Internal Twitter Chats LEAKED Proving More Left Wing Bias, Journalists Try To STOP Elon Musk Buyout
Internal Twitter Chats LEAKED Proving More Left Wing Bias, Journalists Try To STOP Elon Musk Buyout. Democrats and their media allies are trying to claim Elon Musk breached his contract already.
Its absurd however as Elon Musk has simply tweeted passive statements disparaging no one and some memes. But of course the left is doing everything it can to stop Elon Musk from taking control of Twitter.
A mystery is afoot as progressives are losing followers and conservatives are gaining followers suggesting some kind of internal code change and potential malfeasance.
#ElonMusk
#Twitter
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Leaked internal messages from Twitter's employees shows overt left-wing bias.
The media company is melting down, but we all know we don't need these messages to prove left-wing bias.
It is there, it is overt, and even Elon Musk has tweeted a meme of me explaining Twitter's left-wing bias.
In our next segment, something strange is afoot.
Progressives are losing followers, conservatives are gaining followers, and I think I know what's going on.
It seems the code has been changed overnight to lift some kind of political ban.
And in our last segment, a journalist tweeted in outrage about America's gun culture and showed BB guns, not realizing they weren't real guns, and is now getting mocked.
If you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
More evidence has emerged of Twitter's left-wing bias, as internal employee communications
have been leaked showing that the staff at Twitter are biased towards the left, are angry,
and are not treating this like rational adults when a new person acquires a company.
The left-wing bias is so palpable that even Elon Musk has noticed it, and it's probably why he bought the company.
Now, I don't want to act like these new Twitter messages, the internal Slack chats, I believe they are, are the definitive proof of bias.
They're evidence on top of existing evidence proving there is a left-wing bias.
In a meme tweet by Elon Musk, It actually shows me, but considering the meme is accurate, I think it's important to break down.
It shows me explaining to Twitter's top lawyer Vijaya Gadde that there is an example of left-wing bias, which she argues.
I then say, your interpretation is affected by your bias, and then she asks for an example, creating a cycle of me saying the same thing over and over again.
Now, this was several years ago, just about three years ago, I believe, that I appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience with Jack Dorsey and Vijay Aghate.
It comes up a lot, considering what's happening with Twitter.
But that was basically the conversation.
No matter how much I said to them, debunking their ideas and proving definitively that they are biased, they either just said, you're wrong, you're interpreting it this way, that's context, you gotta understand, and then finally it ended with, Well, thank you for the feedback, because it's true.
It is a fact.
And now we are seeing the establishment left and many leftists throwing everything they can at Elon Musk in a desperate attempt to grasp The power that is Twitter.
And all this is going on as there is a mystery afoot.
If you saw my earlier segment, you'd have heard me talk about it, or maybe you'll hear it soon in the podcast.
But there is a mystery.
Progressives are losing followers, conservatives are gaining followers, and new evidence has emerged.
What appears to be happening is that Twitter has removed some kind of political ban.
Can I prove it?
Of course not.
Absolutely not.
That's why it's a mystery and a conspiracy theory.
I don't know exactly what's going on, but so far, based on what we've heard, the simple solution is that Twitter removed some kind of ban on right-wing figures, potentially an algorithmic ban.
Many people, they would get banned.
It was the editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller.
He got a suspension.
They said, oh, it was an accident.
How was it an accident?
Did a Twitter employee make this move?
No.
I think we have evidence now suggesting, not definitively proving, that Twitter implemented an algorithm that sought out right-wing personalities, banned them, And something happened last night that removed the ban.
I think they are cleaning up shop as fast as they can knowing that Elon Musk did not just buy a social media platform.
He bought the evidence.
We can see what they're saying now in media that Elon Musk targeting Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's top lawyer, is harassment.
Mediaite even wrote that my taking out a billboard stating a fact was attacking a journalist.
You see, they're desperate.
They don't know what to do when institutional power is wielded against them, and they are freaking out.
I would just like to say, Many people are hitting me up about Elon Musk tweeting this meme that includes me.
I am honored, but I just do the work.
And if someone makes a meme and it resonates, I'm grateful to be a part of this change.
I'm grateful to be in this position, and it is only thanks to all of you that I am here.
So, Elon Musk tweeted a meme out.
That's cool, I appreciate it.
We've got a lot of really important work going on.
And I did tweet it, Elon.
I tweeted, Yo Elon Musk, come on my show, bring Starlink.
I was like, maybe I'll finally get that Starlink satellite.
But I don't think Elon Musk will be coming on the show, and I'll explain why.
Because right now, the other thing they're claiming is that Elon Musk, by talking about Twitter, has violated his agreement already!
It's stupid.
He didn't.
But let's break this down.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you would like to help support the work we do and the work I do making these videos.
We will be hiring more journalists.
We just onboarded another journalist.
We'll be hiring a couple columnists to write opinion and analysis.
Our perspective is personal responsibility and liberty, bringing you the facts.
It's not about traditional, progressive, or anything like that.
It's about you being responsible and having the information to live your life to the best of your abilities, being honest.
And that's what we're going to bring to you in our columns and our analysis.
As a member, you'll get access to all of our members-only segments.
Potential members-only analyses, and you will be keeping our journalists afloat and allowing us to do things like buy billboards in Times Square, challenging the establishment, and staking our claim in this cultural battleground to create new shows like Pop Culture Crisis and Tales from the Inverted World so that we can engage with the culture, build the culture, and challenge the manipulation from the institutional cultural machines.
Also, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends, and let's see what's going on with leaked internal Slack messages.
Andy Ngo reports for the New York Post.
Twitter workers freaking out over Elon Musk and internal Slack messages.
I'll pause real quick and just state.
Surely, there are free speech loving Twitter employees, be it liberal or conservative, anti-woke or libertarian.
Because they leaked the messages.
Certainly someone there said the world needs to see this.
I'd like to give a shout out to Project Veritas and James O'Keefe who have been leading the charge on being brave and telling people to challenge the corrupt.
Brilliant.
And to everybody who heeded that message and decided to be brave and expose malfeasance, you are doing a great thing.
Challenge those in power.
Here's the story from the New York Post and Andy Ngo.
Leaked internal communications by Twitter employees reveal woke employees are overtaken by despair and anger about Elon Musk's month-long effort to acquire Twitter.
Of course, we learned that Musk would purchase the company.
On the business communication platform Slack, some Twitter employees vented against the new owner.
A site reliability engineer who identifies as a non-binary transgender plural person wrote, quote, we're all going through the five stages of grief in cycles and everyone's nerves are frazzled, wrote a senior staff software engineer who called Musk an a-hole and tried to console his colleagues, quote, We're all spinning our wheels, and coming up with worst-case scenarios.
Trump returns, no more moderation.
The fact is that Musk has not talked about what he's planning on doing in any detail outside of broad, sweeping statements that could be easily seen as hyperbolic showboating.
A senior staff video engineer announced he would be quitting.
Not the place to say it, perhaps, but I will not work for this company after his takeover.
Now, these are but a few humble messages from the woke.
But it shows you something.
The culture of Twitter is overwhelmingly woke.
Imagine being a conservative in this environment, where you know about cancel culture, smears, lies, manipulation.
If the conversation is overwhelmingly pitched this way, these are the people who feel safe to say these things.
So either the company is conservative, but all the conservatives are scared or cowards, or the company is overwhelmingly woke and leftist.
Now, you don't need these messages to prove that.
We've seen the data on their employees giving money to politicians, and it's like 98.7% to Democrats.
So we know where this is going.
Andy Noh for the New York Post continues, following the back and forth among multiple
employees angry about the news, some warned that their communications on Slack could be searched.
The employees then moved their conversations onto their personal devices using the encrypted chat
application signal. Twitter's leadership appeared to predict an internal backlash and possible
sabotage when it locked down the ability of its employees to make changes to the platform through
Friday.
Leading up to Musk's deal, Twitter employees had already been venting for weeks on Slack about Musk and defending the platform's moderation enforcement.
One person saying, if Twitter brings back the politicians who call for violence and the misinformation bots and the harassers and other dangerous creeps, then this will definitely push the world more fashy.
I'm not saying you should move, but I've become accustomed to better Twitter.
Oh, better Twitter.
One person said, a Musk-owned Twitter is one of the greatest threats to the 2022 and 2024 elections.
We are effed if this happens.
Oh, my stars and garters, they're admitting it?
Yeah, what this person is basically saying, it's just one person, Laura on Twitter.
They know that in order to win elections, they need control of the communication platform.
Fascinating.
I'm curious about what efforts are being taken against Elon Musk.
Well, we have this first.
From the Washington Post, Elon Musk boosts criticism of Twitter executives, prompting online attacks.
The targeting of employees by Musk's massive Twitter megaphone is a major concern for workers.
I don't care.
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.
No, I'll address the story and point out, if a prominent individual names you, and then mean people say mean things to you, I don't care.
Welcome to the real world.
I've received threats too.
I don't go screaming about it every single time.
The only time in recent history I did was when I had to cancel an event in Nashville, and I talked about it because people were wondering why we did it.
I get threats fairly often.
I don't go screaming about them.
I don't look at my notifications on Twitter, because Twitter is a trash website full of angry people who simply seek to emotionally destroy you.
As someone of decent mental fortitude, I will say, I roll with the punches.
I have a good time.
I got these lefties tweeting at me and insulting me or whatever.
I think, make a good joke, I'll laugh about it, but you're not, you're not getting me down.
I'm gonna talk about how I feel about things.
I'm gonna be an adult about it.
I'm gonna be a man about it.
And then I'm gonna go skate, I'm gonna play my guitar, talk to my friends, and just keep on with the mission.
But too many people freak out.
Taylor Lorenz.
She writes a story about libs of TikTok, revealing the private address and name of this person.
When people get mad about it and criticize her, she gets angry and says, I'm the victim.
I put up one little old Times Square billboard saying she did a thing she did.
And then everyone loses their minds.
All of these journalists freaking out like it's the end of the world.
You don't get to wield institutional power against Elon Musk and then get mad when he tweets back.
Elon Musk is also getting death threats and harassment.
He seems to be mighty fine with it.
Not fine in the sense that we like that it's happening, when people get threats, be it a small Twitter account or one of the largest, Elon Musk.
No, but we accept it's a part of reality, and we just gotta watch our backs.
It's an unfortunate reality to being in the public space.
Crazy people exist.
You know what I tell people?
I'm not worried about Antifa.
If I want to go to an Antifa rally, sure, I'll be worried about Antifa.
I'm worried about the people who think that I stole all of the spoons and I'm secretly keeping them on Sasquatch Mountain on the dark side of the moon, and that I have a portal in my basement to get me there.
I'm worried about the people who are not right.
Those are the people who are Who are a real danger.
Going to events and someone accusing me of something insane.
Now, there are many people on the left who believe insane things on the right as well, and there's an overlap between crazy people and sane people.
But the issue is, when you have hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, crazy people will see you.
And I mean not to disparage people who are mentally ill.
They need help.
But if they think you genuinely are giving the nation's spoons to Bigfoot and you have to be stopped by any means necessary, how do you deal with that?
Some people are just out of it.
Now they're trying to claim that Elon Musk is harassing, but here's where it gets juicy.
I love this.
From Quartz, Elon Musk has already broken his agreement with Twitter.
No, he didn't.
But sure, let's see what they have to say.
When Twitter agreed to sell itself to Elon Musk for $44 billion on April 25th, the two parties agreed to specific terms of the merger, signed a document, and filed it to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Musk doesn't yet own Twitter, and he won't for many more months.
But he is now locked into a contract with the social network's current management, and there's a $1 billion penalty at the stake if he pulls out.
The two sides also agreed to certain rules of behavior for the period before the deal closes.
And one day after the agreement was reached, Musk already broke the rules.
Scott, you are wrong.
Talk to a lawyer about this, because the lawyers aren't saying he did anything wrong.
This is ridiculous.
These people are so desperate to create a narrative of, Twitter won't be sold to Elon Musk!
It likely will be.
There's a chance it won't.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say it's a done deal.
But this idea that Musk broke the rules?
Here's what they say.
Musk's agreement with Twitter allows him to tweet about the merger, quote, so long as such tweets do not disparage Twitter or any of its representatives.
But on April 26, Musk tweeted what could be considered two separate disparaging comments about Twitter employees.
After Politico reported that Vijay Agade, Twitter's top lawyer and head of trust and safety, had cried in an internal meeting following news of the acquisition, conservative journalist Sagar Ranjani tweeted a screenshot.
Elon Musk said that, what did he say, the censorship of Hunter Biden laptop story was inappropriate.
Some of that effect got a steam which is in charge of the content moderation blah blah blah on Tuesday musk
Jumped at the fray and said suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful
story was obviously incredibly appropriate Just hours later musk replied to a tweet by right-wing
conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich Mike Cernovich, of course who got who broke major news on
Epstein got Giz Lane G Lane or whatever name is to actually get prosecuted
Mike Cernovich, who has broken major stories of members of Congress, sure.
He said Jim Baker was facilitating fraud, and that's Jim Baker as a Twitter counsel.
And Elon Musk said, sounds pretty bad.
This is far from Musk's first play at towing the line on Twitter.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Elon Musk did not break the rules.
They're lying to you.
But, hey, give it to Aaron Rupar!
Is he still with Vox, I believe?
I guess not, now he's at Substack.
He tweeted, Elon Musk isn't contractually allowed to disparage Twitter, and yet his last two tweets have been to disparage Twitter officials.
Wrong!
Elon Musk is not allowed to tweet about the merger disparaging Twitter officials.
That is, Elon Musk can't say, this merger means X and Twitter employee Y is trash.
What he can say is, Twitter is trash.
He can't tweet about the merger while disparaging.
You see that?
They even mention it in the court's article, but this is where the media lies about you.
Lies to you.
It says, Musk's agreement with Twitter allows him to tweet about the merger so long as such tweets do not disparage.
Elon Musk did not tweet about the merger by referencing a meme.
This meme right here?
Here's an example of Twitter's left-wing bias.
Then Vijaya responding, we have taken into consideration.
Me responding, Twitter's interpretation is affected by their bias.
You can argue it's disparaging.
That's fine.
But he's not tweeting about the merger.
It is not such a tweet.
You see how they try and get you?
They try and play dirty games.
Here's, uh, my response, of course, is, yo, Elon Musk, come on my show, bring Starlink.
Elon Musk, for this reason, likely will not be coming on my show.
Well, first, let me just say, Elon Musk probably wouldn't come on my show because Elon Musk is the richest man in the world and one of the most famous and most powerful and most popular, and, uh, I don't know if we have that kind of poll, but, uh, we've had some pretty prominent people, members of the Trump administration, Mike Rowe and other celebrities.
We had Ethan Suplee, uh, I'm probably pronouncing your name wrong, uh, really rad guy.
So, we've had our share of big names on the show, but, you know, getting Elon Musk on the show would be huge.
Granted, I mean, we've had Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Blair White, Michael Malice, all- and Drew Hernandez, all on at the same time, so, that was a bit of a fun show.
But, uh, I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I have the pull to bring Elon Musk over to Tim Castellawell.
But, assuming Elon knows who I am, and I presume he does because he knows about the meme, he's likely listened to the episode or at least heard a bit about it, I don't think he'd come on the show because a live environment could result in him talking about the merger and potentially disparaging them at the same time.
So if he were to come on, it would have to be, but we can't talk about the Twitter merger at all.
The challenge there is, someone else might bring it up, and in this context, he might say something, so I would not be surprised if for legal reasons, And for safety reasons, it probably is a good idea Elon Musk doesn't go on a live podcast.
Now, if Elon Musk were to come on and he literally said, we will not discuss Twitter, at all.
Okay.
I suppose the challenge is, how do you control for that?
You know what I want to say?
I would, uh, I don't know if I would want to, to do the show with Elon, because I would not want to be responsible for that deal falling through, if by hosting Elon, this, you know, show ended up being the reason.
So, again, I'm not trying to say that we're that prominent to have someone like Elon on the show, I'm just saying, across the board, Elon's probably going to avoid doing shows talking about these issues, but it's possible.
It's entirely possible Elon could do the show and talk about SpaceX, social media, freedom of speech, and all of these issues and just say, if Twitter comes up, I'm not going to talk about Twitter.
And I think he could be fine in that regard.
So, you know, we would do our best to make sure it works.
But of course, once again, we must bring up the Silicon Valley pitfalls.
And a tweet from Sean King, who has since returned to Twitter.
He says, I am told this morning that Apple and Google will remove Twitter from the App Store if it does not moderate and remove hate speech.
Under Elon Musk.
This isn't a new policy, but a commitment already made.
Amazon Web Services has the same commitment, so there's that.
That's a great point.
It's a great point.
It's a good point, and it's also scary.
Sean King's right.
should make it clear and reiterate that Twitter won't get special treatment.
Some of what Musk plans to do will violate Apple's requirements for the App Store, and
Apple needs to make it clear they will enforce their rules and uphold their requirements.
It's a good point, and it's also scary.
Sean King's right.
Twitter probably won't be removed from the App Store because it's too big.
But probably the only reason it's in the App Store is because it's part of the establishment
machine and they allow it.
Twitter breaks the rules all the time.
Twitter allows speech that would get it banned from the App Store, but they don't ban it.
Now that Elon Musk is taking over, they can simply say, but you know, we already told you the rules, Elon.
You can't be on our shared services.
Elon, you're gonna have to buy Google.
I don't think Elon can afford to buy Google.
So, I don't know how you pull it off.
Maybe Twitter gets removed from the store?
Maybe not.
Here's some funny goings on, though.
Gab.com has been unverified.
Gab tweeting, Twitter just unverified Gab.
Oh, it's so funny, whatever it is happening behind the scenes.
It's there for a good laugh.
Take a look at this story from Wired.
Right-wing trolls are trying to break back into Twitter.
No, I disagree.
But here's what they say.
They say, uh, within two hours of Twitter's announcement, the first concerning signs flashed across Joe Mulhall's screen.
Mulhall's a director of research at Hope Not Hate.
When Musk heralded his purchase, blah blah blah blah blah, Mulhall saw new accounts being set up on Twitter by previously banned far-right individuals and groups, including Tommy Robinson and whatever whatever whatever.
Break back onto Twitter.
Sure, a handful of people set up accounts, but I don't think that's what's happening.
It's not so much conservatives, because Elon Musk isn't a conservative.
I mean, maybe, but probably not.
He said he was a socialist a couple years ago.
But if you believe in free speech, and free speech isn't a left or right issue, I mean, it shouldn't be, you're gaining followers.
What's happening here?
Of course the narrative seems to be that the left is leaving the platform in droves and the right is joining in droves.
I disagree.
I believe we may have more answers as to what is going on with this mystery.
Let me show you this tweet.
Let me show you some tweets we got here.
I would like to introduce you to our good friend Josie the Red-Headed Libertarian, whose Twitter handle is at TRHLOfficial.
Josie the Red-Headed Libertarian has been a guest on TimCast IRL more than once, and we are friends and fans of her commentary.
And I gotta admit, Queen Josie is a particularly astute individual.
Tweeting, January 9th, 2019.
The Democrats will run Biden on misplaced nostalgia alone.
Too white and maley?
His VP will be Kamala Harris.
Heard it here first.
Fascinating.
Redhead Libertarian called it.
Now, on January 20th, 2021, Red-Headed Libertarian tweeted, can't kick the Biden-Harris regime change off without this fan-favorite prediction from 2019.
This was the last tweet the Red-Headed Libertarian was able to make before being arbitrarily banned from the platform.
No rule violation, no warning, and no appeal.
Nuked.
Now hold on there a minute.
The Red-Headed Libertarian is back on Twitter.
How is that possible?
How is it possible that just the other day, the red-headed Libertarian account has been unbanned?
I tweeted, Now that's my opinion on what's happening.
before arbitrarily getting banned was about predicting Biden and Harris.
Her account was abruptly reinstated. The flux is not organic.
Twitter is removing their political bans, and Elon just bought all the evidence.
Now, that's my opinion on what's happening. It's a bold claim, but typically I make moves
based on what I think is the most probable. It makes no sense that overnight, hundreds
of thousands of people just re-signed up for Twitter.
Perhaps tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands reactivated accounts, and then all of us, you know, they were like, I'm quitting, and they just deactivate their accounts.
But hold on, why are we seeing progressives lose tons of followers?
I'll give you my theory.
It's a wild theory, and it's just a thought.
There's no real evidence to it.
First, I do believe there are many people on the left that are abruptly leaving the platform.
Um, you know, Sean King left, but he came back, so we'll see.
But Katy Perry lost 200,000 followers.
Certainly, Katy Perry stans are not going like, I can't believe Elon got the platform, I'm quitting!
Entertain the idea for just a moment, if you will.
The internet was being dominated by freedom-loving voices.
People say that the internet before 2016 was right-wing.
The Donald that dominated Reddit.
Donald Trump won.
They thought he couldn't do it.
How did they do it?
Well, it was unfettered social media.
The people were allowed to talk, and the people stood up and said, we want freedom.
Something changed.
People started getting suspended, banned.
Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Carl Benjamin, Laura Loomer, Project Veritas, more recently, Donald Trump.
These voices were getting purged from the conversation.
The red-headed libertarian was purged from the platform.
Here's what I think.
I think Twitter has a political algorithm that targets right-wingers based on certain things they might say, and it bans them arbitrarily, which is why there are so many oopsie accidents.
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.
Someone who's prominent accidentally gets nuked and the algorithm wasn't supposed to catch them.
So then when everyone complains, they say that was a mistake because the automated machine is blanket banning people and it caught someone who is too prominent and noteworthy.
On the left, I'll tell you what I think.
I think they created fake accounts.
They, as in maybe Democrat-aligned or progressive-aligned powerful organizations, maybe Twitter was in on it, I don't know.
I believe these accounts propped up left-wing Twitter profiles.
There's no reason everyone would just flip overnight.
And I'll break this down for you.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez loses 27,000 followers on Tuesday.
Something like that.
Why?
Because Elon Musk got won?
Why wouldn't they quit the platform on Monday, when the news broke that Elon won?
They were like, I'm gonna give Elon a free 24 hours of my labor and then I'll quit.
That doesn't make sense.
When tracking the numbers on SocialBlade, the abrupt change happened seemingly overnight, a day after.
Elon Musk was announced to have won his bid.
It was 2.53 p.m.
on Monday, Eastern Time, when the news broke.
So you mean to tell me that at this moment, tons of people just flipped?
Nope.
Sorry.
Makes no sense.
There's a live Twitter tracker.
They can see this.
It was the next day.
Which says to me, there was a ban.
The only, the simplest explanation is, if Josie is getting reinstated abruptly after, what is this now, over a year, her account was reinstated, a year later, seems like someone went in and removed Some kind of code or algorithm that was banning people.
I don't think Twitter employees are rushing through and clicking unban.
It's possible as well.
But considering Marjorie Taylor Greene gained nearly 100,000 followers, I gained 60,000 followers.
I do not believe Twitter employees are working overtime going one by one through these accounts and clicking deactivate.
It seems automated.
And it seems to have happened overnight.
But the same can be true for why these account- why- why, uh, progressives are losing followers.
I do not believe that progressives sat back on Monday and they went, wow, Elon won.
Look, give me 24 hours before I shut my account down.
Now it's possible that when you deactivate your account, it doesn't register in someone's follower count until the next day.
Okay, okay.
That's why I'm saying it's a wild theory.
But Elon Musk bought the evidence.
To the very least, we will see something, I suppose.
I don't know exactly what'll end up playing out, and perhaps it really is organic.
But considering Josie was unbanned a year later, and that Josie was banned for literally no reason, I'm gonna go ahead and say, the most logical explanation is that Twitter operates an algorithm that targets right-wing individuals, people associated with the right or libertarianism, and bans them.
And they've deactivated it.
We'll see if we see anything.
In another tweet, I'm sorry, the same tweet, in another story from TimCast.com, Senator Hawley is calling for a Twitter censorship audit.
The junior senator from Missouri wants Musk to bring back transparency to social media.
Good.
Hawley's office released a letter the senator sent to Elon Musk, the presumptive future owner of Twitter, suggesting that the entrepreneur open the social media site to a public audit once he takes over.
Yes, yes, yes, do it, Elon.
Let's get it done.
Elon, make it happen.
Elon tweeted out, Truth Social is currently beating Twitter and TikTok on the Apple Store.
He said, Truth Social, terrible name, exists because Twitter censored free speech.
He's right.
Twitter had the opportunity to own this space.
They had Vine.
Vine was huge and fun and worked.
They nuked it.
They could have been Snapchat.
They could have been TikTok.
Instead, Twitter was taken over by psychopath ideologues Who harmed the platform and hurt the company.
Truth Social is now number one.
Another bit of evidence I think suggests that Twitter is playing dirty games.
Jack Posobiec said that the reason Truth Social is number one is because they just opened up their servers, the waitlist is over, and everyone is now getting access.
But number one in the App Store means downloads.
If people were already on the waitlist, that means they already had the app.
It makes no sense that people would be fleeing Twitter to Truth Social while simultaneously signing up for new accounts all at the same time.
It's possible.
But I don't think it makes sense, as I stated in my earlier segment.
I don't know exactly how it will play out because Elon Musk still has to win.
We don't know if he's going to cross that finish line.
I think it's overwhelmingly likely he will.
I think the left is in full-on panic, desperate to claim he's broken the rules!
The admission from some of these people that they know the political power they wield using Twitter.
The one tweet that said it's going to be really dangerous for 2022 and 2024.
It's quite amazing, isn't it?
People know, on the left, they cannot win elections if there is free speech.
It's a terrifying prospect that these people had power in the first place.
I'll throw something else into the mix.
Elon, if you can buy Reddit, buy Reddit.
You want to talk about dirty dealings, shady goings-on, I'm willing to bet that if you look at Reddit and their internals, you will see corruption bursting at the scene.
CEO Steve Huffman once said they could sway an election if they wanted to.
Did they?
Did they manipulate algorithms?
They banned, they shadow banned the Donald.
You see, on Reddit, the number one subreddit basically was the Donald.
Every day on the front page was nothing but Donald Trump memes.
And so they said, we gotta stop this from happening.
Why?
If it's what people wanted, they can choose to unsubscribe.
Why throttle or shadow ban the Donald?
Something really fascinating happened.
Let me tell you about the dirty dealings.
The Donald, on Reddit, recognizing that they were not long for that platform, created something called TheDonald.Win, which has since been changed to Patriots.Win.
It was about six months later, when the subreddit was already shuttered, Reddit took the subreddit down, citing some kind of calls for violence or something like that.
It's funny.
Because now, on their own website, they said, no one's even posted on the platform.
Reddit's lying!
Well, of course they're lying.
They've all been lying about everything.
So Vijayagade cried.
When she had a meeting about Elon Musk taking over, I'll tell you why.
I'm willing to bet that Vijay Gane knows about the illegal, amoral, unethical things they were doing, the malfeasance of Twitter, and how much do you want to bet they lied to Congress when they said, we don't implement political censorship, we're not biased, the rules are all treated, you know, enforced equally?
You think they knew they were lying?
I do.
And how many of them may actually get investigated for it?
Well, probably none.
I don't think they'll get investigated at all.
But perhaps they're still scared about it.
Perhaps they know the public may react.
Recently, NewsGuard gave the Daily Beast a new rating of fake news.
The times, they are a changing, my friends.
The machine is crumbling.
We are storming that hill.
I jokingly referred to Elon Musk as Gandalf, and the writer, the Rohirrim, you know, Lord of the Rings, the Battle of Helm's Deep, and they're running in, ah, you know, it's a joke, calm down.
But it seems like we are taking great ground with Elon Musk leading the charge, and now it's gonna be up to us to do what we can to stand up.
Those that are providing evidence of wrongdoing, whistleblowing, heroes, be brave.
Stand up, speak up, because now is the time.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, something strange is happening behind the scenes at Twitter.
Left-wing accounts are losing thousands of followers, right-wing accounts are gaining tens of thousands of followers, and no one knows why.
My friends, we have a mystery on our hands.
Perhaps A conspiracy.
Now, of course, the official narrative that seems to make the most sense is that right-wing users are just coming back.
Now that Elon Musk is announced to be taking over Twitter, the right says, we are free!
And the left is simply fleeing the platform because they don't want to be in a platform owned by Elon Musk.
Perhaps.
But there's a few other things that I think shine a light on what may really be going on.
I don't know for sure.
I would like to posit to you a few data points that suggest something nefarious is happening behind the scenes.
Some have suggested it may be an Enron-type scenario, where at Twitter they're destroying documents, changing code, and trying to make sure Elon Musk does not find out what they were really doing.
You see, right now, as tens of thousands of people seemingly just follow Tucker Carlson for some reason, Truth Social shoots up to number one in the App Store.
Am I to believe that Trump supporters are simultaneously signing up for both Truth and Twitter at the same time?
I don't believe it.
Some have said, Truth Social is number one because they just joined Rumble's cloud service, and now they can onboard everybody.
That doesn't necessarily explain why everyone is downloading the app all at the same time, but perhaps.
Perhaps people got an email notification saying, you're on.
But that doesn't make sense because you'd have to sign up with the app to get in line.
You'd have to already have the app on your phone.
The App Store rankings are for people downloading the app.
At least I'm pretty sure.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Here's what I think.
I think Twitter is removing politically biased bans.
And it's extremely obvious.
And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is the proof.
You see, it's one thing if prominent personalities like Tucker Carlson gain tens of thousands of followers.
The narrative being Trump supporters are coming back or signing up.
Then people are like, who do I follow?
I guess I'll follow Tucker.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene is not as famous as Tucker Carlson.
Certainly Tucker would gain substantially more followers, right?
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe he's already got all the followers.
So why are people now coming back and following Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Well, Marjorie's followers are likely to be those who shared the Hunter Biden laptop story, or likely who were suspended or banned.
More likely to have been.
With this massive surge, I think she gained nearly 100,000 followers.
I believe Twitter has removed a ban that was in effect on right-wing accounts, and we're hearing some of this testimony.
Accounts popping up saying, I was banned until two days ago, and then they announced the sale, and all of a sudden, Twitter allows me back on the platform.
Interesting.
How much do you want to bet behind the scenes, Twitter had some kind of algorithm or system in place that was overtly politically biased?
And they're panicking because Elon Musk is gonna come in, he's gonna see it and be like, whoa!
What were you doing back here?
But let's start from the beginning.
Let's start with the official narrative here.
Now, of course, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member.
Help support our work.
As a member, you're keeping our journalists employed.
We just hired a new journalist.
We're going to be hiring a couple more columnists.
And you allow us to do things like buying billboards in Times Square that will push back on the mainstream media and help make our show bigger.
Share the show!
Hit the like button, all that good stuff.
You'll get access to members-only segments at TimCast.com, but let's read the story from NBC.
Now, I believe this story from NBC is untrustworthy, and I'll explain that, but let's read.
They say.
Twitter, which did not provide an exact number of accounts that were shuttered or activated in the hours after the announcement, said it was looking into recent fluctuations.
Ben Collins writes, Twitter has been flooded with user reports of high-profile accounts losing thousands of followers after news broke that Tesla CEO Elon Musk would purchase the network.
Some accounts on the political right, including that of Marjorie Taylor Greene, saw their
follower counts skyrocket.
Greene, who boasted 539,000 followers the day before news of Musk's takeover, had 632,000
followers by Tuesday evening.
Twitter did not provide an exact number.
unidentified
Quote, while we continue to take action on accounts that violate our spam policy, which
can affect follower counts, these fluctuations appear to be largely a result of an increase
in new account creation and deactivation, Twitter said in a statement.
A spokesperson at Twitter who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the accounts that
experienced the most severe drop-offs in followers were high-profile accounts.
Obama, they say, the most followed user, lost more than 300,000 followers after Monday's
I don't buy it.
Pop star Katy Perry, the third most-followed Twitter user, lost more than 200,000.
Something does not add up.
Some right-wing politicians noticed and lauded the increased follower counts Tuesday.
It really is something how conservative accounts are getting massive follower increases today.
Blah, blah, blah.
Higher Bolsonaro of Brazil gained 90,000.
Okay, okay, let's slow down there a minute.
Why would Katy Perry lose 200,000 followers?
I'll tell you what I think.
I think Twitter is lying.
I think Twitter fabricated numbers.
I think Twitter is playing dirty games.
Let me take you back in time.
We will go back, my friends, 13 years. 2009.
2009, I remember seeing commercials for Twitter.
And I'm wondering, what is this?
It was like, I was watching a Sprint commercial.
And they were using Twitter like, going to the mall.
And it's like, dad, don't use Twitter.
And I was just like, dude, I'm a millennial.
I don't know people who are using Twitter that way.
Twitter was being used by tech bros.
It was being, and I was like, what's the point?
I can post the same message on Facebook.
Now, I started using Twitter around Occupy Wall Street more substantially.
Had my account since 2009.
And it was because getting out quick messages into the news cycle worked.
It was a really fast way to see a flow of information coming in reverse chronological order.
Made sense.
But at the time, before I started using it, the narrative on social media in the hacker spaces was that Twitter was creating fake followers and fake accounts to make people believe that they were gaining prominence.
We've heard similar stories about Reddit, that in the early days of Reddit, Alex Sohanian and, what's the other guy's name, Steve Huffman, were sock puppeting to convince people to make them think there were a lot of users on the platform.
That is, why would someone use a platform with no followers?
So what did they do?
They said, look at all the people engaging with you.
And on Twitter, they're like, wow, look how many followers you have.
5,000 people want to hear what you have to say.
I don't know if it was fake accounts or whatever.
I think it's possible, however, that if there's a big purge happening right now, how much do you want to bet that the political bias in the system was like, make it look like these celebrities are more famous, make it look like these left-wing personalities are more prominent, and suppress people on the right or ban them?
It may actually be not a single phenomenon.
It may be that there are bots Fluffing up the numbers of people on the left to make them look more popular and more prominent, which I believe is probably true.
I know for a fact some prominent journalists, their accounts are totally fake.
And I think it's possible that they have to get rid of that before Elon Musk steps in.
We have this story from Fortune.
Big Twitter accounts on the left are losing followers and those on the right are gaining since Musk's buyout was sealed.
Well, my friends, I'd like to bring you over to Social Blade for Timcast.
Why, it's me!
There's me, Tim Pool, with 1,171,915 followers.
Man, why do I have so many followers?
Thank you for following me on Twitter, I guess.
But I post so much nonsense.
Take a look at this.
On Monday, 1,146 new followers.
On Tuesday, 19,756.
On Wednesday, 39,425.
Okay, let's slow down there one moment.
How could this be?
We also have this Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson gained 62,000 followers in half a day.
He lost 50,000 followers yesterday.
This is not people coming back.
News broke yesterday.
Something effed up is happening.
Check it out.
Why?
On Monday, they announced, on Monday morning, I wake up and the news is breaking.
I'm like groggily looking at my phone and it's like Elon Musk set to buy Twitter.
That information alone should have resulted in a major influx.
Within that 24-hour period, you mean to tell me nobody signed up?
Nobody came back and said, yo, I'm here for this.
It makes no sense.
If, you know, people are saying that tons of Trump supporters and conservatives, libertarian types, are coming back to the platform to neener-neener at those who are upset.
I can imagine that's true to a certain degree.
But on Monday morning when the news broke that Twitter was in deep negotiations and the news story from Reuters was Elon set to become new owner of Twitter.
You'd think right then people on the right would be like, yo, let me get on Twitter and start spamming this.
No, they waited.
Not, okay, so then at 2.53 p.m.
Monday, we get the breaking news that Elon Musk has secured the deal.
But even then, Trump supporters did not sign up.
They didn't.
They said, oh, well, hold on.
You know, I'm gonna wait a day before coming back on the platform.
No, no, no, when the news broke, you would have seen at least an influx.
Take a look.
On Monday, 1,146 people followed me.
On Sunday, 1,288.
The numbers are comparable.
There was no substantial change.
Not even 100 people.
Not even 200.
What you should see, if this was people coming back organically, on Monday, it could maybe be 5,000.
Then by Tuesday, 19.
Why?
Well, because news travels slowly for a lot of people.
They don't watch our show until late at night, and they don't get the information until the next day.
That's possible.
But why not a single blip?
Not a single blip on Monday.
Something happened overnight.
Now, I understand Social Blade may actually just calculate 24-hour blocks.
It may be from 5 p.m.
to 5 p.m.
the next day, who knows?
But, whatever the time frame is, Monday should show an anomalous increase from the previous day, which it does not.
So, to put it simply, They may say, like, at 5 p.m.
every day, we check how many followers you have, and that's how we calculate.
It doesn't make sense that SocialBlade would cut the day in half and be like, we're gonna check at noon.
But even if they did check at noon, you had at 8 in the morning news that Elon Musk was winning.
Certainly a thousand people of the 60,000 who followed me since, a thousand?
Certainly one sixtieth would have signed up.
Something doesn't make sense.
Now you want to talk about new people signing up?
How is it that Marjorie Taylor Greene gained nearly 100,000 followers?
Marjorie Taylor Greene has 539,000 followers.
She jumped to 632.
Tucker Carlson has substantially more.
What does he have, like 2 or 3 million?
Millions.
I don't know how many he has.
He has millions of followers.
Now, it's possible that many people who follow Tucker did not follow Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Now hold on there, that doesn't make sense.
If those people were already on Twitter following Tucker, they just decided randomly to follow Marjorie Taylor Greene this day?
It doesn't make sense.
Tyler, CEO of The Blaze, says, definitely something bizarre happening with the Twitter algorithm impacting follower counts.
Carlson's up 62,000.
Rogan up 63.
Trump Jr., 87.
Ted Cruz, 51.
Maddow's down 18.
Cooper's down 10.
AOC's down 27.
Kamala Harris down 22.
Hillary Clinton down 17.
What's going on?
Gabbard's up 10,000.
Rand Paul's up 33,000.
Ilhan Omar.
You start to notice something really interesting.
The more the individual is in opposition or outside the establishment, the more followers they gain.
The more prominent they are within establishment media, the more followers they lose.
Trump Jr., 87. Ted Cruz, 51. Matt Owens is 18. AOC, 27. Or maybe it's a left versus right thing.
It's interesting.
interesting.
I think what we're seeing here is some kind of hardcore algorithmic manipulation.
I think it's possible that what really happened is quite simple.
Twitter removed overtly political bans.
It may have something to do with Elon Musk.
Let me see, maybe it's this one right here.
Cernovich says, Elon responded.
Sounds pretty bad.
When General Counsel of the FBI personally arranged a meeting between the FBI and Michael
Sussman.
In this meeting, Sussman presented fabricated evidence in the Alpha Bank matter.
Elon Musk, this is who is inside Twitter, he facilitated fraud.
Elon responded.
Sounds pretty bad.
Elon also responded saying that blocking a legitimate news story was a huge mistake.
And that's what they did.
Twitter is still lying about it.
One Twitter engineer said it was a hacked materials policy, which they just made up, never implemented again, and the materials weren't hacked.
Lies.
Elon Musk said that was a mistake.
Could it be that at Twitter, they still had the bans in effect?
Yes.
It's quite simple, my friends.
I think what happened was, Twitter kept saying the people who shared the Hunter Biden laptop story at the time, they said banning Hunter Biden's laptop story was a mistake.
But they did not unban the people who did it, who shared the story.
Once Elon Musk moved in, they went in and removed all of the bans on people who had shared the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That means Marjorie Taylor Greene would likely gain more followers than Tucker Carlson because her followers are more likely to be aligned with this knowledge.
This is a hypothesis, my thesis here.
This instantly reactivated a bunch of accounts who are now following all of these personalities.
Fascinating.
The deactivations from the left may be legitimate, because they don't want to assist in Elon Musk making money or something like that.
But I don't understand how you could have this massive influx of people signing up for Twitter, and at the same time, where's the, here we go, Trump's Truth Social has suddenly shot to the top of the App Store.
It doesn't make sense.
Again, some people said, well, Truth just got on cloud infrastructure with Rumble, which is a big deal, and now they can onboard everybody.
Maybe, but if the people were on a wait list to get on Truth Social, they had already downloaded the app.
So why would the app now be the top app?
It says, Truth Social has been seeing the most installs.
People who were in the waitlist already had the app on their phone.
Did they delete it and then re-download it maybe?
Perhaps.
But that's a stretch.
In the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
Occam's Razor.
I do not believe people deleted Truth Social.
I don't use it, but I still have it on my iPhone.
I don't really use iPhone, but I have one.
I just, I'm not gonna delete the app, I just didn't open it.
Why would people delete the app and then redownload it?
It doesn't make sense.
Why would people all flood to Truth Social at the same time they're all flooding to Twitter?
It does not make sense.
It doesn't add up.
It could be that Truth Social announced there was no more waitlist, and new people flooded to the platform, But that's also not making sense.
Why would people go to both Twitter and Truth at the exact same time?
You mean Trump supporters and conservatives are both like, we need to get off Twitter and go to Truth Social and also get back on Twitter because Elon took over?
I don't get it.
It does not make sense.
Mike Cernovich tweets, Unless these past two days can be explained via new signups or reactivations, then Twitter's employees have a lot of explaining to do come November when Republicans take power.
Maybe that's exactly what the panic is about.
An Enron type situation.
Maybe what's happening is that something behind the scenes is shifting, changing.
Twitter locked down its code.
What does that mean?
Now, initially the reporting was they were worried about rogue employees.
I believe that's possible.
But what does locked down mean?
Does anybody have access to it?
Does it mean that they can go in and see the code but can't edit it, read only?
Or does it mean they can't access the code at all?
Could it be that Twitter engineers are going in and locking everyone else out and then purging overtly politically biased algorithmic code or something like that?
Honestly, I don't know.
What I can say is the official narrative as to what's happening with the follower counts does not add up.
Something strange is happening.
The logic does not, it doesn't.
You want to tell me it's a coincidence?
The left just leaves, the right comes back, the right also leaves to Truth Social because they want two apps?
Yo, people couldn't even go to Parler or Gab or Getter.
You know, those platforms saw an influx of users, but mostly people who had been banned on other platforms.
Or who left Twitter.
So, people are choosing to come back to Twitter, but also choosing to open up another Twitter alternative?
I'm not buying it.
I think the reactivations are on the Twitter side, not on the user side.
I think maybe they didn't realize what was going to happen when they clicked that button.
I'm willing to bet someone at Twitter was like, quick, quick, quick, remove the Hunter Biden purge!
And they clicked remove, and then all of a sudden, boom!
A massive surge of new followers.
And I will stress this point again.
It is exemplified by the fact Tucker Carlson lost followers on Monday when the news broke.
So let me say this.
I want to drive this home.
People who supposedly want to gloat over Elon Musk winning didn't show up the day he won?
I'm sorry, you're full of it.
That makes no sense.
I'll say it a million times.
Now, Elon Musk, he's got some challenges on his hands.
We have this tweet from this activist in China.
He says, the problem of Twitter is algorithm promoting extreme content to keep the platform more clicks.
The censorship is introduced to balance this deadly problem.
Simply removing the control and not changing the click-driven model will bring no free speech but more hate and bias.
It's not completely wrong.
What may happen is that people will find a path towards gaining followers by becoming more and more extreme.
They want to keep one-upping themselves.
There's an addiction.
I've explained this before with media.
You write an article saying Donald Trump is bad, you get a million clicks.
You then write Donald Trump is the worst.
You get a million clicks.
If you write the same story again, you won't get any clicks.
So then you say, Donald Trump is the most terrifying president we've ever seen.
A million clicks.
Then you say, Trump could be as bad as Hitler.
A million clicks.
Then you say, Trump is as bad.
A million clicks.
Then you say, Trump is worse.
But once you've gotten to that point, you can't go back and say Trump's not that bad.
Because then you don't get clicks and people say, what are you talking about?
You just told me how bad it was.
They're trying to keep the addiction going.
But every time they do something, you need a bigger and bigger dose.
So what happens is, on Twitter, on the left and the right, you see this algorithmic drive towards the extremes, towards hyperpolarization.
Twitter decided to ban the right, but not the left.
So the left was driven absolutely insane, believing psychotic things.
And now you have a cult emerging.
Twitter wouldn't get rid of it because, as I described it, Jack Dorsey was guzzling the refuse of his own toilet.
He built the toilet, he asked everyone to sit on it, and then he ingested the vomit and refuse that they were spewing out onto the platform, believing the psychosis that he had created through his refuse machine.
Censorship is not the answer.
It won't solve the problem.
This idea that someone can come in, snap their fingers, and create a healthy conversation is absurd.
It can't be done.
And you can't stop people from communicating.
The speed at which we communicate is going to play a role in this.
So what we need is cultural resilience, which is earned, not forced.
Meaning people need to go on the platform, and then you need to let people say what they want to say, and let society determine what is too much or not enough.
And the left has gone insane, but Twitter won't do anything about it, because it's the left that is running the platform, a bunch of lunatics!
Hopefully Elon Musk can solve the problem by just saying, everyone stop, enough, back off, let the machine run.
Let it run, and then we'll see what we can figure out.
In the meantime, I think Elon Musk is about to get access to a trove of evidence.
Elon Musk did not just buy a Twitter platform, he bought evidence.
This'll be interesting.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In today's episode of Your Average Journalist Knows Nothing About Guns, a liberal BBC reporter is shocked and outraged that he can't get a plug converter for his UK plug, but he can get a rifle and ammunition at Walmart!
Okay, well, to be honest, you can get a rifle and ammunition at Walmart, depending on which state you're in.
Many of them just have shotguns, but you can get guns in Walmart, and many of them do have plug converters.
I guess the one he went to didn't have it.
The only problem, good sir, is that he posted a photo on Twitter of BB guns.
He posted BB guns.
Alright, look, a few years ago, I did a segment on this female reporter who went and tried to buy a gun and it's fascinating to me that there are people who consider themselves reporters on these issues that want to espouse their opinions on gun control and they've never even tried to get one.
I mean, look.
I'll frame it this way.
When I was in St.
Louis during the Ferguson riots, I said, we got a story about a cop fighting with some kid, or whatever the story is, and, you know, this young man gets shot and killed.
I think I need to at least wield a gun for the first time to understand some of the context around it.
So we went to a gun rage, and I said, I as a journalist should not be talking about why, you know, my thoughts and opinions on why a police officer might shoot someone if I've never even held a live gun.
We went to a shooting range, and I believe we used a Glock 17, and I fired, I believe, 10 rounds.
I successfully hit the target in the groin every time.
So, I was consistent, but my aim was off.
So, wouldn't want to be that guy.
But I thought, you know, look, if I'm going to report on this in all seriousness, I should at least talk to them, learn a bit about guns, ask them.
Because I don't live in this world where I think that there's a bunch of evil people like, yeah, I want to have guns, yeah, to hurt people.
No, I was like, you know, people have guns for self-defense, I can understand that.
So I went and used one, and got a walkthrough, an explanation.
After that, it was probably a couple years later, I actually did a standard firearm training course in New Jersey with the police, where they started me off with a .22 pistol of some sort.
And worked me up to 45 ACP, and it was fun.
And I had an instructor with me the whole time who explained what to do, proper holding and all that stuff.
I thought that was important.
But we have journalists who have lived their whole lives without ever seeing a gun in person.
And you know this is true because they think BB guns are guns.
Okay, I guess technically they are in a certain sense, but these are Red Rider carbine.
These are pellet rifles.
These are BB guns.
And it's absolutely fascinating that they don't know this.
When I talked about this a few years ago, there was this female journalist, and she went to buy a gun for the first time, and she couldn't.
I respect that.
She reported her experience, and that means that experience translated to many people who also live in that bubble of not knowing what guns are, how they work, and that's dangerous.
I think if you're gonna report on this stuff, if you're gonna report on gun crime and advocate for gun control, you should have extensive training so you can explain it.
Now you got people like David Hogg, who I think is... I think he's a grifter, alright?
And I'll tell you why.
This is the guy from Parkland.
And he's the person who was at home after the Parkland thing happened and ran back to the school to give interviews.
He doesn't know anything about guns.
He's also tweeted, if I could sit down, I could change some minds.
And I said, bro, come on the show.
No response.
I sent him a DM.
Hey, man, no, seriously, we'll cover your costs.
Would love to have you on the show.
No response.
Huh.
So strange.
So then I messaged him again.
I'm like, hey, bro, I sent you a DM.
Nobody owes me coming on my show.
I'm just saying, I think it is a bit... It's a sign.
When you say, I'd like to sit down and change some minds, and I say, bro, we will fly you out in style and have that conversation, and they say, no.
You just said you'd have a conversation.
Now you're not gonna do it?
Fine.
Speaking of that, Matt Bender.
You never emailed us about coming on the show.
This is a leftist podcaster.
We exchanged words in DM.
I said, hit us up to get the scheduling down.
I can't do anything else.
I say, email us to let us know, you know, when and how you want to come on the show, and then he doesn't do it.
That's the left for you, I suppose.
The cultural tribal left, not the economic whatever you want to call it.
Jimmy Dore's on the left, but this is the cultural left.
Here's the story.
I hope you're ready for this one.
We also have other news, too.
We've got Donald Trump Jr., who is going to be launching a gun rights group vowing to fight Democrat gun control in the process.
So good for him.
I'm I'm I'm excited for this.
I also want to go over this Britannica pro and con gun control arguments because it is vomitous.
The pros and cons are wrong.
They're absolutely wrong.
Pro and con arguments.
So Britannica goes through all these different, you're like, why should we have gun control?
Why shouldn't we?
And I'm going to debunk them.
I'm not even a gun expert.
I just have some.
And I can still debunk a bunch of these.
I'll give you an example.
They say AR-15s are military-style weapons, also known as M-16s.
No.
M-16s are select-fire, AR-15s are civilian models, and they're semi-auto.
Come on, guys.
What are you doing?
They're similar, sure, fine.
My friends, let's talk about this BBC reporter.
Who's getting roasted for thinking a BB gun is a real gun.
But before we get started, my friends, head over to surfinginternetsafe.com and get Virtual Shield.
That's right.
This segment is sponsored by Virtual Shield, a virtual private network service that provides you a basic layer of security as you browse the web.
Surfinginternetsafe.com, you'll get 50% off.
Works on basically every single device, iOS, Android, your computer, all of that good stuff.
All you gotta do is download the app, you press the button, boom, you got a VPN.
This means hackers, government agents, corporations have a harder time trying to steal your information.
It also encrypts your Wi-Fi signal in your own home.
So there's a lot of benefits to having a virtual private network service.
You can get it at Surfing Internet Safe.
And if you're interested in keeping yourself safe as you browse the web, you don't want people stealing your information, this is a good way to do it.
The way I say it, We don't expect people to break into our homes, but we still lock our doors and windows, right?
If someone really wanted to, they could battering ram down your door, but often the criminals will just jiggle the handle.
Once they see they can't get in, they leave.
That's the basic layer of security you'll be getting, and it's a little bit better than that, to be completely honest, but I also want to give Virtual Show the shoutout.
As all of these companies are, well, as certain podcasters are losing their sponsors, Virtual Shield is the first sponsor TimCast ever had, and they continue to remain a proud sponsor of the show, and proudly recommended by TimCast.
You know it.
Seriously, Virtual Shield, you've been with us since the beginning.
And so to everybody, if you're looking for a virtual private network, Virtual Shield is the kind of company that's going to stand on principle and support the work that we do.
Tremendous respect.
Let's read this story.
It's no wonder you guys lost the war.
BBC reporter is roasted by Americans for mistaking a BB gun for a real shotgun in Walmart and tweeting in disgust.
Oh no.
A BBC journalist on a work trip to the US was mocked for sharing a shot of a BB gun for sale in Walmart after apparently mistaking it for a real firearm.
The journalist, Pedraig Belton, You're not well-traveled.
No, I'll tell you this.
and in the Guardian, sent out the unfortunate tweet on April 26th.
According to Belton's Twitter feed, he arrived in the US on April 25th.
Upon arrival, he realized he didn't have a plug for his laptop.
Why we have the tweet?
He says, Hello, I am a well-traveled journalist, and also it only occurred to me at 1am when
I sat down to file my piece that the US has US-style plugs.
You're not well-traveled.
No, I'll tell you this.
Why?
Almost all hotels have converters.
You can go down and say, I need a converter, and they say, you got it, which country?
In fact, most of them have universal converters that will work with any outlet to US plugs.
I don't know where he was staying.
I'm not sure where he was staying, but maybe they didn't in this instance, so we had to go to Walmart.
It is unclear if Belton was serious in his tweet, as he has covered numerous war zones in his journalistic career.
From there, the journalist went to Walmart in Hallandale Beach, Florida.
Okay, come on, Florida?
They have to have these adapters.
Come on, people, Florida is loaded with people from Central and South America.
While in the store, he posted a photo of three different BB guns.
The BB guns pictured by Belton were Daisy's Red Rider Carbine and Powerline Model 880, as well as Crossman 760 Pump Master.
None are real firearms.
I would just like to point out, it is possible Padraig Belton, I'm probably pronouncing that wrong, Was joking.
I think it's a fair point.
Okay.
The other day, I talked about this guy.
What was his name?
Richard Hanania.
And I said, I didn't know if it was parody because it was so, you know, it was so close to being real.
It turns out it was parody.
This may be a guy making fun of Walmart.
I'm just gonna go ahead and assume, probably not.
And if it is, okay, fine.
I'll eat that one.
But the issue is, this kind of thing occurs so often, that when you see a journalist say, hi from America where Walmart doesn't have a plug adapter, but on the other hand I could buy a rifle and ammunition, I have to assume he's being honest because he's from the UK and doesn't know anything about guns.
I'd also like to point out, dude, you're from the UK, you can't buy a gun in America.
That's funny.
I can buy a gun.
Did you notice that it's locked up in a case and they're BB guns?
Did you even bother to ask?
Because if you did try to buy a real rifle, they'd say, are you a US citizen?
No, dude, we can't sell you the gun.
Conservative activist Benny Johnson was among those who joined in the mocking of Belton.
Johnson said the last time British snobs marched into America and tried to control our economy, we grabbed real rifles and real ammunition and kicked their butts.
Actually, the revolution was very much about gun control.
The regulars were trying to seize weapons, and where was that, Concord or something like that?
The founder of the Federalist, Sean Davis, tweeted about it.
Did you actually think you could buy a real gun for $28?
Look, I gotta say, it's entirely possible that this dude did not, this dude was joking.
He didn't mean it seriously.
Jerry Dunleavy said, Sir, if it is in stock, you should check to see if the plug adapter included with this Italian-made item would also work for your European-style laptop.
And of course, they're all making that joke about, um, what's that movie?
It's a Wonderful Life?
No, that's not the one.
I don't know.
That one with the little kid and he's got the BB gun and they're like, you're gonna shoot your eye out.
Everybody kept saying that.
Yeah, yeah, because of the Red Ryder BB gun.
These things are like air compression pellet rifles.
Okay, a rifle and ammunition.
Someone said, first, those are BB guns.
Second, our guns are the reason we don't bow to a queen.
Ooh, sick burn!
Rita Panahi says, their toys.
Why would Walmart have plug adapters for UK laptops?
How much demand is that for their outside shops at the airport?
No, no, I gotta stop you there, Rita.
They typically do have them.
Because people need to buy adapters.
It's a normal product to have.
They probably only have a few of them, but yeah.
The only response Belton made to the Twitter mob was a message to the Daily Wire's Ian Worth.
Haworth posted a link saying that Walmart did sell plug adapters.
Okay, was he joking?
Belton told Haworth that Walmart only sells the adapters online, but that an employee directed him to a nearby Apple store.
He earlier told Belton these are air rifles which are legal... Haworth earlier told Belton these are air rifles which are legal in the United Kingdom.
They're legal in the UK, too!
Oh, man.
Totally possible this guy was joking.
I think the guy may have just been joking.
That's a fair point, but I don't have any evidence to suggest that.
And then there's Poe's Law.
better. Totally impossible this guy was joking. I think the guy may just been joking. That's a fair
point, but I don't have any evidence to suggest that. And then there's Poe's Law. Listen, I'll
say Poe's Law, but I'll say Occam's Razor instead.
In the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
I love saying that.
You know that, right?
So this guy, who's a journalist from the UK, probably doesn't know anything about guns, and is probably critical of American gun culture, likely was mocking American gun culture, but didn't know what he was talking about, because that's common among these people on the left who are calling for gun control.
Shout out to our good friend David Hogg, who said, If I could get a beer or soda, pick your poison, with each of the people who call me names, I could probably change their mind nine times out of ten.
Doesn't mean they will completely agree with me, but I bet I could change their mind at least a little.
Not possible on Twitter.
I said, you know what?
You're right!
I said the same thing to Hasan.
That's why we don't do online, for IRL, we bring people into the studio for a real conversation.
When you do online conversations, people will just say stupid things.
They won't engage you seriously.
No, no, you gotta sit down and have that conversation.
So I messaged David.
I said, hey man, you know, for real, like, come out.
We'd love to have you talk about gun control.
He ignored it.
I quote tweeted saying like, hey man, like, let's do this.
He ignored it.
I quoted him again, sent you a DM, brother!
He ignored it.
I do not believe David Hogg is actually interested in having a conversation, but I guess I will point out, I don't call him names.
I typically refrain from insulting people, although I may call them liars, which is a statement of fact, or my opinion on the person.
Or evil.
But I won't say like stupid doodoo head or anything like that.
David Hogg is welcome to come on the show.
We can have that conversation.
It's just not going to happen.
Because this is common among people who want to take away your rights.
They don't know what they're talking about.
They don't care to know what they're talking about.
They just get free traffic.
I'll have a discussion with anybody, and you can tell me I'm wrong.
And you see, that's the difference between the modern political left and the political right.
They call me right-wing, sure, in the context of the group of people willing to have legitimate conversations and have their views challenged.
Fine.
Jimmy Dore, in that case, would be right-wing as well.
But that makes no sense.
Jimmy Dore's clearly left-wing.
None of it seems to make sense, to be completely honest.
These are just people who say whatever they need to say to get money, and that's it.
Which brings me to this story.
Donald Trump launching gun rights group vowing to fight Democratic gun control proposals.
Donald Trump Jr., obviously someone who knows a thing or two about guns, I would imagine, and wanting to protect our gun rights.
The Second Amendment Task Force plans to build its operation around Trump's high social media visibility and following, as well as his national media appearances.
But I will give a special shout out and say, Don Jr., your dad enforced the bump stock ban.
I think that's wrong.
First on Fox.
Fox News Digital has learned Trump Jr.
will be launching the Second Amendment Task Force.
Quote.
The Second Amendment is the whole ballgame.
It's the freedom that protects all of our other freedoms.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress are hell-bent on eroding our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Whether it's nominating radical gun grabbers to senior positions in the executive branch or pushing anti-gun legislation, Trump Jr.
told Fox News Digital, the Second Amendment task force is entirely devoted to ensuring the left is never successful in disarming American citizens.
I respect it.
I agree with it.
But I think Don Jr.
probably won't go far enough.
I bring you now to BotanicusProCon.org.
Gun control, they say.
The arguments for and against gun control.
And there's 15.
And they're wrong.
I do think it's fascinating that the Khans disprove the pros, so it's pro-gun control.
And the Khan disproves the pros, so it's like, how are there even pros if you prove them wrong?
The pro number one, the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al.
v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote,
like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons in the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places, such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I don't think Antonin Scalia is completely wrong, but you see how they turned that statement into
The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Yes, it is.
What he's talking about is felons, through due process, lose that right.
The mentally ill, through due process, lose that right.
And you can't bring your guns to certain places, but you can own them!
You wanna make an argument about some people losing their right to keep and bear arms through due process?
By all means, go and do it.
That I accept.
But the Second Amendment says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Con 1, the Second Amendment of the U.S., protects individual gun ownership.
This basically disproves their first point.
Their pro-gun control is sophistry.
Antonin Scalia is not saying people can't own weapons.
He's saying you can lose the right through due process, and you can't bring it to certain places.
And if you want to buy it, there's certain, like, elements, requirements for buying it.
But you can own it.
I disagree to a certain extent.
Here we go.
More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.
Okay, then we have this con 2.
Gun control laws do not deter crime.
Gun ownership deters crime.
If you want to play a game of pro and con, don't have the cons counter, like debunk the pro.
Here's my favorite.
High-capacity magazines should be barred because they too often turn murder into mass murder.
See, this is a manipulation.
Most mass shootings are with handguns.
So what are you talking about?
A Glock 17 with 17 rounds?
Is that high capacity?
Yes, according to Democrats, it is, even though it's called a Glock 17.
The weapon is a standard issue 17 round handgun.
You want to get an extended magazine?
Where you got it real- it's hanging all low about it, you get 30 or 60 or whatever?
Okay, fine.
But standard capacity, look at this.
They say, high-capacity magazines are just 30 rounds or even 90- No, 30 is standard.
When you buy any AR-15, like .223 or .556, it's gonna have a 30-round mag.
They're not gonna give you this microscopic little 10-round thing, unless you're in places like Maryland and New Jersey.
But that's because they are changing what is standard.
Four, more gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers.
What?
No!
More women should have guns to protect themselves from abusers.
Gun control laws, especially those, this is a con, to ban assault weapons infringe upon
the right to own guns for hunting and sport.
I don't care why they infringe, they do, period.
This pro and con was clearly written by someone who doesn't know anything about guns.
Case in point, I bring you number 15.
Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories.
Yes, they should.
Yes, they should.
They should have tanks.
They should have tanks with mounted, crew-served, 50 BMG belt, whatever.
You get the point.
Fully auto, butterfly trigger, whatever you want to call it.
M134s.
That should be attached to everybody's pickup truck.
Black trans women should be on their rooftops with Barrett M82s, sitting and protecting their community as they see fit because the Second Amendment said so.
You don't like it?
Amend the Constitution.
Can't do it?
Too effing bad.
Look what they write.
President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle, also called M16s by the Air Force, I'm gonna vomit in my own mouth!
AR-15s are civilian variants of the M16, which is a select-fire rifle, which can do semi-auto, burst, and fully automatic.
Also, AR-15 can be a style which can be chambered in many different rounds.
For instance, I personally own an AR-15-style rifle chambered in .450 Bushmaster, which has, I think, a six-round magazine, they're large rounds, and they're for deer hunting, basically.
Hunting large game.
Look, I don't know everything about guns.
I'm sure a lot of people are gonna say, Tim, you got that wrong or otherwise.
But the point is, yo, these people have no idea what they're talking about.
Gun control efforts have proved ineffective.
That's a fact.
That is a fact.
Look, right now, we live in a world where guns exist, and guns are being 3D printed.
Alright, you're not gonna shut it down.
Welcome to America.
You go to Walmart and you can buy a BB gun?
You wanna know why you probably only saw BB guns?
Because everybody else is 3D printing their own guns at home.
Deal with it.
You want to talk about keeping this country safer?
I watched a video, and there were a bunch of little kids playing baseball, and a bunch of gunshots ring out, and everyone panics.
These things happen.
What if a car started, like, driving through a crowd?
We've seen that happen, too.
It's not the gun.
Guns are weapons.
Weapons can be misused.
They're powerful weapons.
Let me ask you this.
What if someone created a magnetron weapon?
Like a microwave, an active denial system.
Extremely easy to do.
And what if they walked up to a park carrying this strange backpack with a weird 2x4 with magnetrons mounted on it?
You'd be like, I don't know what he's doing.
And then when he pointed it and turned it on, you wouldn't hear anything.
And then all of a sudden, people would start screaming.
Weapons can be dangerous.
The problem is the people and the lunatics who do these things.
Not the gun.
People who use them for wrong are wrong.
But the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not break the law.
