually see serious competition from schools to improve, but that's a whole other issue.
What I love about this is that maybe if they realized the problem of mass migration and how that depresses wages, and Bernie Sanders is the one who said it, maybe they'd realize what's happening all around them.
You are being ripped off by the elites.
They are indoctrinating you to this ideology because they know it weakens you.
Here we go.
My company's warning about the upcoming snowstorm.
With approaching snore, we are essential personnel.
We must prepare.
This is our jobs.
This isn't Higgs School where school is canceled, work is never canceled, plan on leaving early to get to work.
Prepare to bring extra food and clothing.
Quit.
Quit your job.
Why?
Why can't you?
Some people have kids.
Okay, I get it.
And that's why I'm saying I don't completely disagree with anti-work.
I think a lot of these companies suck, and they mistreat employees, and it's a very serious problem.
Let's read this.
You lessen crime by eliminating poverty.
You lessen crime with universal health care, public housing, strong unions, high wages, universal health care, and free college.
You lessen violence by creating happy, healthy communities that aren't fighting over material resources.
My friends, Venezuela has a request.
It's capitalism.
It's the ability to live and work again.
These people live in a fictional reality.
An absolutely fictional reality.
You lessen crime by eliminating poverty.
That's true.
You lessen crime with universal healthcare.
Okay, now that's conflating things that make no sense.
Whether or not someone wants a TV has nothing to do with whether or not they want their leg fixed when they break it.
Public housing.
Whether or not someone wants to steal from you has nothing to do with whether or not they're homeless.
Homeless people aren't going around robbing people.
Some are, not all of them.
Strong unions.
Whether or not you have collective bargaining has nothing to do with poverty.
Now there's, some would argue that unions have helped, you know, the four-day, you know, the five-day workweek and the 40-hour workweek, whatever.
Yo, modern unions?
Try again.
I've been in two of them.
It's not even legal to strike in some capacities.
Antiwork points that out.
Good.
I'm glad they do.
It should not be illegal to strike, but in many ways it is.
That's why I don't think unions are effective.
Universal childcare.
It's called school.
And free college.
Free college has nothing to do with lessening poverty.
Nothing.
People who go to college, they're getting out and they're not even getting the jobs they want.
All you're doing is making people not work.
It makes no sense.
You lessen violence by creating happy, healthy communities that aren't fighting over material resources.
Now that's true.
But how do you stop the drive someone would have to own a new TV?
Give everyone a free TV and ban high-end TVs?
Sure.
This is why socialism always devolves into authoritarianism.
Because envy exists.
Because social pressures exist.
Because humans are human, man.
Some people, rich people, commit murders.
Now why would they do that?
Because they're jealous of somebody else?
Because even though they were getting $500,000 a year, they wanted more?
Let me ask you this.
If you believe free healthcare is going to eliminate crime, why is it that the ultra-wealthy never stop trying to make more money?
Is there a difference between the CEO of a Fortune 500 and a poor person?
Given the opportunities, the people would do the exact same thing.
I often say, it's a common saying, if you take someone out of the presidency and put someone else in, they would very much do the exact same things.
Because the office drives the person, not the other way around.
Trump was certainly the opposite of that, I guess.
That dude just did whatever, you know, he tried to just do whatever he felt like he needed to do.
But often the machine is so big, you're forced to make moves.
So I tell you this.
If rich people are willing to extract resources from the poor, And you think that crime could be eliminated because there are poor people who want to extract resources from other poor people or the wealthy.
I don't think you've thought this through, to be completely honest.
Here, let's read some more.
How can they not see that?
We generated record profits this last year.
Great work team.
Sorry, we don't have budget for salary increase.
Employee retention is difficult in this economy.
There's one, uh...
Let's read another one here.
Good tweet, it says.
Good tweet.
Anti-work does not mean I should get to live like a king and eat Doritos while other people do all the hard work.
Anti-work means it sure would be nice if I wasn't impelled by violence to perform labor that racks my body with micro-injuries that will leave me disabled by 60.
What do you think being alive is?
Do you think the bear in the forest is like, I should be completely healthy for the rest of my life and never strive or struggle?
It's remarkable that these people think they should be video game characters that don't have wear and tear.
No matter what you do, life is the way it is.
It is a struggle against entropy that seeks to decay and destroy, and you must fight back.
What does this mean?
Impelled by violence to perform labor?
Yo, go live in the woods.
No one is stopping you.
No, seriously, no one is.
Homeless people live under bridges.
I understand the governments come out and they mistreat them in many ways or arrest them, but in many places they don't.
You want to live in a city where services are provided for you by other humans?
Well, who's going to provide for those humans?
Oh, the food should just be given to everybody.
Well, who's going to make the food?
The farmers?
What do the farmers get in exchange for their labor?
Nothing?
They should be forced to do it to just give us food?
You know, look.
These people don't realize that we don't live in a Star Trek future replicator reality where you can walk up to a box and say, tea, Earl Grey, hot!
And it just appears.
Someone has to do the work.
You want medical treatment?
Someone has to do the work.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The doctor decided to be an artist because he doesn't need to work anymore.
That's your perspective.
You know what, man?
The problem I have with this is that it is so true that these corporations are trash.
Corporations are just so trash.
All right, here's one.
Let's just read.
I don't know what it is.
When you are 10 years old, they say follow your dreams.
When you're 20 years old, they say that you are a naive idiot for following your dreams because they don't fit into global capitalism.
When you're 10 years old, your dreams are supposed to be to succeed, to maybe be a rock star, maybe be an astronaut.
When you're 20 years old, if your dreams are to be an astronaut and you've not done anything in that direction, then maybe you are naive and it doesn't fit into global capitalism.
But I'll tell you this.
I will say this.
When you're 20 years old, of course people tell you you're a naive idiot.
But these are the people on the subreddit who are that person.
What do you think?
You think you're gonna be an artist?
I'll put it this way.
Universal basic income.
I agree with that artist statement, for the most part, that people would just do that.
Let me ask you guys.
How many people do you know play the guitar?
Okay.
How many people do you know would wish they were a professional guitarist?
Out of those people, how many of them actually have the skills to be a professional guitarist?
Right.
Not that many.
I would never be a professional guitar player, to be completely honest.
I can play the guitar.
Pretty good.
Certainly would never be able to do a studio session.
I actually, I love playing the guitar, but when we record, I actually prefer, I like writing, but I'm like, yo, if I gotta do like 20 takes of this, I don't have the consistency to get this recorded perfectly.
I'm that good.
I'm not gonna fool myself into quitting and becoming a pro musician, even though some people have said they really like my music.
No, I'm just not that good.
But I have been able to record music and pursue that and actually make a little bit of money on it.
Well, I should say it costs way more money to produce the song we've published, Will of the People.
But here's the point.
If you're 20 years old and you want to be a musician, you need to sacrifice.
You need to tell the naysayers, shut up.
You need to do what you believe in.
But I'll tell you what the real problem is.
These people don't want any micro-injuries.
I recently got a whoop.
You see this thing?
A whoop.
It tracks my strain and recovery.
I've had it for two days.
And it's already telling me that I'm dying.
I'm like, okay, I have probably gotta sleep more or something.
It told me that I only recovered 57% the other day.
And that's what really bugs me is that people think this world is like a video game where you're playing Skyrim and your character can stand in an open field for seven days without eating or drinking.
Yeah.
That's a video game.
Try playing New Vegas on survival mode where you get dehydrated or whatever and you need to eat food.
They don't understand this.
Anti-work is a collection of young people who can see a problem and experience pain, but they don't understand the realities of life.
I understand civilization is great and bountiful, but it still has to be maintained by people.
I was looking at properties in Austin, because I got a bunch of friends in Austin, and we were like, maybe we set up a satellite studio in Austin.
That way we can get access to bigger names and more personalities, you know, strengthen our connections, and go there maybe like, you know, once every other month or something with a little small at-home studio.
Prices are very expensive.
But there's one house that was, uh, really cheap.
It's only 300k in Austin, and it was like a three-bedroom.
And I was just like, wow.
And then you look at it.
Paint's chipping, peeling away, the floorboards are rotted and covered in gunk, and I'm like... You can't just assume shelter is free.
Because wood rots.
Because metal oxidizes.
Because plumbing breaks.
Because circuits fry.
Someone has to do the work to fix it.
And no one's going to do work for you for nothing.
So let's break it down to its root.
Let me break it down to its root.
For our good friends at Anti-Work.
Let's say you live in a small town of but two people.
Just you and the other guy.
And the other guy is a plumber.
And you say, I should be able to live in this house for free and be able to eat for free.
One day your pipe breaks.
And you call your other neighbor and say, can you do me a favor and fix the pipe?
And he goes, well, you know, I'm drawing a paint, I'm painting right now.
You say, yeah, but I can't fix this.
Someone else needs to do it.
And he says, well, if I'm going to stop doing what I want to do for you, what will you do for me?
And they say, nothing.
Because I shouldn't have to.
And then the other person says, sorry bro, I'm not going to take time out of my life, my free time, that I've earned and have the rights to.
I have a right to pursue my passions and do art.
No one can force me to fix your plumbing.
For what incentive do I have to fix your plumbing?
The goodness of your heart.
Well, sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
I'll tell you where this always leads to.
The guy who wants to sit around and not work shows up the next day with a gun and says, get over there and fix my plumbing or else.
That's how it goes.
And that's why all the communist countries go the way they do.
It's why the Soviet countries went the way they did.
It's why socialist countries go the way they do.
Capitalism isn't perfect, either.
I'm not a fan, to be completely honest.
Capitalism is the private exchange of goods.
Worse, communism is the centralized control of the economy.
In capitalism, you end up with snake oil salesmen.
You end up with big tech oligarchs and censorship and other garbage.
There's a happy medium somewhere in there.
But it's a very difficult balance, and we're constantly striving to improve the system.
I feel bad for our good friends over at Anti-Work because they've identified how much it sucks to have this broken corporate crony system.
But they are being manipulated by leftists who are naive into giving up power that will keep them suppressed and oppressed.
