Western Sanctions On Russia BACKFIRE Sparking Riots Over RECORD Food And Fuel Prices, Ruble RECOVERS
Western Sanctions On Russia BACKFIRE Sparking Riots Over RECORD Food And Fuel Prices, Ruble RECOVERS. Attempts to stifle Russia have emboldened and strengthened them while disrupting poor countries around the world.
The Biden admin sanctions seems to have failed as Russia keep pushing forward with its war and developing an independent financial system
The result is rapidly rising food and fuel prices sparking riots and unrest in poorer countries.
#GasPrices
#Biden
#UkraineWar
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Peru, people are outraged over rising costs, and this is likely due to the ongoing war in Ukraine and Western sanctions backfiring, destabilizing basically everything.
We were warned this would happen, and it seems to be beginning.
In our next story, Alabama to ban medical intervention for trans youth, meaning hormone therapies and surgeries.
Of course, the left is outraged by this.
In our next story, Jack Dorsey, former CEO of Twitter, finds himself on the other side of censorship.
After promoting a YouTube channel, it got banned permanently, and he said, what was the reason for this?
Well, let me explain what's going on, Jack, because I think you really, you really know.
If you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
About a month ago, we were warned.
Ukraine war-related inflation may drive protests and riots.
And that came from the World Bank.
Now, we're starting to see the beginning of food and fuel riots.
Starting in Peru, we see protests show the wide impact of Putin's war.
So saith CNN.
Well, they're partly right.
Vladimir Putin, Russia, they invaded Ukraine.
This contributed to rising prices.
It contributed to food shortages.
But the West also has some blame in the matter.
Now, of course, we can all just say outright, yeah, Russia should not have invaded Ukraine.
This is terrible.
But the U.S.
decided to get involved.
NATO decided to get involved.
And what they did was sanction.
It's what they do best, right?
Now, some sanctions are not that big of a deal and probably could be good to push back on Russia in a way that doesn't that doesn't trigger World War Three.
But in this instance, what we're seeing in Eastern Europe, I don't think would be solved by sanctions.
And now, we're realizing it's not.
In fact, it looks like sanctions may be backfiring.
The ruble has recovered.
Russia is now creating their own payment system.
Russia is now demanding rubles for gas, though they haven't followed through on their threats.
Russia seems to be able to make it work, or at least willing.
To go head to head against these sanctions.
What's happening now is that in the U.S., food prices are going up.
We're expected to see some kind of major shortage.
Fertilizer prices are through the roof, and so are gas prices.
And you know what?
We can blame Russia for a lot of this.
But Joe Biden has a lot of the blame on his own hands, because he made it harder for oil and gas companies to source fossil fuels.
He shut down the Keystone Pipeline, which of course drove speculation, making gas prices go up.
And of course, he banned fracking on public lands.
You can argue those were good things.
That's fine.
I don't care to play this who's truly at fault game.
The fact is, these moves have made certain things go into motion.
And we're coming off of two and a half years of a pandemic.
Now, we're seeing a war.
And of course, all of the actions being taken are contributing to all of this.
If Joe Biden, the United States, and NATO said, we will do nothing in response to Russia's invasion, the economy would not be nearly as bad.
But invading is substantially worse than responding to the invasion.
If Russia didn't invade, things would not be as bad.
And now we are going to see the poorest nations begin to suffer first, but my friends, it will come here.
We already saw food rationing in the U.S.
during COVID.
They're doing food rationing now in Spain.
Food costs have already gone up 20-50% in some markets in Germany, and now we're learning that in March, global food prices are at an all-time high.
Up 13%.
It's gonna hit us, baby.
Now we're being warned that recession signals are here.
The United States may be in for a wild ride.
And who do you blame?
Blame whoever you want, okay?
All of this stuff plays a role in everything.
In everything.
We can say, well, Russia should not have invaded Ukraine.
And then people come out and say, yeah, well, the U.S.
shouldn't have been meddling in Ukrainian politics.
That's a border country for Russia.
Yeah, I'm talking about what happened with Maidan, the protests in 2014.
I was actually on the ground for the start of this.
The ousting of Yanukovych, Joe Biden's illicit dealings, all of those things played a role.
The US is meddling in the Middle East.
All of it reduces back to a point where it just seems like dominoes have been falling.
And the only thing you can really do right now Is prepare for yourself, your friends, and your family because the dominoes are coming down.
I don't know where it ends.
I don't know if anybody does.
I don't know what moves will come next or who will contribute to the next piece of this collapse.
But maybe, maybe we'll see stabilization.
I think that would be fantastic.
Considering right now that fertilizer costs are through the roof and so are gas prices and people are already starting to riot.
The night is always darkest before the dawn.
And until we see some stabilization in Eastern Europe and in these countries, until we see prices coming down, the only thing I can assume is that it's likely going to get worse.
For those of us in the United States, it ain't gonna be that bad.
I mean, we're overfed as it is, but it will be decently bad relative to where you are now, so pay attention and do what you can.
Let's read the first story about what's happening in Peru, and then I want to show you this.
This is from the Daily, the Delco Times, the Daily Times, the Fog of War, how some Russian sanctions backfire, and they are.
Food prices are skyrocketing.
That's the latest report from Reuters.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., as well as the special members-only segments from our other shows.
More to come soon.
We've got The Green Room.
We've got a weird conspiracy show, a talk show that we're going to be doing.
And as a member, you're helping keep all of our journalists employed because that's how we fund the website, with you as members.
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel right now, and share the URL to this video anywhere you can.
Click that share button.
Grassroots marketing is how we get the job done.
I've never marketed any of my news or political content.
I think we might actually do a campaign very soon, but it's all been organic.
It's all been thanks to you.
Let's read the first story about what's happening in Peru.
I've seen these videos that are going viral and it's kind of crazy.
People just ransacking a market.
Wall Street Silver on Twitter says, Peru is facing a financial meltdown.
Now grocery stores are being looted.
Well, here's the story from CNN.
Mind you, I love their headline.
Mind the propaganda.
The impact of Putin's war.
There's a lot of impacts here.
The geopolitical conflict has been going on for a long time.
I think Putin should not have invaded, but there's a lot of factors at play and we'll talk about them.
CNN reports, and again, take it all with a grain of salt.
An ongoing wave of violent protests in Peru shows how the Russian invasion of Ukraine is affecting markets around the world, sparking unrest and deepening political divides.
Rising fuel costs originally triggered the protests, which started last week, but quickly intensified into large anti-government demonstrations with marches and road blockades.
By Wednesday, at least six people had been reported dead over days of protests.
According to Peruvian authorities.
As officials called for calm and struggled to contain the situation, at least nine major roads in the country remained blocked by protesters.
Late Monday, President Pedro Castillo declared a state of emergency and placed the country's capital under a curfew, but backtracked and withdrew the curfew order on Tuesday afternoon as hundreds of protesters ignoring the measure took to the streets of Lima to demand his resignation.
Peru is not going through a good moment, Castillo said Tuesday after leaving a meeting with lawmakers.
But we have to solve it with the powers of the state.
Blocks away, police in riot gear used tear gas to dispel protests and demonstrators through stones, with at least 11 people injured in the clashes.
Peru is not new to political unrest.
Over the last five years, the country has had five presidents, including one who was impeached and removed from office amid street protests.
And Castillo himself has already faced and survived two impeachment votes since taking office in July.
Last year, Castillo won the presidency on the thinnest of margins and faces a Congress in the hands of opposition, limiting his political capital and capacity to operate.
But while Peru has been a fertile ground for protests in recent years, the crisis was triggered as a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine.
CNN says, The Russian invasion of Ukraine and global leaders' consequential decision to isolate Russia from the world's oil markets sent the price of oil soaring.
And for Peru, the impact has been particularly severe.
Compared to other countries in the region, such as Argentina or Venezuela, Peru imports most of its oil.
That left it more exposed to the recent spike, hitting the economy just as it was recovering from the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.
And we can frame this several ways.
Putin's war.
I'm sure in Russia, what they're reporting is the U.S.
meddling in Ukraine and ousting of the duly elected government has resulted in a major upset.
Russia, of course, defending its interests, blah, blah, blah.
Now my view on this is, I don't like the U.S.
meddling in the affairs of Ukraine.
I don't like Joe Biden saying, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you don't get the billion dollars.
The prosecutor who happened to be investigating a company called Burisma, among other things, where Joe Biden's son was on the board.
At the very least, a conflict of interest.
If you don't want to assume any illicit dealings, Joe Biden should not have been the man to do this.
Ultimately, what happened in Ukraine resulted in the ousting of their president.
Vladimir Putin then seizes Crimea.
Now he's invaded the country.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Offering money and loans in exchange for politicking?
I don't think it's a bad thing, but it's not war.
Russia was losing the influence campaign, and so they said, we go kinetic.
I think Russia has more to be blamed for, but I'm not surprised that Western meddling on the Russian border has resulted in this degree of conflict.
Blame whoever you want.
I'm sick of playing the blame game.
Trump was far from perfect.
Joe Biden has a lot to answer for himself.
All that matters, my friends, is that this is happening.
Sanctions haven't worked.
They've backfired.
From the Daily Times.
An opinion piece from Chris Fraynd.
He says, There's no such thing as perfect men, only perfect
intentions.
Translation, no matter how well-intentioned actions often have unintended consequences.
Nowhere is that more applicable than war.
The West has made extraordinary efforts to support Ukraine after Vladimir Putin invaded, from supplying weapons to assisting with humanitarian crisis and imposing unprecedented sanctions.
It has had the best of intentions, but the truth is, many of the ideas weren't fully vetted.
In their rush to punish Putin, Government and corporate groupthink ruled the day, often based more on emotion than methodical calculus.
The result has been unintended consequences that have not only hurt citizens in America and Europe, but further empower Vladimir Putin and his war machine.
And here we go.
He's got several points, starting with this.
Consider.
Perhaps most short-sighted is the push for more embargoes on Russian energy.
Even energy-independent nations incur significant price increases when sanctions are imposed, because highly volatile global oil markets are inelastic and subject to massive upward price swings in times of instability.
The US relied on Russia for only 3% of its oil needs.
But when Biden ordered the embargo on Russian energy, gas prices spiked to all-time highs anyway, igniting more inflation.
But the situation in Europe is far more dire, since many of its nations rely heavily on Russian gas.
As a result, two things have occurred.
Germany, as the world's fourth largest economy, yet an extremely energy-dependent nation,
remains beholden to Russia for more than half its gas needs.
As such, it continues to pump money into Russian coffers, funds the Kremlin can use to further
its invasion of Ukraine.
Critics including Western nations have pounced, deriding Germany for conducting business with
Putin, a naive mindset detached from reality.
Sure, the U.S. can't do it.
can supply Germany its gas needs, but that is years away, since more port facilities, pipelines, and other infrastructure need to be constructed.
So it begs the question, If Germany shuts out Russian gas but can't immediately import sufficient energy, what's it supposed to do?
Take one for the team at the expense of its citizenry?
Charity starts at home, so how long would goodwill last if Germany- Germans freeze- freeze, run out of petrol, are forced to ration, watch their manufacturing plants shutter, and are laid off by the millions?
The surefire way to shift public support away from Ukraine is to force immense hardship on those funding the anti-Russian war effort.
Which is exactly what will happen if Germany caves and embargoes Russian gas, oil, coal, and metals.
Energy-dependent nations arguing for Russian oil embargoes have forgotten that you can't run until you walk.
You can't simply stop importing Russian energy if you don't have a backup.
It's akin to America retiring the space shuttle without a replacement, a mind-boggling decision that made it totally reliant on, ironically, the Russians to access the US-funded space station.
Seems like it's happened before.
3.
Western leaders calling for energy embargoes because of Russia's war crime need to look in the mirror.
Under that rationale, how can those same countries still be conducting trade with China, given its horrific human rights violations?
Four.
Mr. Putin has threatened to seize control and potentially nationalize the assets of Western companies that pulled out of Russia.
My favorite story is how all of the McDonald's restaurants they're shutting down were going to be changed.
They're going to flip the M and turn it to a B and just take over these fast food chains, thus granting Russia probably billions of dollars in assets.
Five, the Biden administration aired by demanding that China respect Western sanctions, warning
of consequences should it support Russia.
The only problem is that China has the upper hand and America is extremely vulnerable in
a critical area.
You see what we end up getting out of these out of these economic sanctions.
Russia's recovered.
They're making their economy more independent, more resilient, because they have to be.
The U.S.
loves to give away money.
Why?
Twelve million dollars to Pakistani gender studies.
Because if everybody has the currency, they want to use it, and if they want to use it, it creates confidence in the U.S.
dollar as a U.S.
reserve currency.
That's why they do it.
Meanwhile, U.S.
labor foots the bill.
But the truth is, you know, we get most of our products overseas anyway.
This may have all just been one big bad idea.
I don't know how you respond to Putin.
You're not going to go to war with him.
Why sanction them and then destroy everything?
Maybe to look strong?
Here we go.
From CNBC, is a recession on the way.
These unconventional economic indicators may provide some clues.
It's not just bond and stock markets that can signal an economic downturn.
From the Men's Underwear Index to the Hemline Index, there are also a number of more unconventional economic indicators that could be worth mentioning.
Monitoring.
Fears of a recession have been on the rise recently.
Investors have become increasingly concerned that record high inflation amid the Russia-Ukraine war, coupled with the Federal Reserve's plans to aggressively hike interest rates, could slow economic growth.
This deepening sense of unease has been reflected in the U.S.
government bond market.
Through what is known as a yield curve inversion, which has historically occurred prior to recessions, investors have been selling out of short-dated treasuries in favor of longer-dated government debt, prompting two-year bonds yields to rise above the 10-year rate.
However, economists have stressed that an inversion in bond yields is by no means a guarantee of a recession.
There's a slew of other economic data that can act as recession signals, including employment and consumer spending figures.
Market watchers have also turned to more unusual gauges of economic health.
I like this.
The Skyscraper Index.
British economist Andrew Lawrence developed the so-called Skyscraper Index in 99.
The measure links the construction of the world's largest buildings with the onset of an economic crisis.
Lawrence said in a 2012 interview with the non-profit Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat that he had looked as far back as the late 1800s and found correlations between the completion of the world's tallest buildings and economic crises.
Notable examples include the completion of the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings in New York during the Great Depression.
Lawrence explained that the completion of these skyscrapers tends to cap off what is a large building boom.
However, he pointed out that it's not the tall building itself that is the issue, but rather when there is a cluster of these skyscrapers.
We have the Men's Underwear Index.
For my former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, it's sales of men's underpants.
NPR correspondent Robert Krolwich said back in 2008, amid the global financial crisis, that Greenspan had explained to him that because underpants were one of the last pieces of clothing men looked to buy, it acts as a good indicator of when times are hard.
Greenspan had purportedly said that sales of men's underpants tend to be quite consistent, but dips in sales indicate that men's finances are so stretched, they decide to hold off on buying the replacements.
The Hemline Index.
This is fascinating.
When skirts become shorter, markets are on the rise and longer in downturns.
The Lipstick Index.
Estee Lauder Chairman Leonard Lauder developed the Lipstick Index amid the economic downturn in 2001.
He suggested that women would spend more on small luxuries like lipstick when times are hard.
Now, I don't know if any of these things are indicative of anything.
Particularly, I don't know if these metrics are insightful.
But, many people are pointing out weird things are happening that suggest we may be looking at a recession.
Food prices will get worse.
And when it gets worse in the United States, it will get worse everywhere else.
And then we have a real fear.
We have a real fear of war-related riots.
Reuters reports food prices hit record high in March, UN agency says.
And as I pointed out, the U.S., well, we tend to be well-fed, is the simple way to put it.
And as people who are well-fed, we're not too concerned about rising food prices relative to poorer nations.
I know most of you, though, are concerned.
People have told me that they used to spend something like $400 a month on groceries, and now it's upward of $800 or $900.
Some have said that they increased on average about $500 per month.
And we're hearing that some expect monthly grocery bills to reach over $1,000.
Reuters reports, world food prices jumped nearly 13% in March.
to a new record high as the war in Ukraine caused turmoil in markets for staple grains and edible
oils, the UN Food Agency said on Friday. The FAO's food price index, which tracks the most
globally traded commodities, averaged 159.3 points last month versus an upwardly revised 141.4 in
February. They're going to mention Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of wheat, corn, barley,
and sunflower oil via the Black Sea.
And Moscow's six-week-old invasion of its neighbor has stalled Ukrainian exports.
What I find fascinating in all of this is the detachment regular people have from where food comes from and how businesses operate.
There's no magic.
It's actually very, very simple.
Some dude grows a bunch of wheat in a field.
Over time, the wheat grows.
A big truck comes and cuts it all up, throws it into a bin.
They then send the bin to a distribution facility, puts it on a boat.
The boat brings it to other countries, puts it on a truck.
The truck delivers it to processing plants.
Those plants then chop it up and make stuff with it.
When you actually follow the supply chain, you'd probably... I think the average person living in cities would be surprised at how simple, in a sense, the process is.
It's just people handing off things and then paying bills.
It's not like it's magic.
So, the reason I mention that is, it's very simple to disrupt.
If one guy says, I can't buy, There's no movement.
Supply chain gets disrupted.
If a dude can't pump gas into his truck, food doesn't get delivered.
It's as simple as that!
I mean, think of it this way.
You gotta go to work.
Gas is too high.
You don't have enough money.
You call your boss and say, look, I just can't afford to drive in.
The work doesn't get done.
That's it.
To a lot of people I know, they're probably saying, Tim, we get it, it's really simple, but...
I gotta tell you, when you go on Twitter and you hear what people have to say about, like, dairy delivery and processing, they really don't know that it is just a simple 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 step process.
And when one of those processes is disrupted, the whole chain just collapses like dominoes.
And that's where I think things are gonna get really, really bad.
Ukraine war-related inflation may drive protests and riots.
We have this from The Guardian.
That was the previous story from Reuters.
Now to show you where we're going.
Desperation amid food shortages in Shanghai as COVID lockdown bites.
We're seeing something happen in a bunch of these cities.
Once mocked by Biden, Russia's ruble emerges from the ashes.
So what were the point of the sanctions?
You know, we're getting reports from Western sources.
They're coming out and they're saying, oh, the recovery is a trick.
Russia's actually still doing bad.
I don't know.
Blame who you want to blame.
Let's jump back to this Reuters piece, because there's something really interesting we can see here.
The Arab Spring, they say in the story, refers to a series of pro-democracy protests and uprisings that began in 2010.
Sudden spikes in food prices can lead to social unrest, as happened in 2007 and 2008, and again in 2011, when global food price increases were associated with riots in more than 40 countries.
Agricultural commodities were already 35% higher in January, compared with a year ago, and are expected to rise further due to the war, since Russia and Ukraine are both major exporters of wheat, maize, barley, and sunflower oil.
Moscow calls its actions in Ukraine a special operation.
Surging energy and food prices could also push policymakers to implement more subsidies, experts say, adding to their heavy debts of many low-income countries.
So where could we be going?
You know what I think?
Poor countries are gonna get hit really, really hard.
We're gonna see major riots and unrest and governments change.
What should they do in Peru?
They gotta import gas, but the prices are too high.
I mean, I feel like it's simple math.
When you subsidize people, when that subsidy gets cut off, the people suffer.
I've talked to friends about starving people in Africa, and I tell them, like, you know why we don't just dump food in Africa?
If you have starving people, and you give them food, they will flourish, correct?
Right.
They'll have kids.
Then, you have more people, and they need more food.
So, do you give them more food, or you say, no, we've given too much as it is?
If you take the food away, now these people can't survive.
You have effectively created a dependent culture.
So what's the answer?
Information.
Education.
That's why we don't just give food to starving nations.
We teach them how to farm.
We try to bring simple technology and methodologies to these people so they can farm better and sustain themselves.
But maybe what we're looking at is some kind of great reset.
You know?
If billions of people died, there would not be billions of people suffering under massive price increases in food and fuel.
And there are some people who Who feel that way?
Legitimately, like, if they could just reset things.
Now, I don't know about any grand global plots or anything like that.
I'm just saying sociopaths exist.
Wealthy, powerful people talk about the need to reduce population.
Bill Gates does.
Bill Gates overtly says there are too many people.
Now, he's not overtly said kill people.
Bill Gates has publicly recommended that we stop having kids.
We limit the amount of children that our countries produce to lower.
The amount of people on the planet.
Well, that would alleviate some of the tensions, but Elon Musk went the other way.
He said if we don't have more people the planet will collapse
you need more people to do the work to produce the things and to advance things technologically to make things easier
and As we do advance technologically and as we develop more
specialty jobs per person because there are more people We can solve these problems and figure out ways to either
leave earth Produce more fruit more food or find ways to continue
expanding humanity 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. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer. It
seems like there are many people whose solution to all of this is less people. Just less people.
Let humans reach 500 million population on the planet, so saith the Georgia Guidestones.
And we end there.
Elon Musk seems to be of the mindset that, no, we need substantially more people, more technology, more labor.
And then, we colonize the stars.
I think Elon Musk said this.
You know, I wonder how many planets were single planet species, and they ceased to exist, wiped themselves out.
You know, I wonder.
I remember watching that scene in the new Star Trek films.
I think it was the reboot with, um, what's his name?
Chris Pine or whatever?
And he rides up on the motorcycle and then you see this massive starship in a shipyard or something.
I think that's what it was.
Uh, if they were gonna build ships, they'd be building them in outer space.
But...
Imagine you had one million laborers building this ship.
Massive managerial power and financing because food was insanely cheap and being mass-produced.
So you just had a corporation of one million employees that build starships.
It's kind of cool to think about.
But then you would need massive space stations, massive energy supply.
That's the future I'm interested in.
Now, these people we're concerned about overpopulation, the Great Reset types, the World Economic Forum types, seem to have little regard for humanity and where we could go.
Or perhaps they don't.
Perhaps they just feel that we need a renaissance.
After the Black Plague in Europe, there was a renaissance.
Technological advancement remained, but there were substantially less people, so there were more resources per person, and the strong survived, I guess.
It's a horrifying prospect.
I don't entertain any of that.
I just think, People can be strong if they're given the opportunity.
I would love to see 50 billion human beings, multi-planetary colonies, starships built in outer space.
I think it was Elon talking about this.
Earth could collapse and then people from Mars could come over here and help rebuild.
There would be people.
The more people we make, the more people there are to advance science, to build, and to figure out better ways to survive.
So in the end, I look forward to solving all of our problems, avoiding war.
I think the people who advocate for depopulation and say, don't have kids, I think these people are dangerous.
I don't think the planet is on the verge of collapse.
I do think climate change is an issue.
I do think too many people can result in population density-related mass pollution, which can cause massive influx of certain chemicals, heat, or energy into a system, which can disrupt it.
Perhaps the best thing we can do is decentralize out of cities.
Oh, there's also this one.
So who do you believe?
Man, I don't know who you... I don't know.
7th. Oh, there's also this one. Once mocked by Biden, Russia's ruble re-emerges from the ashes.
From the same day. So who do you believe? Man, I don't know who you, I don't know.
Seeking Alpha writes, can US sanctions on Russia backfire on the dollar's dominance?
Seems to be the case. So what's the solution, my friends?
I honestly don't know.
I really don't.
Cryptocurrency, maybe.
Don't take financial advice from me.
I bought Bitcoin.
I'm happy with it.
Reuter says, Ruble rallies on Moscow exchange.
Stocks up after new sanctions.
The sanctions haven't worked.
Seems to have made things worse.
We fear riots are going to emerge around the planet.
They're already starting to emerge in Peru.
And what does that mean for the United States as summer comes?
Every winter, we hear the same thing.
Oh, Antifa's dying down.
Oh, the riots are stopping.
And then summer comes, and then... There we go.
Big riots everywhere.
People start protesting.
Now, in 2020, it was particularly bad, and I think this was because people were locked up and they went nuts over COVID.
But then, like the Rat Utopia experiment, after they got it out of their systems and smashed everything up and went back inside, they were able to last a little bit longer.
Now, seems the pandemic is faltering, but maybe coming back.
Biden's federal mandates were reinstated by a federal judge in Louisiana, saying, like the CEO of a company, Biden has the authority to institute mandates for the people who work for the federal government.
Maybe it'll all come back, I'm not sure.
But if you combine war pricing, sanctions, with COVID, Man, I seriously hope you guys are getting ready for something bad to happen in fall.
I don't know what you should do.
I'll tell you what I did.
I bought emergency food.
Left made fun of me for it.
I don't care.
When food prices skyrocket, I'll already have bought the food and I bought it substantially cheaper.
So that's really the worst case scenario in the event nothing happens.
Oh no, I bought food that was cheap and now it's more expensive.
But the absolute worst-case scenario for everybody is war spreads, the economy crumbles, people are fighting over a can of beans, and then I'll be forced to eat out of these emergency food buckets.
That's the truly worst-case scenario.
But for everybody else who mocks the idea, their worst-case scenario is fighting over the last can of beans in a Walmart parking lot.
I don't know what you should do.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Maybe next month Vladimir Putin apologizes, withdraws his forces, Ukraine recovers, pandemic's gone, and everything just starts back up and returns to normal.
I can't tell you the future.
I don't want to tell you who's to blame or talk about any of that.
You know, choose who you think has more blame than someone else.
But pay attention to what's happening.
Because regardless of who's to blame, regardless of who's firing what bullets, regardless of what Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden says, Food prices are skyrocketing.
Fuel prices are skyrocketing.
And we are being warned it could lead to global unrest.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Alabama passes bill to criminalize hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and gender change surgery for minors and force teachers to disclose to parents if their child claims to be trans.
It's not the first law we have seen of its type.
We have seen in several other states.
We have Idaho.
Idaho bill that criminalizes medical trans youth treatments passes House.
We also have this story out of Arkansas.
A federal judge blocks Arkansas ban on trans youth treatments.
The story is from July 21st, 2021.
Now, this is somewhat in line with the Parental Rights and Education Bill, because it does include teachers have to disclose to parents if their child claims to be trans.
It's much more direct than what we see in Florida.
In Florida, the Parental Rights and Education Bill is basically like, parents need to be informed about what's going on, and you can't give instruction on identity or orientation to kindergarten through third grade.
At this point, I'm sure you all know exactly what is in the Parental Rights and Education Bill, because boy, that story has been beaten to death.
But I find these stories fascinating.
When they say they're going to criminalize hormone treatment, of course we see protests from people who immediately retreat from the controversial statement that we should be surgically altering children to the trans rights are human rights and you are transphobic and that seems to be the go-to strategy for the left.
To be honest, I don't think that any of these people who are protesting have any idea what they're protesting.
I look at my own history with protest and activism for the most part.
When I was younger and I was out there protesting say a war or these other activist issues, environmentalism for instance, they would give you signs and most people just didn't know what they were talking about.
And often, I didn't either.
And this is actually what made me not want to be involved in this kind of activism.
When, I've told this story before, I was confronted on the street by someone who accused me of lying about Deepwater Horizon, and it's because I didn't actually do any legitimate research into it.
I just believed what the activists were telling me.
And then it turns out, I was wrong.
And I was angry.
Why am I out here misleading people?
Well, let's talk about that Mahton Bailey.
This one, I have a question for all of our progressive friends who may be watching this video.
Say, well, I suppose I should put it this way.
If your media matters, or some other leftist organization, or someone who's going to take a clip out of context, I just assume you're evil people, and you won't take the full context of what I'm saying anyway, so there's no point even talking to you, because you're just evil people, grifters coming here to try and make money, but by all means, you know, do you, and I guess you can do your thing.
Sure, fine, congratulations.
But if you find yourself here watching this video, as someone shared the video with you, maybe you're liberal, progressive, I just want to ask, should little boys Let's say a 12-year-old boy says they don't feel like a boy.
They are actually trans, and they're a girl.
Should they be allowed to get breast implants?
I mean, breast implants aren't permanent, you know?
You can always get them removed.
But do you think the little boys should be allowed to get breast implants?
Honest question.
Now, my assumption is, based on my worldview, is that most people would say no.
That's absurd.
We don't want little boys or even trans kids getting breast implants.
But what about mastectomies?
Now, those are permanent.
Do you think that if a 12-year-old girl who is developing breast tissue is distressed, that we should allow this child to get permanent physical cosmetic surgery?
Now, maybe you say it's not cosmetic.
It's trans-affirming.
And is necessary to prevent this kid from suffering greater harm.
You know, maybe they'll become depressed as they get older and they grow breasts.
Well, to what extent do we limit cosmetic surgeries, plastic surgeries, or body modification surgeries for children?
If someone says that they feel their hand is possessed, and it needs to be removed, and they're distressed, to what degree of distress would we allow someone to remove body parts?
I mean that legitimately.
Provide me an answer.
I want a legitimate answer to this question.
And you can come out and say there's a big difference between mastectomies and cutting off your hand or whatever.
Breasts serve an important function in child-rearing, in nurturing, and it's going to become a very important part of a woman's life as she gets older and then decides to have children.
Maybe some people won't, but I don't think 12-year-olds, 13-year-olds have that comprehension yet.
They're not old enough.
Now, let's advance the age a little bit.
15-year-old females.
If they are trans, should we allow double mastectomies for these, you know, 15-year-old females?
You may say yes.
The question then goes to males.
A 15-year-old male who wants to be female, or I'm sorry, who identifies as a woman, should we give, allow breast implants for 15-year-olds?
Now, this is post-pubescent, so what are your thoughts?
Well, we have this story from the Daily Mail.
We also have, I believe, I have this from JAMA Network.
Chest Reconstruction and Chest Dysphoria in Transmasculine Minors and Young Adults.
This is a study from May 2018 that looks at people aged, I believe, 13.
Let me pull up the, I want to make sure I get it right.
I believe it's 13 to 25.
Here we go.
Eligible youth were 13 to 25 years old, had been assigned female at birth, and had identified, had an identified gender as something other than female.
So what they did was, half of these people had undergone double mastectomies, half of these people had not.
They then wanted to see whether or not it benefited them in terms of their distress.
They go on to mention that these people were distressed, and their objective was to examine the amount of chest dysphoria in transmasculine youth who had chest reconstructive surgery compared with those who had not undergone surgery.
So this includes 13-year-olds, yes, who had double mastectomies.
The average age of those who had not was 17.
The average age of those who had was 19.
So of course, it skews older.
It tends to be the older people who actually got the double mastectomies.
My question here to you as we begin is just, do you think we should give permanent surgeries I'll give you one example of one of the issues here is Jazz Jennings.
You may be familiar with Jazz, who was trans, I believe, at seven years old, and had several complications with transgender surgery due to the fact that there was no tissue development in the nether regions, as it were, because of puberty blockers.
So, this resulted in complications.
Again.
This is a question for those who are in favor of these gender change surgeries for minors.
Now, I assume most people, whether you watch my show or not, and I assume even many liberals are probably like, no, we don't want surgery for minors, but there are a large amount of people who do.
And of course are going to be offended by this and protest this.
I mean, they protest this stuff.
They want 13-year-olds to be able to get permanent life-altering treatments.
Now, if you find yourself in disagreement with this, share the video.
Ask these questions that I asked to your friends and family who are progressive or who otherwise oppose these laws and have an honest conversation.
I'm sure there's going to be people who oppose these laws for a reason and still say things like, well, I don't think they should be giving surgery to minors.
You know, 17-year-olds are going to be included in this by all means.
Let me hear what you have to say.
I'm interested in your answer.
Here's a story from the Daily Mail.
Alabama lawmakers passed a bill Thursday outlawing gender-affirming medical care for children, including hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and gender change surgery.
The measure would also force teachers to tell parents if a minor's perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor's sex. On Thursday, the
Alabama House of Representatives voted 66 to 28 in favor of legislation that would make it a felony
punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers or hormones or
perform surgery to aid in the gender transition of someone under the age of 19. I'm gonna pause
there. Should it be illegal to administer the medication to the child?
Now, okay, prescription, I understand.
But what if someone gets these hormone therapies?
I'm curious if that's included in the law.
I'd imagine it was.
If somebody went online and ordered from, say, India, China, or Mexico, or something, and started giving that stuff to their kids, or to a kid, I'd imagine that would be still illegal.
The bill now goes to Republican Governor Kay Ivey for her signature, though she has not yet said whether she will green light the measure.
I would just love to see what's going to happen if a Republican governor says, I will not sign a bill banning surgeries for minors.
cosmetic. Alabama is just the latest red state to promote legislation aimed at curbing gender
affirming, gender affirming health care for trans youth following the lead of other states such as
Florida and Texas which have considered similar measure in recent weeks. Rep Neil Rafferty told
oh the uh i'm sorry rep Neil Rafferty the only openly gay member of the Alabama legislature
did not hold back as lawmakers headed to vote.
This is wrong, Rafferty said.
Y'all sit there and campaign on family being the foundation of our nation, but what this bill is doing is totally undermining that.
It's totally undermining family rights, health rights, and access to healthcare.
Rafferty, I have a question for you.
If someone has a son, Yes?
The reason I ask is because I assume most people would be like, no, of course not.
But what's the difference?
Seriously, what is the difference?
And breast implants are not permanent.
They can be removed.
Mastectomies, you can't bring that tissue back.
Meanwhile, Republican Rep.
Wes Allen of Troy, a sponsor of the House version of the bill, argued on Thursday that trans children are not old enough to make decisions about gender-affirming medication.
Their brains are not developed to make the decisions long-term about what these medications and surgeries do to their bodies.
Jeff Walker, father to a 15-year-old trans daughter, pleaded with Governor Ivey,
who has not yet indicated whether she will sign to veto the bill.
I want the governor to know that she doesn't have to sign this, she can veto it.
All you are doing is hurting Alabama families with these bills.
In addition, the Alabama Senate voted 26 to 5 to approve legislation mandating that K-12 students
can only use multi-person bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with the gender on their
original birth certificate rather than the current gender identity.
You know what the issue I have with the left on this one is?
They say the rights of females don't matter because the social construct of gender is deserving of more rights.
I can't make that determination.
But I think biology, biological function, should be the determinant in bathrooms.
Or just make single unit bathrooms.
Problem solved!
How about for the school, instead of doing 5 stalls, you do 4 individual rooms.
And then, between the men's room and the women's room, you have, let's just say, 8 that are typically the women's, and 8 that are typically the men's, and now you have 16 single-stall bathrooms.
Hey, guess what?
No more swirlies.
Not that I think swirlies actually still happen, but I mean, probably.
No more getting bullied in the bathroom.
You go to the bathroom, you lock the door behind you, you're in your own private room.
Boom.
Problem solved.
No multi-person bathrooms.
Otherwise, the issue is, the left seems to say, there should be no civil rights distinction between biological females.
The civil rights distinction should be based on identity.
Which it makes no sense, because anyone can identify however they want, whenever they want.
So, I just think that distinction makes no sense.
Republicans in the Senate also added language that would prohibit classroom instruction and discussion on orientation or identity for students in kindergarten through fifth grade.
The Alabama proposal, which has been compared to the Don't Say Gay measure, goes further than Florida's law, which only includes grades K through 3.
White House spokesman Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday that the U.S.
Department of Justice has warned states such laws and policies may violate the Constitution and federal law.
I'd love to see it.
Okay, I want to see someone argue in court.
I want to see someone ask Jen Psaki, Doocy, can you ask Psaki this?
Jen Psaki, You recently stated that the DOJ has warned states about laws and policies that would prohibit transgender surgeries and treatments and medical therapies for minors.
Do you think the DOJ should prevent doctors from giving breast implants to 12-year-old boys?
What would she say to that?
I want to hear her answer.
By all means, let her say, I think they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
And then you follow up with, what's the difference?
Because I'll say it again.
Breast implants are temporary.
They are not permanent.
They can be removed.
They go on to mention, you know, Ron DeSantis and the Parental Rights and Education Bill.
We have something similar.
This happened on March 10th.
Idaho bill that criminalizes medical trans youth treatment passes House.
Bill aims to make gender-affirming care a felony and punishable by life in prison for anyone who helps a child travel out of state.
I think it's funny that already the media is calling it gender-affirming.
Because they're trying to make it sound, you know, they're controlling language.
We can just say cosmetic surgery.
The bill aims to make cosmetic surgery for children a felony.
I suppose it doesn't make all cosmetic surgery a felony though, so call it what you want.
Say, I don't know, gender altering or cosmetic sex surgeries.
I want to show you this story from Fox News.
Bella Hadid speaks out about the perils of plastic surgery in teenagers.
Approximately 229,000 cosmetic surgeries were performed on teenagers between the ages of 13 to 19 in 2017.
Yeah, I think that's a bad thing.
We need to start telling people to love their bodies.
You know, we have this body positivity movement, we have, you know, healthy at every size and all that stuff, and you know what?
First of all, being fat, you can change that.
You can exercise, you can improve your lifestyle.
Now, some people have thyroid problems that I get, but most people who think they have glandular problems don't actually have glandular problems.
I was watching this video, It was this TV show and it was like people trying to lose weight.
And the lady was like, I tried to lose weight, but I have a glandular problem.
And then she goes to the doctor and the doctor is like, nope, everything's working just fine.
You just eat too much.
I watched another video where this lady was like, I eat less than all of my friends, but I just keep gaining weight.
And so they showed her, like, going out to eat, and she would get, like, a salad, and, you know, not eat bread, and then be like, see, look, they're eating big meals!
And then they followed this lady around all day, and, you know, every five minutes, she would grab a small little thing of chips and eat it, she would grab a piece of chocolate and eat it, and then they were like, throughout the day, you were grabbing food items and snacking for a total of 1,500 calories on top of the 1,500 you already ate, giving you a net, you know, 3,000 or so calories for the day, and she was like, whaaat?
Didn't realize that she was eating so much because she was snacking.
Yeah, you can lose weight if you want to.
But where's the body positivity for who cares about your nose, who cares about your chest, who cares about your hips, who cares about any of that stuff?
Why are we telling people that you need to have a different body?
Why are these kids so distressed?
I don't believe children have an inherent view of their bodies to the extent that... Let me rephrase.
I think the reason children are becoming trans, or are identifying as trans, is because something or someone is telling them something about their bodies.
But I suppose the science is always changing on this one.
Recently I heard from leftists that there were no male and female brains.
If that's the case, then is it just kids saying, I just look at things and would prefer to have a female body?
And if that's the case, why can't we just have them be happy in the body they have?
Why can't we tell people that you can be happy with any body?
Your nose doesn't matter, your ears don't matter, your hands don't matter.
Is the issue that kids are getting made fun of?
You know, one of the things that worries me about permanent life-altering therapies, treatments, and surgeries is that, let's say a kid's got a big nose, and he goes to school, and they all go, big nose, big nose, and make fun of him.
This kid's gonna be like, I want a smaller nose, and they're gonna tell their parents I don't like my nose.
Should the parents then give them a nose job?
I think the answer is no.
I think you say, yeah, kids can be cruel, and you are who you are, and you should be proud, and just be who you are.
It's strange though.
We've left this era where the left was saying, you know, you're born gay, you can't change it, and now you should be proud.
And now we're in the era of, you shouldn't be proud of your body, you should surgically alter it or chemically alter it.
Why can't we tell kids, this is who you are and you should be proud of who you are and you should not be worried about what other people want.
I do believe that there are instances of severe dysphoria.
I believe that we need to help people through their dysphoria or dysmorphia because it's not always about gender.
One of the big issues I see is that, for some reason, when it comes to gender, there is a special class.
And when it comes to general body dysmorphia, there's not.
So you have people who say, I want my finger removed.
You have people who say, I want my nipple removed.
You have people who say, I want my feet removed.
We don't allow them to cut their feet off.
You have people who say they want nose jobs or breast implants, and for the most part, we say no to that.
But hey, cosmic surgery happens with minors.
It's strange.
If there is a 15-year-old girl who has, say, you know, early breast cancer and has to get a double mastectomy, we do cosmetic surgery to mend that.
Would we not then give breast implants to a 15-year-old boy who also is distressed?
I think the answer is we would.
And I'm wondering what progressives think about that.
Do we want to start doing permanent surgeries on healthy bodies?
I'm not a fan of the idea.
I think there's a different question in kids who are 16 or older.
I certainly do.
I think one of the issues for the most part is puberty.
And when you start giving this treatment to kids under 13 is where you're causing permanent damage.
One of the issues with puberty is that desistance tends to occur around puberty.
That is, there are kids who claim to be trans, but the overwhelming majority After puberty, desist, meaning all of a sudden they're just, uh, they say they were wrong.
If you've got someone who's now 16, and they're getting older, and they're still experiencing very serious distress to the point where there's concerns about their health and safety, well, then I think there are issues there.
This is one of the reasons why I disagree with these laws to a certain extent, because I think there is a bit more leeway in cosmetic surgery to kids who are nearing adulthood.
But perhaps the answer is simple. 18.
It's a challenge.
Should kids be allowed to get tattoos?
With parental consent, they can.
But tattoos aren't disabling you or altering your body too dramatically.
It's just images.
Should a kid get a nose job?
I typically just think the answer is no until you're 18 and you're on your own and you can live your life as you see fit.
But why wouldn't parents have the authority to determine what's best for their children if they think their kids should be getting cosmetic surgery?
I suppose the challenge comes down to parents probably do know what's best for their kids.
But, some parents are told creepy BS things.
And the concern is, the parents can believe nonsense, and then these kids can end up growing up and regretting it, like Bella Hadid.
She regretted it.
She says she wished she didn't do it.
She had a nose that was part of her family heritage, and now she doesn't.
Maybe these kids aren't old enough to understand what they're doing, and parents shouldn't just say yes to whatever these kids want.
Joe Biden came out recently and said you should affirm your children.
But why does Affirm only refer to gender?
What if your kid says they want to be a dragon, and so they want cosmetic dragon surgery?
Now some people might laugh at that idea, but there are individuals who get their lips split to be like cats, or get their tongues forked, or get horn implants.
Do you mock them?
Should kids who say, I want to be a dragon, be allowed to go get cosmetic surgery to be a dragon?
If you're going to give someone hormones to change their body, why not any other kind of chemical therapy on any other part of their body?
Would you be able to give a 12-year-old boy male hormones to boost their testosterone because they want to be large and hairy?
I'm curious what your thoughts are.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
It's an interesting moment to see Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter, sitting on the other side of censorship.
Let me give you the quick context here, and then we'll talk about this.
Bitcoin Magazine tweeted that their YouTube channel had been removed without warning.
They were banned.
And this goes back to a tweet from Jack Dorsey himself.
Jack Dorsey tweeted, Best Y Bitcoin intro and panel I've seen.
However, the YouTube video says video unavailable.
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
My oh my.
Jack Dorsey was trying to share information on cryptocurrencies and YouTube deleted the account of the YouTube channel he promoted.
Bitcoin Magazine highlighting this at breaking, YouTube has suspended our account with no warning again.
This time in the middle of the Bitcoin conference at midnight.
Please help us get the channel back ASAP.
Jack Dorsey responded, what was the reason behind this?
I find that fascinating.
Jack Dorsey, who has more insight than most people into why accounts get banned for no reason, was confused, or was asking at the very least why, what reason they gave for banning this account.
Now some people have responded to me saying that Jack Dorsey, Tim Tim, Jack was never in favor of censorship.
Jack Dorsey argued to my face in favor of censorship.
Simultaneously, Jack Dorsey was advocating for decentralized open source social media while defending and advocating for censorship policies on Twitter.
You don't get to come out and be like, I oppose censorship, but here are the people I believe that should be banned.
Now hold on there a minute.
When we're talking about censorship, we gotta make sure we're breaking down the nuance here, because the truth is, I'm in favor of censorship.
I am.
I know, I know, a lot of people are like, wait, what?
No, but if you've watched my segments prior or watched Tim Castellaw, you'd have heard me talk about this.
Political censorship of someone's opinions.
Bad.
Censorship of graphic material involving children.
Good.
There is some censorship we absolutely want on these platforms.
You don't want to go on Twitter and have people sharing illegal, disturbing images.
That censorship is fine.
And in my opinion, if someone shows a graphic image of, say, a death or war, I have no problem with censorship in the form of a sensitivity filter.
That is to say, if there is an image that's graphic, it says, this image is graphic, and you click it if you would like to see it.
Because I don't like scrolling through Twitter and seeing porn and death and murder, and you often do.
So I don't mind those sensitivity filters.
I really, really don't.
It doesn't eliminate the content from the platform, you're still able to see it, but some people who don't want to see that stuff have the option not to see it.
I also have no problem if they created a not safe for work filter mode.
This is what Mines.com does.
Mines doesn't ban you if you post raucous content.
They eventually just apply a filter.
The way it works, is my understanding, is that if you post something and don't label it, Not safe for work.
And people flag it as not safe for work, you get a soft strike.
After your third strike, they will default your content as not safe for work.
It's all still available.
People can still see it.
They just have to click one extra button to do it.
I have no problem with that.
But let me show you my response to this.
When Jack Dorsey was saying, what was the reason behind this?
I tweeted, it's weird seeing Jack on the other side of censorship.
It is.
And a lot of people said things like, well, people talk about Bitcoin and things like that.
One person, Rez, responded, the reason is that people like Jack Dorsey have godlike power over the rhetoric on social media platforms and decide what others can or may not say.
Eventually, all these elites and activists self-righteously dictate how the others can think or talk.
Here we go.
That's not true.
Here's another person, Kieran.
He was against censorship, but despite being CEO, he only owns 2.6 shares.
He was ousted by activist shareholders.
Elon might bring him back, since he doesn't want to run Twitter, but just back a libertarian.
Jack Dorsey, despite what he said to me and to many others, was very much, in fact, pro-censorship.
He was.
Now, when all this first started, he was part of the Twitter that was the free speech wing of the Free Speech Party.
Yet, under his watch, With everything he was claiming, censorship got worse and worse and worse.
And there was also that other guy who was involved, um, what was his name?
The guy who was CEO for a while.
Um, I'm forgetting his name.
I think he was also a writer or contributor to Silicon Valley, that show on HBO.
Whatever.
Anyway, look, I sat down with Jack Dorsey and their head legal counsel Vijay Agade to talk about censorship.
Joe Rogan did as well.
Joe Rogan had a conversation with Jack Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey defended the censorship, and Joe didn't know enough to say, which resulted in a lot of people giving a thumbs down to Joe's podcast episode.
It's how I ended up on Joe's show in the first place.
I had not been on Joe's show.
We had, uh, there was an issue where I ended up getting canceled from a show twice, year after, uh, two years in a row, and so I was like, yo, that's kind of, that's kind of messed up, but it is what it is.
It's his show.
I did a segment on this channel talking about the episode with Joe and Jack and how Joe didn't know what was going on with censorship on the platform.
There was a, well, I'll just give you the story.
Joe's, I guess YouTube automatically flagged my video as copyright infringement for Joe because I used a screen grab of the YouTube episode.
I DMed Joe and was like, hey, would you mind, you know, releasing this?
Like, I need the money.
And Joe, I guess, ended up watching my segment and asked to talk to me on the phone.
He's like, you know, we should have you come on the show sometime.
He then called me back and was like, can you come on the show in two days so we can talk about all this stuff?
And I was like, sure.
Went on his show, and after that he said, would you want to come back and talk with Jack Dorsey?
It was awesome.
I'm eternally grateful to Joe for the opportunity, and we had a great conversation.
In it, Jack went on to explain the importance of policies like the misgendering policy.
How the opinions and worldview of the left is more important than the opinions and worldview of the right.
Because in his view, there are better conversations that need to be had.
No, I didn't say it just like that.
Before we went live on the show, Jack was talking to me about how he wants decentralized social networks.
I believe he does, but I don't believe he opposes censorship in the way that we view it.
Again, to stress, I'm good with a lot of censorship, a lot of it, when we're talking about child exploitation and things like that.
I'm not good with them being like, I don't like your opinions, so I'm banning you from the platform, because we believe in better, better conversations, and only we can bring them about.
And that was the mentality of people at Twitter.
And Jack Dorsey had every single opportunity to say, I think the censorship is wrong, but the company feels it's the right move.
Jack was never in favor of censorship.
It's just downright not true.
Up until what, recently?
Jack Dorsey was still on the board of Twitter.
And what did Jack Dorsey do with a lot of his proceeds?
Jack Dorsey's donated to woke organizations.
The dude is woke.
Now maybe.
There is some, you know, maybe Jack just doesn't really know a whole lot about this stuff.
I think that's fair.
But I've argued in the past that I think Jack is duplicitous.
I believe he is deceitful and deceptive.
Why?
Because if he's gonna come out, here's a story from TechCrunch, Twitter taps crypto developer to lead blue sky decentralized social network effort.
You know, Jack was talking about social media posts should be on the blockchain, they'd exist forever, all that stuff.
I'm like, wow, you couldn't ban content then.
He can say all of those things.
But he did nothing.
He didn't do anything.
I mean, I guess, you know, they had these moves, but could Jack have just come out and said, we've got a lot of problems with censorship, and we need to solve them, and they need to be called out?
He could've.
He said things like, well, you know, what these people did and what that people did were bad.
Did Jack ever look into why people were being banned?
So you mean, he was the captain of the ship, and as people were being thrown overboard, he just believed the reasons behind it?
He didn't care!
So he comes out later like, we're gonna do these things.
What did he tell me?
Was it really 2018?
It's been so long.
Path to redemption.
You know, people should be allowed back on the platform.
There should be a way to come back on the platform.
Has it happened?
No.
Instead, he jumps ship.
So spare me.
Spare me.
Here's where we are right now.
Twitter will stiffen moderation policies in response to the war in Ukraine.
Twitter will stop amplifying Russian government accounts and ban some tweets containing images of prisoners of war.
Excuse me.
Is that all they're doing?
No, of course not.
It's actually worse than that.
Take a look at this tweet from Anya Parampil.
Anya is a journalist looking from the ground up at the Grayzone News, tweeting, Twitter suspended former UN weapons inspector Real Scott Ritter for the tweet below.
Twitter claims Ritter committed abuse and harassment.
He was obviously targeted because he threatens the narrative.
He appealed the suspension, but we must demand Twitter bring him back.
Scott Ritter tweeted, The Ukrainian National Police committed numerous crimes against humanity in Bucha.
Biden, in seeking to shift the blame for the Bucha murders onto Russia, is guilty of aiding and abetting these crimes.
Congratulations, America!
We've created yet another presidential war criminal.
Now, the official narrative from the media out of Bucha is that Russia has done this, and Russia continues to do things.
Fog of war, my friends.
Choose which side you want to believe, because in the end, if you're looking for hard evidence, it'll be hard to come by.
Now, do I have any reason to believe that Russia is committing these crimes?
I mean, yes.
I mean, seriously, yeah, Russia instigated this.
Russia started this war.
You can argue the West was instigating things, sure.
I'm not here to talk about war or anything like that.
I'm here to point out that there's conflicting information.
Now, I tend not to side with the Russian narrative on these things, but I really don't know exactly what happened in Bucha other than people lost their lives and there's horrifying images.
What can I say or do?
Have faith in the U.S.
government?
Why?
Joe Biden is a criminal.
We know.
How many stories need to come out about Joe Biden, his illicit business dealings in Ukraine, and his own admissions before we just say it?
Well, the problem is the official media narrative is that Joe Biden did nothing wrong.
But that's a lie, and we know it's a lie.
So I'm supposed to look at this and draw a conclusion based upon trusting Joe Biden and the U.S.
government and their U.S.
official sources.
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust Putin.
You know, the way I say it is I lean towards Biden simply because at least I can trust that he has U.S.
interests.
Like he has money here and he wants to spend it.
Not that I trust the guy.
No, of course not.
You can have your opinion interview on whatever you want, but this is the game.
Does Jack Dorsey really support censorship?
I think he absolutely does.
You are not allowed to dissent.
Does Jack Dorsey really support censorship?
I think he absolutely does politically because he could have said at any point, I am furious
I mean, look, the dude left the company, okay?
He was planning on leaving.
Jack Dorsey could have come out and said, what Twitter has done in terms of censoring political dissidents is wrong, and I will no longer stand for it.
Now, I've talked to him on several occasions, DM'd here and there.
I've asked him to come on TimCast IRL.
We could talk about all of these things.
He said maybe one day in the future.
Sure.
Busy guy.
He doesn't owe me any of his time.
There are a lot of people in prominent positions who, you know, don't come on the show or whatever.
I don't blame them.
I don't think anybody owes me these favors to come on my show.
But I would certainly love to hash out these issues, and I want to hear Jack Dorsey say it on the record.
I want to hear him talk about what was really going on behind the scenes.
Because you know what I expect to hear?
I expect to hear from Jack Dorsey, honestly, I did not pay all that much attention.
And when they told me it, I just said, sure, fine, whatever, because I didn't care.
Dude's a billionaire.
Not as rich as Elon Musk.
Obviously, Elon Musk is reportedly the richest man on the planet.
Putin probably is, but you know.
Maybe Elon Musk is the richest reported man on the internet.
But Jack Dorsey was a billionaire off of all this.
He certainly didn't want to risk anything that he was working on, plus he's got Square.
He's not going to stick his neck out for any of this.
I'm just... I'm no fan of... We have problems in human society.
You know what I like?
If someone came to me, if I was doing a report, an investigation, and someone threatened me, I'd publish the threats.
And I'll say, here you go.
Working on Tales from the Inverted World.
Apparently, we've got a recording of a death threat against our lead reporter, Shane.
Or, you know, some kind of threat, because I think the threat was to skin him alive.
Because he was looking for the lost Confederate gold.
And we're gonna include it in the story.
Thanks for the soundbite.
We can show people the sentiment of some who are concerned about the lost Confederate gold.
Don't want anyone looking for it.
Yeah, we'll publish it.
If I was doing an investigation on a large corporation, and they sent me a cease and desist letter saying, we know what you're doing, because they do it all the time.
I'd sit back, take a cigar.
Don't really want to smoke, but I'd love to crack a beer and a cigar, drop the threats on the table and be like, here we go, baby.
If someone tried to bribe me, I'd do the exact same thing.
Here it is.
Here's the attempt.
Try and be more clever with your bribery.
What did Jack Dorsey do?
Well, I don't want to lose my money.
You don't want to lose your money, man.
I'm just, what I don't understand about this is I just don't under- How much is enough?
TimCast.com has grown massively, and I surmise at this point the evaluation of this media company that we are building is massive.
Based on the revenue this company generates, probably massive.
The one weakness we have is that the majority of our income is tied to TimCast IRL, and it's substantially less income coming from other sources, mostly investing and expanding the business.
But if we were to go off of revenue and unique viewership, which is upwards of $60 million per month, then, you know, we're looking at a very, very large evaluation.
And so people have come and said, you know, why don't we do a deal?
Why don't we give you money?
And I'm just like, how much is enough?
I don't believe there's any amount of money that someone could offer me because there's nothing I really want other than to report the news, challenge the system, and speak truth to power, as it were.
Someone can come to me and say, you know, I gotta be honest.
I don't believe there's an amount of money that could buy me out.
I wonder how much would have been enough for Jack Dorsey.
I think he's worth what, like three billion?
He gave away like a billion of it to, I think it was like woke causes or something.
I just wonder, how much, how much is enough for people?
Apparently it's never enough.
For me, I certainly think there's enough.
I could go out and buy a Ferrari.
I don't want a Ferrari.
I want a newsroom with honest journalists who are striving to report the news to the best of their abilities.
I want to challenge the machine that seeks to oppress and lie, cheat, and steal its way to power.
TimCast.com's newsroom is my Ferrari.
People doing good journalism.
When you become members, this is what we seek to work on to expand and to grow.
We're also trying to build culture.
Chicken City is wildly successful.
You know, Steve Bannon came to TimCast IRL several times now.
He told me the last time we were here that eventually someone's gonna offer me a large sum of money to sell or something like that.
It will happen.
And I was like, yeah, probably.
I mean, people have come to me before offering money.
I've never taken it.
We have no investors, just members.
And I was like, there's no amount of money somebody could offer me.
There's just, what am I gonna do with it?
I don't know, I guess buy a jet suit?
You know...
There's a certain point where enough is enough.
And I'm bringing this all up just to make this point.
Forgive me if it sounds like humblebrags or whatever.
No, I'm proud of the company.
I appreciate everybody helping support the growth.
We're doing really, really well.
And I just think about all of these ultra-wealthy people who are too scared and refuse to speak up.
If Jack Dorsey really cared about what was going on in terms of censorship, if he really wanted decentralized social media, he could have snapped his finger and had it in two seconds.
He didn't.
He did a little bit.
We've got people working on the non-profit, on Foundation stuff.
We're filing, so it's a bit up in the air to figure out what we're doing, but we're working on it, and we have substantially, substantially less money than Jack Dorsey and Twitter.
I take a look at the amount of money that so many of these people have, like even Joe Rogan, for instance, and Elon Musk, and I just don't get why they don't do more.
Pause.
Elon Musk bought a large stake of Twitter.
He is doing, certainly.
Building a social media platform wouldn't change anything.
But, uh, what... Yo, if you can liquidate $3 billion to purchase all of this stock, transferring it into stock, could you not take out $10 million and launch a news organization?
It's really crazy to me.
I wish I could snap my fingers like any one of these people worth billions and just make a newsroom.
Jack Dorsey doesn't care.
I don't blame him.
He's interested in tech, but why didn't he just put a hundred million in investing into a new decentralized social media platform?
He could do it.
And then, man, take ten, twenty million into advertising?
He could do it.
They don't.
I know they can do it because I know what we can do with substantially less.
And we're gonna do it.
I don't need To be the CEO of a big tech company.
I don't even need to be the CEO of TimCast.com.
I am.
My company.
Solely owned by me.
But if there came a point to where I was worth a billion dollars, you better believe I'm gonna be writing checks left and right for tons of issues, causes, products, strategies, shows, you name it.
I mean, we're already doing it.
We're looking at new shows, we've got new podcasts, we've got new books coming.
We're constrained only by our access to resources.
Now, I could take a deal with someone, right?
Steve Bannon, he says, someone's going to offer you money.
But if I take it, you get constrained by owing them.
I don't want to do that.
No, I want to grow Timcast to be bigger than Disney.
And then it's going to be plain and simple.
We are going to actually say, let's throw $100 million into a decentralized social network platform because we can.
What am I going to do with the money?
Buy a big house?
I got a big house.
More than one?
Do I need more?
I don't get it, man.
That's just me.
I'm curious as to what Joe Rogan has in mind, because I know he's doing things that he thinks are good and powerful with the money he makes, but he makes a lot of money.
I know he cares a lot of the same things, so I'm curious.
You know, what's stopping, say, Joe from putting $5-10 million investment into a news organization?
Or something like that.
Perhaps the challenge is managerial.
And it's a fair point, I'm not saying Joe or anyone else has to do anything.
But the challenge we face is managerial power.
It costs money.
Project management is not simple.
Finding the talent who can make it happen is not simple.
But we're working towards it every single day and growing as fast as we can grow.
We have the resources to grow very quickly.
The problem with inorganic growth, like just throwing money to make things happen, is that you don't make good things.
You just waste money.
So, we have Pop Culture Crisis, for instance.
New show, close to around 15,000 subscribers.
They get several hundred, sometimes over a thousand views.
Not a whole lot compared to this show.
We're getting ready to do an ad push for the show because it's coming into its stride.
The graphics are there.
The backdrops are there.
You see, we started off, things were shaky.
Over time, the crew has been developing and building out the show and doing a very, very good job of it.
Now they've got neon lights.
They've got good, unique backdrops.
They got better art.
We're to the point where it's like, all right, let's do an ad push.
Organic growth.
And it took several months.
I'd love to be able to just snap the fingers and have a massive newsroom.
If we had a billion dollars, it would be very, very easy to do.
Much easier to do.
We don't.
So we can grow as slow as we can.
One of the challenges, I will say, in terms of the work we do at TimCast.com, is that we're member-supported completely.
That means if people don't want to support us, we don't make money.
We don't charge for our news articles.
We just ask you to be a member to help support the site.
We do have a paywall for the TimCast IRL Show and other members-only content like The Green Room.
We'll eventually be putting up members-only pop culture crisis content.
And that's sort of a... you know.
A value proposition.
There are a lot of people who can't afford to be members.
We want to make sure you guys can read the news.
There are a lot of people who like the work we do but won't give us money anyway.
I guess you don't have to.
And there are a lot of people who might not even watch the members-only content who give us money because they like what we're doing and they want to support our journalists and the work we do, and that's tremendous.
There's a certain point where enough is enough.
For me, at least.
Maybe that makes us dangerous in that we are driven, we are motivated by passions and ideology.
And the ideology is honesty and freedom.
Jack Dorsey isn't that.
I'm not trying to be insulting, disrespectful.
It is an ideological difference that I believe we have with Jack Dorsey.
A man of insurmountable means who talks about decentralization doesn't do it.
I mean, I know he did some stuff.
But ultimately, what?
He's pushing Bitcoin, sure, but so is the rest of the establishment and many large investment firms and VCs.
I think Bitcoin and crypto is fantastic, by the way.
But I just see this, you know, so much of the world is ruled by people driven by business opportunity.
Some of the most famous personalities that you know and love, you'd be surprised to hear what they say behind closed doors about what their motivation is and what their moves are based on.
Their moves are based on making more money.
We launched Chicken City.
YouTube.com slash Chicken City.
Check it out.
It's just chickens.
I launched it because it was simple, it was cheap, and it was fun, and we have chickens.
We're making money off of it.
I launched this show because I like talking all the time, as you may have noticed.
Made money doing it.
I'm not running this company, chasing after valuation, high stock prices, or anything like that.
I do it because I want to keep doing it, I want to do more.
Too much, too many of our leaders are driven by cash, and a lack of passion.
You take a look at the libertarian-type leaders, the people who claim to support these ideas, where's the cash into these projects?
Where are the right-wing billionaires saying, okay, let's buy up Twitter?
They don't do it, because they don't care.
The left is driven by ideology.
Bad ideology.
And that's their motivating factor.
So yeah, interesting to see Jack Dorsey on the other side of censorship.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is... I will just briefly point out their YouTube channel was reinstated.
