Biden Admin SLAMMED Over Ministry Of Truth, Director Nina Jankowicz Spread Disinformation REPEATEDLY
Biden Admin SLAMMED Over Ministry Of Truth, Director Nina Jankowicz Spread Disinformation REPEATEDLY. Democrats have consistently lied, believed lies, or had media assistance in spreading of mass disinformation.
Jussie Smollett, Covington Kids, Michael Brown, Russiagate, Ukrainegate
The list goes on of Democrat and Journalist fake news
Yet now a woman who consistently spread disinformation will head up a DHS disinformation governance board which defies all logic
Unless you realize the goal is to smear republicans, populists, and produce fake news and disinformation
#Disinformation
#Biden
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is April 29th, 2022, and our first story, Joe Biden's new Disinformation Governance Board is getting ripped apart after the Executive Director Nita Jankowikz is found to have spread disinformation consistently, calling the Hunter Biden laptop story, for example, a Trump campaign product.
In our next story, Elon Musk posts a meme showing how the left has gone far left, and the media is trying to debunk it!
But I actually re-bunk it.
I can prove the Democratic Party has moved far left using their own data, but it's also about cultural issues.
In our next story, Elon Musk is set to fire Twitter executive staff.
Get woke, go broke.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, but share the show with your friends because grassroots marketing is the most powerful thing you can do to help.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The Biden administration is under fire after the Department of Homeland Security announced a new disinformation governance board would be created.
Many are likening this board to the Ministry of Truth from 1984.
But after learning who is set to run this, a woman named Nina Jankowicz Many are now likening it to Harry Potter, and likening this woman to Dolores Umbridge.
If you get the reference, she was basically the lady that slapped the kids on the hand and told them what was true and what wasn't.
And, uh, well, this is because Nina is apparently a Harry Potter fan, because she was in a band called The Moaning Myrtles or something, which is a reference to Harry Potter.
You know, I gotta be honest, I really don't care about that.
What I do care about is the unhinged political opinions of the individuals set to run this disinformation governance board.
And I'm also concerned that the government should not be running a disinformation governance board.
The government should not have the authority to determine what is true and what isn't.
In fact, Ms.
Nina Jankowicz previously agreed with that position.
In the past, she said she didn't like the idea of the executive branch having the power to determine what was fake news.
But see, that was probably because Donald Trump was calling the press fake news.
And now that Joe Biden is in office, and this woman is a clear Democrat-supporting authoritarian, Her position seems to have changed, and here she will head up Joe Biden's quote-unquote ministry of truth.
But as we seek to understand this woman, the disinformation she herself has spread, and boy is it copious, and her unhinged political opinions, we are being bogged down by people, in my opinion, saying stupid things.
Videos surfaced of this woman, Nina Jankowik, singing.
I don't care. There's video surfaced of her doing some kind of musical performance about being
famous. I don't care. Why are people so bent on these personalized attacks?
I'll tell you what I'm concerned with.
Joe Biden's administration, seemingly right around the time Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter, announces a disinformation governance board within the Department of Homeland Security.
Do you know what the Department of Homeland Security is for?
Counter-terror!
And immigration, sure.
But anti-terror is one of its principal functions.
And we were told the purpose of the DHS was to prevent things like 9-11.
Now, we have unhinged authoritarian types leading up disinformation governance within it, targeting the American people.
What's frustrating to me is while we can see this clear overreach and the clear insane political positions of this woman, people are focusing on her singing and liking Harry Potter.
And you know what?
I don't care.
I like Harry Potter too.
I also like singing.
If you don't like her taste in books or whatever, and you don't like her singing, so what?
I'm not a fan of country music.
I think John Rich is a great dude.
He's a rad guy we hung out with.
I'm not gonna be like, can you believe this guy's songs?
I'm like, oh, the guy's really good at it.
And he's a superstar.
Shout out, John Rich.
I'll also say this of Nina Jankowik's.
Her singing is actually really good.
But so what?
There are a bunch of actors in Hollywood who I think are fantastic actors but are outright insane.
And there's no point in coming out and saying like, I have, I don't, I think they're not cool.
Cringe!
What does that have to do with whether or not we will be free to make the art that we want?
To report the news that needs to be reported?
To challenge the authoritarian systems in the U.S.
federal government?
The Biden administration is crooked.
It is run by a broken man, and that needs to be on the forefront.
Coming out and making arguments about cultural issues because you don't like singing is a waste of everyone's time.
So let's get to the crux of the argument.
This woman is out of her mind.
Let me just start by showing you one of her tweets.
She said, Anyway, long story short, I think we as a country might be too, um, free-spirited, to put it diplomatically, to comply with social distancing recommendations, unless they're forced upon us.
So force away!
Lock us down!
People are not taking this seriously.
You see, I think that is unhinged, too free-spirited.
We are a nation of free spirits founded upon the idea of individual liberties.
This woman is a dangerous authoritarian, and that needs to be addressed.
So let's address it.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support the work that we do.
If you like the videos I make, if you like the reporting our journalists are putting out, if you like our standards and our ethics, and you want access to exclusive segments from TimCast IRL, become a member now.
We can use your support as we expand this operation and fund the mission to challenge authoritarianism and spread the ideas of personal responsibility and liberty.
That being said, smash that like button, subscribe right now to this channel, share this video wherever you can.
You never know when shadowbanning will come to Reidreth's ugly head.
Let's get started to understand what is the Disinformation Governance Board, and then we can tackle who is this unhinged woman.
Who is running it.
Now, I have no problem calling her unhinged.
It's a strong word.
I am not saying it to be insulting.
I think she is genuinely an unwell person.
I think her political opinions are that of someone who is not well, who is unhinged.
I mean that in the literal sense.
I will absolutely defend her singing, her choice in art, and I think it's ridiculous and it pisses me off that people are making fun of her for her singing and doing musicals.
I actually think that's pretty cool.
Not that I'm a big fan of this kind of musical stuff.
But come on, let's talk about politics here.
There are tons of people out there who like things I think are stupid.
I'm not a fan of Yu-Gi-Oh.
Tons of people like playing Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
I got no beef with Yu-Gi-Oh players.
Some people like to ride scooters.
I prefer skateboarding and inline.
But some people don't like inline.
I've mostly been skateboarding my whole life, but I learned this at a young age, man.
Live and let live.
People will find joy where they find it.
And I'm not going to make fun of someone because they want to sing a song or ride a scooter or anything like that.
I will sit back and say, you got the skills to pay the bills.
That's cool.
I respect when people engage in certain practices or are talented.
What I don't respect is the insanity that is the political space we are dealing with today.
You wanna go ride a scooter around and do a backflip?
Yo, impressive stuff.
I've seen people on scooters do backflips on flat ground.
Like, legit crazy.
Now, if that person got off the scooter and started saying the government to determine what's true, I'd be like, you're nuts!
Cool backflip, though.
Here's a story from Fox News.
First, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security is creating a disinformation governance board to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms.
Mayorkas appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal 2023 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
Lauren Underwood, a Democrat from Illinois, cited reports on how minority communities are being targeted in misinformation campaigns and asked Mayorkas what DHS will do to address it.
Mayorkas said a disinformation governance board had recently been created and will be led by
Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers co-chair with Principal Deputy General Counselor Jennifer
Gaskell. The goal is to bring the resources of DHS together to address this threat.
Fox News has reached out to DHS seeking more information on the disinformation governance
board. Hours later, Politico reported that Nina Jankowicz, who had who previously served as a
disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center will head the board as executive director.
Now, this is a bit confusing because they do say it will be led by Undersecretary Rob Silvers and General Counselor Jennifer Gaskill, but the executive director will be Nina Jankowicz, who tweeted, Cat's out of the bag.
Here's what I've been up to the past two months, and why I've been a bit quiet on here.
Honored to be serving in the Biden administration, DHSGov, and helping shape our counter disinformation efforts.
The reason this is so alarming is, for one, whether or not Nina Jankowikz is unhinged is immaterial to this point now, in that the government should not be in the process, should not be in the space, Should not be in any way involved in determining what is true or false.
That is up to the people to decide.
Now certainly they can hold their opinions within government, I'm not saying they shouldn't, but to come out and say we're going to have a disinformation governance board, nah.
The news of the disinformation governance board comes two days after Tesla CEO Elon Musk secured a deal for Twitter that we understand.
Now the first thing I want to point to before we get into the disinformation spread by this woman herself, I'd like to show you what the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security is for.
According to Wikipedia, DHS began operations in 2003, formed as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 in response to 9-11.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Its stated missions involve anti-terror, border security, immigration and customs, cybersecurity, and disaster prevention and management.
Why is the DHS involved in truth?
You want to call it cyber security?
That's probably their angle.
But Russia is sowing disinformation.
So what?
Then you need a better media apparatus.
How about this U.S.
government?
You can provide grants to independent news organizations.
It should be blind, or it should be headed up by an independent council to make sure it's not partisan.
That I believe would be legal, though I'm still not a big fan of that necessarily.
Still would be legal.
I think ultimately, if people are spreading disinformation, we need better journalism.
Now, let's get into what this woman believes.
And then we'll talk about... We'll talk about some of the things that, um...
This woman has spread the disinformation.
Let me go back to this tweet about her thinking Americans are too free spirited.
We have a tweet following up on this from Christina Pushaw of Ron DeSantis' administration.
She said, I hope all of those who want to get out of lockdown and get their freedom back, who doubted Russia's intentions or thought the Mueller investigation was a hoax, now understand the seriousness of cyber attacks and information operations.
The Mueller investigation proved Donald Trump was not colluding with Russia.
What is this woman saying?
Does she genuinely believe that Donald Trump is a Russian agent?
Many people still do.
Many people still do.
Truly amazing.
Let's take a look at Disinformation Head Nina Jankowik's Addresses Hunter Biden Laptop Remarks.
Let's talk about the disinformation that she spread.
First, here is a tweet that everybody is sharing.
Or is it not popping up in this?
All right, well.
She said, Quote, Back on the laptop from hell. Apparently, Biden
notes 50 former NATSEC officials and five former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian
influence op, Jankowicz said. Now is in reference to the Hunter Biden laptop story, which we know
is true. Trump says Russia, Russia, Russia.
On Wednesday, Jankowicz retweeted, saying, For those who believe this tweet is a key to all
my views, it is simply a direct quote from both candidates during the final presidential debate.
If you look at my timeline, you will see I was live tweeting that evening.
Totally fine.
I have no issue with that.
However, the argument from people like Jankowikz, not, I'm not saying it's putting the words in her mouth, but the left typically says that you are amplifying disinformation.
There was one point where I tweeted that a conspiracy theory was false, and the media wrote that I had pushed the conspiracy theory.
When I challenged this, they said, well, because you quote tweeted it, you were actually amplifying it.
So we think we have the legal justification to write that you pushed a conspiracy theory.
And I was like, yo, I was debunking it.
My opinion was the same as yours.
And their response was nothing.
They don't care.
They lie.
So no, you don't get to come out and say, I was just quoting someone while the entirety of the corporate press says quoting someone is pushing lies.
But you know what?
The corporate press is wrong to do that.
And I will give her this one.
That is what Biden was saying.
And it's fair to quote Biden saying it.
If a conservative tweeted this, they would not be accusing, a conservative would not look at a conservative who tweeted that and say, they're spreading conspiracies and they believed it.
No, they'd be like, yeah, Biden did say that.
The problem is, this woman is disingenuous.
In a story from Fox News, Biden's disinformation director referred to Hunter's laptop as a Trump campaign product.
One Republican senator referred to Jenkiewicz as a leftist radical.
I don't care about calling her a leftist radical.
She is unhinged.
Call her unhinged.
She repeated fake news, and now she's trying to say that she didn't believe Joe Biden when she did.
In 2020, she referred to Hunter Biden's laptop story as a Trump campaign product.
No.
It was a real story.
Someone released it, somebody found it, whatever, but it was a real story.
Hunter Biden, for whatever reason, must have left that laptop at a repair store, so saith the guy who had it.
Somebody found it, the laptop was real, the information has been confirmed, and even in the New York Times says that it's true.
So who is this woman to now come out, having said this, to act like it wasn't true?
Let's take a look at some of the other things she said.
Hans Monk tweeted, she's a complete lunatic.
Let's take a look at some of her tweets.
Excuse me.
She tweeted, I went for a hike today, and it has turned me into a lockdown evangelist.
I left home early, planned to stay at least six feet from other humans, and for about 75% of the trail, managed to do just that.
Until all the late risers made it to the park.
Here's what I saw.
This tweet, from the beginning of the pandemic, shows how zealous she was.
Okay, let's call that a negative.
Not the apocalypse, a lot of people believe this, but let's move on.
Here's another tweet.
Oh no, anti-lockdown protesters now spreading to UK.
Poster below tries to get around AI detection by spacing out freedom movement, adding photos with event details to an album rather than creating separate events.
She opposes freedom.
She said that much.
And another tweet said, I hope all of those who want to get out of lockdown and get their freedom back who doubted Russia's intentions.
This we read already.
And in the last tweet, imagine all the deaths that could have been avoided if they had done the same with mask wearing in March and April.
She believed and pushed much disinformation.
Here's my favorite.
Siwon had said, oh no, she's one of these.
She said, there is absolutely no way that 99.9% of Bernie Sanders followers are all authentic users.
Oh, man.
She's one of these.
Nailed it, Shu.
She is one of these.
Oh no.
She said, What's crazy is that the shares of some of the rabid Bernie bros and Trumpsters in my feeds now make a lot more sense in retrospect.
This woman must be criticized for her unhinged beliefs.
She should not be the executive director of one of these organizations.
Now in a tweet from Jack Posobiec, breaking, Nina Jankovics said in 2020 that the executive branch shouldn't have the power to determine what is fake news.
Let's hear what she has to say.
unidentified
Imagine that, you know, with President Trump right now calling all of these news organizations that have inconvenient for him stories that they that they're getting out there that he's calling fake news and now lashing out at platforms.
I would never want to see Our executive branch have that sort of power.
And that's why, you know, the legislative process with our duly elected officials is
really important.
That sort of consultative rulemaking process.
And we can't just govern by executive order anymore.
She says that she would not want to see the executive branch have that power to determine
who is fake news.
Now, maybe she'll try and play a game where she's like, I meant he shouldn't call news organizations fake news, and we certainly aren't going to do that.
But of course they are.
Because she believed the Hunter Biden laptop story was from the Trump campaign, or a product of the Trump campaign, whatever that means.
I'm sure she'll be like, no, I meant figuratively.
Sure, well, I can't make that assumption.
Okay, that's disinformation.
She spread disinformation.
And the New York Post was censored.
On Twitter and Facebook, one of the oldest newspapers in the country, I think the oldest actually, right?
Was censored.
And it was true.
That needs to be called out. I would like to show you, as she continues,
there's one final thing she says I want you to hear.
unidentified
I'm through that political pressure. They have a tip line that people can kind of report when
they think their content has been unjustly overturned. And the Trump administration
has a similar thing. So it's providing a lot of fodder for anti-democratic online governance.
And it's it's very, very scary. And I think this is really where Congress needs to step in.
I think we're seeing cooperation ramp up on a number of levels, so I will be completely honest and say that my program at the Wilson Center is partially funded by Facebook.
Okay, so wanted to play that quote first on the other one, but the point is, she says, anti-conservative bias, there's polls, studies saying otherwise.
I give you from May 9th, 2016 from Gizmodo, former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news.
Oh, Is this fake news?
Fine, call it fake news.
But there was bias, okay?
It's that simple.
And for her to say there isn't, it's just patently absurd.
Now to go back to that video, then I wanted to highlight, she mentions she's funded by Facebook.
So of course it's in her interest to deny a story that makes Facebook look bad.
Now she's gonna be working in the government, great.
Several people have spoken out against the Ministry of Truth, but I want to do something first.
I want to show you this tweet from Jack Posobiec.
Jack, not a fan of this tweet.
Actually, Jack's a cool dude.
I have him on the show all the time.
Respect, Jack.
I think he does a pretty good job, but I do not agree with him posting this video.
He wrote, I saw it, so you have to see it.
He responded with a picture of her DHS's creating disinformation governance board.
In this video, you have two young women.
It looks like an old video of Nina Jankowicz and her friend.
And they're singing a song.
I gotta admit, I think the song is kind of bad.
But they're young people.
Nina's actually not a bad singer.
Why are we posting this video?
Does this show that her opinions are valid or invalid?
Are we just supposed to hate her for this?
Am I supposed to act like she's bad at singing or something and that's going to influence me politically?
Jack, not a fan of this.
Um...
We shouldn't be highlighting, and this other woman too, like this young woman here who's singing, why is she involved in this?
I don't want to make fun of her.
I don't know her.
She seems lovely.
I think she can play the guitar.
I'm not a big fan of the music they made, but that's okay.
People are allowed to make whatever art they want, and some people might like it.
I think we lose political points.
We lose the argument when we deflect onto things like this.
Let young people in college be young people in college singing their songs.
Now, I think Nina is unhinged.
I will say it again and again and again, because she's anti-freedom.
She spreads disinformation, and then she claims she's fighting it.
She says there's no bias on Facebook, but Gizmodo said there was.
And then she says she's funded by Facebook.
Sorry.
That, to me, says unhinged person.
Or I guess you can say she knows exactly what she's doing.
She's a bad person.
I bring you now to the Daily Caller.
Daily Caller, not a fan.
Daily Caller posted this flashback video of Biden's minister of truth singing about effing her way to fame and power.
The vibes are horrendous.
OK, let me play a little bit of this song for you.
You may not like it, but I'm gonna play a little bit.
unidentified
I tried being nice.
I even tried pretending I was listening once or twice.
But the really big stars, they made it without it.
Was Benny Davis pleasant?
Well, I seriously- Am I supposed to hate her?
Everyone adored her in the world without her face, but she was a bitch.
Am I supposed to cringe at this and think, what an awful person or whatever?
This one really bothers me a lot.
You know, I sit here and I read the news all day and I hear about injustice.
I hear about authoritarians.
I hear about evil, amoral people.
And I watch all day on Twitter as they lie.
There's people like Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post, doxes, libs of TikTok.
These people play dirty to gain power.
I want to oppose that.
I want people to pursue happiness.
I want them to live justly.
I want there to be justice.
I want to challenge those who are destroying the fabric of this great nation.
Because this great nation has brought about more civil rights than any other country in history.
I mean, not the first to end slavery.
We did.
One of the first to grant rights to the LGBTQ community.
And we continue to expand, even though there is a constant battle and a culture war.
Why are we talking about this woman singing?
You know, people are laughing in this video.
They're enjoying her song.
She's clearly doing a bit.
I think she's a good singer.
She's clearly got great vocal control.
I'm not a fan of the musical style stuff, but whatever.
Why?
Waste our time with this.
So for this I will say, I will defend Nina and give her respect for her choice in art, for her confidence to stand up and sing, and I think it's silly to make fun of her for being in college singing a song that you don't like.
I think we should be showing the videos of her doing weirder, creepier things.
Let me see, here's one.
Clay Travis highlights this video.
This video is warranted, in my opinion, to mock.
Clay Travis says, this is the new Biden administration head of Ministry of Truth, Nina Jankowicz.
Let me play this video for you, and I'm sorry, but this one I think we have to make fun of, and you're going to be unhappy hearing it.
Here we go.
unidentified
Blurring is really quite ferocious.
It's when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress
or a mainstream outlet.
So disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious.
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.
When I see her then do a musical number of, like, Mary Poppins or whatever, and she's singing about politics and disinformation, but is also someone who spreads that disinformation, you have shattered the cringometer.
You have—the cringometer has spiked so hard, you—the bell has burst from the carnival game, you know, the hammer drop, and it's now launched into the air, and I gotta say, yo, truly, a cringe that is pain-inducing.
Yeah, that's cringe.
The look on her face.
I mean, it's just cringe.
Do not sing these weird things like... You know what I see when I see this?
This woman clearly is a follower with no real understanding of what's going on, and just believes... She's one of these people where the government says, the sky is green, and she goes, the sky is green, everyone!
Let me sing you a song, the sky is green, the sky is green!
It's like, dude, look up!
The sky is not green!
They lied!
That's exactly what she is.
She is a mouthpiece.
She is a speaker for the administration's lies, for the establishment's lies.
She is not challenging anything.
I got no problem with her singing, though.
Now, Ron DeSantis is stepping up.
You cannot have a Ministry of Truth in this country.
DeSantis says Biden won't get away with having a disinformation board that can silence critics.
That's the thing.
Let's go back to this story.
White House defends DHS disinformation board, not sure who opposes the effort.
That's what Jen Psaki said when asked about it.
Someone asked Jen Psaki, how will you assuage concerns, wondering if she's going to be able to be able to, she's going to be able to accurate, to accurate judge, to be an accurate judge of misinformation.
Sackie told reporters that she was unsure of who the individual is that was chosen to
have the initiative and did not have any information.
Well, let me play for you the response.
unidentified
How can you assuage concerns of people who are looking at this person who's been
appointed to this position and wondering if she's going to be able to accurately
judge misinformation now that a lot of that reporting has been proven to be factual in some
The goal of the board is to prevent disinformation from going around and spreading in communities.
How?
How will the government prevent the spread of disinformation?
Disinformation doesn't mean anything.
There will be a data point.
Let's refer to it as numbers.
Let's say the true answer to the math problem is 50, but 51 is circulating around this community.
Now, Will the government intervene and say, we have determined 51 is not true, and thus we will restrict that speech?
How will this be done?
The government doesn't have the authority to do it, and I believe the Disinformation Governance Board will be outright dismantled by a lawsuit.
The First Amendment is clear, the government can't create this.
Who determines what disinformation is?
Let's play another way.
Let's say someone goes, the sky is blue!
And someone else yells, the sky is black.
You're wrong.
Which one of those statements is true?
In fact, they're actually both true.
You see, the sky is actually black, but what we see is light refracting off of the gases, resulting in a blue tint as it reaches our eyes.
The sunlight hits a bunch of particles, light gets bent, what we see in the sky is blue, but truly, If the sun was to be out of the equation, the space is black.
So you could argue, well, humans perceive the sky as being blue due to light refraction, but you're actually not seeing the sky.
You're seeing refracted light from the sun.
When the sun is removed from the equation, you can see the true sky, the night sky, which is in fact black.
Now, if both of those facts are going around, some might argue and say, no, no, no, Tim, the sky is blue.
It's a general statement.
No, I get it.
My point is, someone could try to argue it, and I'm sure some would say one or the other.
Is the government going to intervene and say, we've determined the sky is no longer blue.
The sky is black.
Because that's technically the scientific answer, and it's true.
If the water vapor were removed from the atmosphere, you would see a black sky.
Someone can argue, but the water vapor is part of the sky.
And if we're looking at the various gases and vapor reflecting the sunlight, then the sky is being, is blue, and it's like, but the sky is not a thing.
What you're actually talking about there is gases and sunlight.
If we're talking about what the sky represents, which is the outer atmosphere and space, it's black.
Okay, you get the point.
There can be conflicting statements.
Which will the government determine to remove?
Now, obviously, in this circumstance, the government or anybody might be like, look, just explain it.
Both can be let out there.
What about something like Hunter Biden's laptop?
Which we know is true, but Twitter and Facebook?
Blocked.
Is the government going to come out and be like, this negative story about us is fake news.
Better remove it.
The government should not have that authority.
So many people are speaking out.
Elon Musk calls the new Ministry of Truth messed up.
Tulsi Gabbard said every dictatorship has a propaganda arm, a Ministry of Truth.
The Biden admin has now formally joined the ranks of such dictatorships with their creation of the so-called Disinformation Governance Board.
Joe Biden himself is getting slammed over his dystopian Disinformation Bureau.
Yes.
And of course, shills.
Establishment shills are defending it.
Glenn Greenwald notes, John Harward called Tulsi Gabbard kooky.
Greenwald says, just as corporate journalists are now the leading crusaders and activists for a regime of state-sponsored and corporate censorship, never stop realizing how twisted that is.
They also are the leading defenders of the U.S.
security state.
Grateful they have now created a ministry of truth.
A.K.A.
Straight White Cis Male Journalist Targets Women of Color for Harassment, Bullying and Abuse Online by Sending His Partisan Followers After Her, and Questioning Her Mental Health.
Glenn says, I learned from NBC that a study found that young women, especially young women of color, get massive of harassment abuse online.
Now that CNN's White House correspondent John Harwood mocked the mental health of Tulsi Gabbard, his Dem followers are swarming her with abuse.
Of course.
You know, this one is relevant because when Elon Musk simply referenced Bajaj Aghade, they said he was attacking her.
When I simply reported on Taylor Lorenz doxing libs of TikTok, with a Times Square billboard nonetheless, they said, mediaite said, Tim Pool attacks, attacks her by saying, here's a thing she did.
Calm down, Mediaite.
We need to continue to call out the lies and misinformation, and we will.
And with your support at TimCast.com, we will never back down.
The government should not have this power.
There are problems.
I despise fake news, and there are many, and there were a lot of these disinformation outlets and misinformation outlets.
Several years ago on Facebook, we did have a problem.
People would create blogs where they would literally write fake news because they knew they'd go viral and they'd make money from it.
They had no scruples.
These people were not journalists.
News organizations towed that line.
I shouldn't call it towing that line because it's a reference to falling in line, but they straddled the line.
They used manipulative framing to make you think things, but still stand on the side of, well, it's technically true.
My favorite is when the based stickman was called a white nationalist, and the reporter for the Boston Globe said, is he white?
And I said, yes.
And the guy goes, journalist goes, is he a nationalist?
I say, yes.
There you go, white nationalist.
And I was like, oh, come on.
You know what white nationalist means.
Simply because someone believes in nationalism and they are white does not mean they believe in an ethno-state.
That's the dirty game the press plays.
This woman Nina is a product of this crackpot dystopia where she herself spreads disinformation.
Excellent singer though.
Respect.
I'm not gonna play that game.
I'll call her out for being kooky, right?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
In his latest tweet, Elon Musk slams the far left, saying the far left hates everybody, including itself.
He then went on to say the far right is also bad, basically, and he doesn't like them very much either.
But the media is bending over backwards to try and discredit the notion that the left has gone too far left!
You may have seen the meme posted by Elon Musk.
The meme, of course, is from our good friend Colin Wright.
Now, that I mean literally, he's a good friend of the show, we've had him on several times, rad dude.
He posted this meme where you can see, we've talked about this on IRL, but we're gonna break it down today.
He posted this meme where the person who was left of center in 2008 doesn't move.
In 2012, the left moves, and in 2021, the left has gone so far left that a regular liberal from 2008 is right-wing now.
And that's true.
It's a fact.
And the media is desperate to debunk it because they're psychopaths and they are feeding nonsense to their base to try and maintain some kind of, I don't know, grift or audience.
I don't need to explain to you that the left has gone too far left.
But what does that really mean?
Well, the issue, I suppose, is what is the definition of left and right?
And that's what we'll have to get into.
In this story from the Washington Post, they say what Elon Musk's polarization graph gets wrong.
What does it get wrong?
Well, let me first show you this tweet from Elon Musk.
I agree, Elon.
Let's have less hate, more love.
But I'm no fan of the far right either. Let's have less hate and more love.
I agree, Elon. Let's have less hate and more love.
But what is far left and what is far right? They mean nothing.
Quite literally, they mean nothing.
Now, I know we often use the term the left, the right, and things like that, and they're typically used in the context of tribal identifiers.
There are two large umbrella spheres of influence right now in politics, the multicultural democracy and the constitutional republic.
I think that may be one of the best ways to break it down.
Having the conversation with Stephen Marsh, author of The Next Civil War, That's kind of how he explained it, and I think it's quite brilliant, actually.
If you think about what drives the left and what they're motivated by, it is multicultural democracy in everything that it entails.
The right tend to be constitutional in favor of the traditional constitutional republic.
Now, of course, because we have traditionally been a constitutional republic, the left argues that's ultra-traditionalism, and there needs to be a revolution, and therefore you're right-wing.
However, if you're a liberal, like Elon Musk's meme shows, you're not right-wing, and you're like, what are you talking about?
Y'all have gone off the rails.
Full stop.
What does left and right mean?
Well, as I stated, typically today it's used as a tribal identifier.
Which sphere of influence do you occupy?
However, there's a couple other definitions.
Typically, when people say far left, in historical cultural context, It may be the progressive versus the traditional.
That's not the best way to explain it in today's cultural civil war, but it is typically a way people view these things.
And so, I say this because you'll encounter people using these terms in a variety of ways, so let me help you try to understand when people use a single word or term or phrase to describe multiple things.
Some people will say, you're right-wing!
Because you're transphobic.
Because you oppose sex change surgery for minors.
But there's nothing inherently economically left-wing about that issue, right?
Of course.
You could be in any political faction and believe or not believe in surgeries or medicine or certain things like that, right?
Now, when we're talking about progressive versus tradition, we can go back to the left and the right of the early 1900s, in which the left were ultra-progressives.
They wanted to tear down the culture and create a new one.
We saw this with Mao.
That's why they're the left.
We typically associated their economic strategies with the left, and thus you had this strange left-right paradigm.
in France. Where the term left and right comes from, it's rooted in the left side of the room
and the right side of the room, and the right was more reformist and the left was more revolutionary.
So you typically had this view of progressives on the left, they want change, and traditionalists
on the right, they want to keep things the same for the most part. What do we have now?
Well, because the left embraces things like sex change surgeries for minors, we would say the left believes this, or you're on the left if you believe this, even though it doesn't really mean anything about going further left, does it?
Let me explain.
If you were on the left in 2008 and you said something like, I want universal healthcare, that was far left, but that was Barack Obama.
Barack Obama campaigned on universal healthcare.
That is a dramatic cultural shift, shutting down the private health sector and creating a universal healthcare policy.
That's far left.
Ultimately we ended up with some kind of Obamacare, there was talk about a public option, these things didn't ultimately pan out, but that was as far left as you could be at the time.
The right was like, that's socialism!
There's economic left and right, and that's what I'm referring to here with Barack Obama.
When you have Bernie Sanders saying that he wants 20% of companies to be owned by the workers, economic left.
The right tends to be more laissez-faire capitalist, but this doesn't mean, it doesn't help us understand anything!
Personally, I'm in favor of universal basic healthcare.
Excuse me.
What I mean by that is, you break your arm, you go to the hospital, we patch you up, send you on your way.
You got the flu, you go to the hospital, you get some Tamiflu.
And even to a certain degree, like insulin and EpiPens.
These are basic things that are mass produced.
Simple, And we can provide it to you at low costs.
I think that would be a good thing.
I think it's insane that businesses are burdened with providing healthcare.
I mean, I talk about wanting to hire people and they're like, do you provide benefits?
It's like, yo, we legally can't.
There's like weird restrictions.
So...
I'll say, we are confused as to the regulations on how to even do something like that, and it's insane.
Why should I, as a business owner, be worrying about providing you healthcare?
I can give you money, you can buy yourself healthcare, or we can have some kind of universal basic system.
Now, that would be considered left-wing, right?
Not today.
Not by today's standards.
Taking a look at Elon Musk's meme, it perfectly describes me, describes Elon, describes Colin Wright, and so many more.
The left now has shifted from universal basic healthcare being a left-wing position to being a right-wing position.
No joke.
They want the whole system overhauled, and they want private healthcare abolished.
Now, what makes that further left?
The way I'd explain it is, if you said, hey, we should have more government healthcare, but not a complete overhaul, you're considered to be on the left.
If you then said, I think total government control!
Okay, now you've amplified that position, so we would call that far, even though you can call it also stronger left, right?
Ultimately, what we have here in this meme is a cultural shift, not a political one.
It is not political, necessarily.
What I mean is, we gotta be careful with these terms.
It is not an issue of someone campaigning and demanding and slamming their fist on the table that children undergo sex change surgery.
It is, however, culturally significant among these political groups.
That is to say, most Democrats are not campaigning on that issue overtly.
The left in this country outright says, give these kids these things.
The politicians come out and say, we should be allowed to talk about it and be more welcoming and accepting.
They take a lighter approach.
What happens is, Washington Post, the New York Times, and all these other outlets say, see, the Democrats haven't moved.
I'll tell you what this really means.
It means the left walks in lockstep and the right resists finally.
What's happening now is with Elon Musk's meme showing the left moving far left, we get things like this.
I love it.
The Washington Post trying to make the claim that it's actually the right that's moved to the right and not the left.
But when you actually break down their data They debunk themselves.
It is in fact true.
The left has gone further left.
The right has moved right.
Absolutely.
But the left has gone far left.
And take a look at this.
How Congress has shifted.
House caucuses.
You can see the Democrats are a straight line.
The Republicans move over a slight degree.
Senate caucuses, Democrats moved over a teeny bit.
Republicans moved over quite a bit.
What does that mean?
I don't know.
Senate caucuses.
Does it mean that Republicans typically were rhinos who just said whatever and ignored the problems?
Does it mean that Democrats walk in lockstep?
Just because Democrats are unified in their caucuses does not mean their positions have not shifted.
Of course, these charts are being shown off by everybody proving that Elon Musk is wrong.
And we've all been the same rational people who in 2008 called for a border barrier.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, yes, you get the point.
They wanted border barriers.
In 2015, Bernie Sanders said, open borders is a Koch brothers proposal.
unidentified
And now he's like, we need a moratorium on criminal border crossings.
Conservatives are like, illegal immigration is bad.
And now they're like, illegal immigration is bad.
And I'm like, sounds the same to me.
The difference is, Republicans weren't working together on these issues.
Now, they may be.
One of the important points of data in breaking down the manipulations from the press would be that they claim, even conservatives do, Kamala Harris is the most liberal member of Congress!
More liberal than Bernie Sanders.
Now how can that be true?
More liberal?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by liberal, fine.
But they mean like left, right?
Kamala Harris is not further left than Bernie Sanders, but she's less likely to compromise.
In fact, the reason they said she's the most liberal is because she's never compromised.
Bernie Sanders has compromised.
Bernie Sanders has gone to Republicans and said, okay, I'll support your bill if you support mine.
That means Bernie has supported some conservative bills, and Kamala Harris hasn't.
That doesn't mean Bernie is not far left.
It means he's at least willing to have conversation with the right and figure out where we can all move forward.
I can respect that, but I think Bernie is a bit deceitful.
Now let's move down to where it gets really funny.
How Americans have shifted.
Interesting.
Take a look at this chart.
There's liberal, moderate, and conservative.
And you can see conservatives are dead center between moderate and conservative.
You can see liberal and moderate.
The Democrats are actually very close to being moderates.
Fascinating.
They say, what you'll notice is that Democrats and strong Democrats have, in fact, gotten more liberal.
But the Republicans and strong Republicans were far more polarized in the first place.
Oh, that explains it.
The right hasn't moved that far right.
They've just always been far right.
Hold on there a minute.
It would seem, my friends, that this chart is arbitrary.
What makes a Republican or strong Republican far right?
Personal opinion?
Oh, is it because the moderate line... Wait, moderate line?
What does that even mean then?
Why is it that they've chosen to place these points on this chart?
They don't explain it!
What, in what way, is someone more conservative or more liberal?
This is fascinating to me.
By simply moving conservative over to the right, it makes liberals look closer to moderate.
But there is no data point explaining why that should be the case.
If you were to move conservative over to moderate, liberal would be far left and going far left.
There's no reason for them to plot this chart the way they did.
If you remove liberal, moderate, and conservative, what do you get?
Republicans have moved over a little bit.
Democrats have moved over a little bit more.
Come down here.
Change since 2008.
It's fascinating.
We can see here, clearly according to the Washington Post data, that Democrats and strong Democrats have moved way to the left.
And Republicans have moved a bit to the left, but only about 50 to 60 percent as much as Democrats have moved to the left.
And that's the data point I've often used.
That while Republicans have moved over a point or two, Democrats moved over three to four.
Now, what they say, though, is, but look at the starting point.
Look at that starting.
Oh, oh, shucks.
They've all started out leaning conservative.
That proves the right is further right and the left isn't that left.
Now that's insane.
Remove their weird arbitrary starting point and focus only on the shift and the left has gone far left.
The reason I say you should remove the arbitrary starting point is that if we all started off as conservatives, it doesn't matter what you think conservative is.
Let's just call that baseline.
And where are we now?
further left from baseline.
They plotted on his map.
And the fascinating thing is you can actually see that strong Republicans moved along with
Democrats in 2012.
And today, strong Republicans are barely more right wing than they were in 2008.
Overall, Republicans are what, point one five degrees more according to this chart.
And Democrats are looking at point six or point four point five arbitrary numbers.
Let's jump over to this story from the New York Times.
Take a look at how they described it before.
They always try to play this game to make you think you're a fringe element.
In 2000, here's the Republican Party.
In 2004, it went slightly right.
In 2008, it went slightly left.
In 2012, it jumped to the right.
And in 2016, it moved to the left.
That's right.
Donald Trump was considered a moderate Republican.
The Democrats in 2000 went to the right in 2004, went to the right in 2008, but shot off to the far left in 2012 and jumped super far left in 2016.
I mean, you got to see these charts to really understand it.
But what does the New York Times do?
They put median party all the way on the far left.
That's their game.
Take a look at this.
They say, here's the median party of Europe And they put the Democratic Party center-left.
And the Republican Party is far-right.
We are not Europe.
Our standards are not Europe.
What you can see here is that Democrats have gone far-left.
Period.
Now, this is according to their own language.
But I must stop myself here, friends, and say, political left and right is different from colloquial culture war left and right.
When Elon Musk says the left has gone far left, we are not talking about manifesto talking about equality, labor groups, and market regulation.
That, according to the New York Times, has driven the Democratic Party far left.
I'm talking about nebulous, weird concepts of psychopathy about giving children sex changes.
When you come out and you say, I believe in LGBT rights, as I did in 2008.
Let's throw back to Elon Musk's meme.
We have it, right?
Let's see it here in the Washington Post.
In 2008, me personally, pro-gay marriage, pro-LGBT rights.
That's true.
Rights across the board.
People should be allowed to live their lives and be happy.
Then the left moved and said, now we're going to talk about kids.
And I was like, hey man, you know, just stay away from the kids.
Then in 2021, they were like, we're doing surgery on kids.
And I'm like, dude, that is a more extreme version of where you were in 2008.
We would describe that as going further left.
Of course, there are many on the left who oppose that, but still consider themselves on the left.
There are many people on the left, economically, who do not agree with these cultural issues.
I don't know.
People like me, I guess.
Because I would consider myself traditionally pro-choice.
It is a difficult moral position that has no real answer other than, I fear government authority.
I mean, that's really the only thing I can say about it.
Too much government authority.
So there's a challenge.
Because I certainly agree with many conservatives on their positions to, you know, life beginning at conception.
But I run into the libertarian conundrum of two bodies sharing one space and the issues around who gets to mandate the body is shared.
And there are excellent arguments.
Matt Walsh says abortion would be the termination of the baby.
You can at least try to save it.
Good point.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
So my issue is more so, can a woman terminate the pregnancy, not, can she, you know, kill the baby?
I don't want to get into all of that argument, because I know people will start throwing things, and then we go off focus.
My point is, 2008, safe, legal, and rare.
It's typically where I find myself.
And I know there's a lot of people on the right who disagree, but I think we need to have that, you know, semantic discussion about what we really mean by these terms.
In 2012, we started to see the emergence of people, these activists, saying they wished they had abortions.
And by 2021, you have the pro-abortion groups.
And they try and say they're not, but they're dramatically more extreme than they've ever been.
Safe, legal, and rare was the position of pro-choice in the 90s.
Rare!
It should not be happening, but it might in some circumstances.
Now it's TV shows mocking the idea, saying everyone should just get one?
You see, that's becoming more extreme.
Far-left, hyper-polarized, whatever you want to call it.
My position has not changed.
My position economically also has not changed.
My position on gun rights has, but that's not right-wing, that's libertarian.
Saying people should have the right to defend themselves and keep in bare arms, as per the Constitution, is not conservative or right-wing, it's libertarian-based.
I argue with conservatives, and they say, we should have law enforcement enforced equally across the board.
I say, if people don't want cops in their neighborhood, that's up to them.
Hey, that actually sounds a bit more progressive.
No, it's libertarian.
You know what I think we need in this chart that Elon Musk posts?
Is another dimension.
You should show the left and the right, and here's me on the left, and here's Seamus Coghlan of Freedom Tunes on the right, and we disagree on those issues.
But what's happened is that elements of the left have shifted upwards towards authoritarian and ideological.
And now they're looking down at us, saying we're both far right.
And we're both looking up at them being like, y'all have lost the plot.
I'll break it down in a lot of ways, but I can make it really simple for everybody.
We don't need to say necessarily the left has gone too far left or any of that stuff.
They're going to try and use faux data points to try and discredit the idea.
I can simply tell you this.
Almost every single Black Lives Matter story that was presented to us was a lie.
The George Zimmerman story, the media lied.
They actually edited the audio to make it seem like this guy was racist, and they lied about his ethnicity.
Mike Brown, hands up, don't shoot, that was a lie.
You also have Justice Millett, obviously, Covington Kids, Russiagate, Ukrainegate.
How many lies?
Just over and over and over again.
Ahmaud Arbery, woof, that one was a lie.
And the left goes, Tim is saying it's a lie, he's far right.
No, I'm just talking about facts.
Kyle Rittenhouse, that was a lie.
How many stories do I have to go through that are lies, lies, lies, lies?
And that's, in my opinion, what separates left and right today.
The multicultural democracy people believe crackpot BS.
Like what the Washington Post is doing here.
unidentified
If you look at the political parties, you can see the right has moved further right.
Yes, when liberals march in lockstep because they believe fake news, you can say they haven't changed one bit.
When the media lies about the political shifts, you can say they haven't changed one bit.
When they plot on the map an arbitrary starting point and say, well, the Democrats have moved, but the Republicans were more polarized to begin with.
From what standard, today's because you've moved far left?
If you are standing in an open field and you run to the far left, then stop and say, well, the right hasn't moved, but they were always in the far right portion of the field.
That's arbitrary.
They're lying.
I think what truly divides today, left and right, is do you believe reality or do you believe the lies?
Cal Rittenhouse story.
Overt lie.
Covington, overt lie.
When I came out and said Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, they called me far right.
But he was found, according to a jury of his peers, to have been doing so.
When I said that it will be difficult to prosecute January 6th defendants who were allowed in the building because trespassing requires a warning, the young Turk said, what a moron!
And I was right.
They've already addressed that in the courts.
One guy got totally acquitted.
One guy, the judge said, well, you jumped a barrier, but had his other charges dismissed.
And I'm not talking about people who are fighting and being violent, but that's the game.
Don't say gay.
That was a lie, and one of the most rapidly emerging lies we've seen from the press.
It doesn't exist.
But Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks continues with the lie.
So if you want to believe made-up BS, go ahead and do it.
I'll send you over to how they manipulate you with the New York Times.
The median party is actually very far left from where we are now.
Therefore, the Democrats are not far left and the Republicans are far right.
But we're not Europe.
Our standards have never been European.
We fought a revolutionary war to get away from those ideals, and World War II was a big catalyst for their leftward shift.
After their medical systems were decimated by war, they needed to set up public infrastructure.
We don't have that.
So they say Republicans are far right.
They're not.
It's just not.
I would actually argue that Republicans are probably more baseline because today Republicans are pro gay marriage.
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
How weird is that?
Donald Trump coming out and unfurling an LGBT flag.
You call that far right?
They are lying about this.
They want you convinced that Democrats are normal when they go far left and are insane.
I ain't gonna sit around and be gaslit by these people.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
We are entering a period of great transformation.
Will it be good, or will it just be escalation?
That is yet to be seen.
Elon Musk has secured his deal to purchase Twitter.
It hasn't gone through yet.
There's a provision by which it could be stopped, but it seems extremely unlikely.
Now, how has the machine responded?
The establishment has launched their disinformation governance board, run by a woman who spreads disinformation.
I think it's fascinating that people would argue in any way that the goal of this disinformation governance board would be to stop disinformation.
As I said, the one running it spreads it.
But if I opened a group, if I started a group or a business called the Ice Cream Association Building, Would you assume that the goal of the Ice Cream Association was to stop the consumption of ice cream or to increase it?
So when they create the Disinformation Governance Board, what they're likely saying is they will sow disinformation.
But this segment, my friends, is not about the Ministry of Truth launched by the Biden administration.
No, that will be a different segment.
This one is about what's going to happen now.
And Elon Musk has already begun sharpening his figurative blades.
TechCrunch is reporting Elon Musk has reportedly lined up a new Twitter CEO.
Shared ideas for monetizing tweets.
Full stop.
Sounds to me like Jack Dorsey is a liar.
Sounds like he's lying.
Jack would love to have you on TimCast IRL to discuss this.
With all due respect, I think you have not been forthright.
That's the best I can say.
But I'll have an honest conversation with you that Jack has expressed to me in the past.
He'd be willing to come on the show.
But look, I'm not going to pull my punches.
I think Jack Dorsey has lied over and over again.
And just because he's come out recently criticizing CNN doesn't mean I believe he's being honest.
I'll explain why I think he's lying in a moment, but Elon's moved to get a new CEO.
I think that proves Jack is lying, but that doesn't mean this story is correct, and I don't trust the mainstream media, so we'll see.
But we have this story from the Daily Mail as well.
Elon Musk told banks that agreed to help fund his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter that he could crack down on executive and board pay and develop new ways to monetize tweets, sources say.
It's knives out for Vijay Agade, who earned $17 million last year.
What did she do with that money?
Think about what you could do with that money.
What did these people do with all that money?
I don't know.
unidentified
You know, I got people saying, It seems so dumb for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a billboard in Times Square.
But some of these billboards are like five bucks to put your ad on it.
One time, mind you.
No joke.
There's a billboard in Times Square that costs four dollars per ad run.
Four bucks!
Now, they've got a minimum of 100 runs, but if you had $400, you could have your ad appear in Times Square 100 times.
That's kind of a lot.
I think that would get you in most circumstances like a day or two in Times Square.
Now imagine you want to run something for a week.
Okay, a couple grand maybe?
A lot to the average person, but substantially less than people realize.
What are people like Vijay Agade doing with that $17 million?
Did she, like, buy a boat or something?
Genuinely do not understand what people do with all of this money.
But let's talk about Jack Dorsey lying.
Jack Dorsey made a statement about Elon Musk coming in with a good vision, but he also said something about the previous CEO.
Which can, how can both of these statements be true?
Now, I want to break this down.
But before we do, my friends, we have a sponsor.
Head over to surfinginternetsafe.com to sign up for Virtual Shield and download your virtual private network service.
Virtual Shield is my first sponsor on YouTube.
They've stuck with us the whole time.
These are the kind of companies we want to support.
The ones that are willing to stand by us as we call out the nonsense, the lies, and the manipulation.
That's Virtual Shield.
Virtual Shield is a virtual private network.
It gives you a basic layer of security as you browse the web.
It will prevent people from spying on you.
To a certain degree, it provides you that protection.
from government hackers, rogue hackers, corporations, stops them from collecting your data.
It also will encrypt your Wi-Fi signal, which keeps you safe from third party or middle,
they're called man in the middle attacks. Now, no security is perfect, but this is a basic layer.
So if you want to be secure, go to surfinginternetsafe.com.
Also using a VPN allows you to have your location be set anywhere, which actually
could bypass censorship too.
Special thank you to Virtual Shield for sponsoring my work and allowing us to keep going amid cancel culture and all the nonsense that's surfing internet safe.
But let's talk about Elon Musk and his new CEO and why Jack is lying, if this report is true.
TechCrunch reports Elon Musk has lined up a new CEO for Twitter and told banks that agreed to help fund his acquisition about his plans to monetize tweets.
A source told Reuters that Musk has decided on who he plans to appoint as the new chief executive of Twitter, but the source didn't name the person.
What if it's like...
Someone ridiculous, like Joe Rogan.
I mean, not literally Joe Rogan, because Joe wouldn't do it.
But what if it's someone just, like, outright, like, why would he pick that person?
A total culture warrior.
Twitter's current CEO, Parag Agrawal, who took the role after Jack Dorsey stepped down in November, is expected to remain as CEO until the deal is completed.
Reuters reports that Musk told Twitter Chairman Brett Taylor that he does not have confidence in the company's management, which is a sentiment that he also stated in SEC filings.
Agrawal would be set for a significant compensation package if the deal closes, and Musk brings in new management, as he would receive $38.7 million due to a clause in his contract, according to the company's latest proxy filing.
I can't stand this evil in this country.
Jack Dorsey.
What's up, buddy?
You said you believed in Parag Agrawal.
You said that he had the vision.
You said all these great things about him running the company.
Well, you made similar statements about Elon Musk.
Now, Elon Musk wants to fire Parag.
So, if you trusted Parag and thought Elon had the right vision, but Elon wants to fire the guy you praised, something doesn't add up, does it?
38.7 million dollars.
Amazing!
What are this guy's qualifications?
Why does he get 38.7 million dollars?
It's remarkable.
Vijaya Gada getting 17 million dollars.
As they gutted this company and ran it into the ground.
Ideologues who were extracting value and doing what with it?
No idea.
Reuters reports that Musk told banks that he plans to develop more ways to make money from tweets.
For example, he said he plans to create a way to monetize tweets that go viral or include important information.
He also suggested the idea of charging a fee when third-party websites quote or embed tweets from verified accounts.
That's interesting.
I think that's absolutely interesting.
The idea being we disseminate this message, we publish it.
Ah, you see where that's going.
And you gotta pay a licensing fee to use it.
Maybe.
Maybe it won't work because you're allowed to do commentary and stuff on news, but one thing that Elon Musk could do...
Is that whenever a tweet starts to go viral or reaches a certain threshold, an ad could appear directly below it.
Same as it would for a Twitter video.
Twitter videos run ads.
The Washington Post reports that Musk also brought up the idea of paying influencers to create content on the platform, which is a business model that has proven to be successful for TikTok.
Musk is also said to be interested in the idea of subscription services that the company could offer.
In deleted tweets earlier this month, Musk suggested significant changes to Twitter Blue.
He says it's currently priced at $2.99 per month.
Musk suggested cutting the price, adding a way to pay in Dogecoin, and banning advertising.
In another now-deleted tweet, Musk said he wants to move Twitter away from its dependence on advertising for much of its revenue.
Smart move.
Musk had also told the banks he could crack down on executive and board pay at Twitter to slash costs.
Reuters also reports that in his pitch to the banks, Musk said Twitter's gross margin is much lower than other social media services, such as Facebook and Pinterest, and argued there are ways to run the company in a more cost-effective way.
Bloomberg News reported this week that Musk spoke to bankers about job cuts as part of his pitch to the lenders.
Musk reportedly won't make decisions on job cuts until he receives ownership of the company.
Elon Musk is sharpening his blade.
It is knives out for all of you at Twitter.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of people at Twitter who probably are going to be fine.
I think all of the ideologically driven garbage, gone.
Elon's going to clean house.
The platform does not need that many people working for it.
And many of these people have ideology jobs.
Well, they're going bye-bye.
We'll see, though.
Elon Musk says he's going to make the far-right unhappy.
But Elon Musk doesn't understand.
I think Elon's a smart guy.
But being smart does not mean having knowledge.
You can be wise.
You can have incredible comprehension, mathematical capabilities.
You can have tremendous intelligence in your IQ score.
But if you don't know certain facts, then you lack the information to come up with an adequate solution.
You know, there are certain math problems you wouldn't be able to solve because they lack the information.
There are certain ways to solve for them, but they typically involve using variables and giving variable answers.
So, a variable answer isn't a key to a problem.
If Elon Musk believes he's going to make the far right unhappy, and the left will equally be unhappy, that's currently how Twitter operates.
The left wants everyone on the right banned.
They're like, you shouldn't be allowed to call me words unless I tell you you can call me those words.
Which is psychotic!
I can call you whatever I want.
Cry about it.
So what is Elon Musk going to do?
He's going to say, well, in order for the left to be unhappy, I'll allow you to call them some names, but not others.
That's literally what Twitter already does.
You want free speech?
The left will lose their minds, as they already are.
There's no solution there.
Someone's going to be pissed off.
A free speech solution is the right move.
But it ain't going to keep the left happy.
The right will be happy.
What are you going to do about it?
Elon Musk sold $4.8 billion in Tesla stock.
The sale could be part of a plan to finance Musk's Twitter purchase.
Or Elon just wants $4.8 billion.
Geez.
I want to ask a serious question, my friends.
What do you do with all that money?
Look, it's no secret that I'm rich.
I have a lot of money.
And the only thing I can think to do with it is build TimCast.com, hire more people.
You know, instead of going out and buying like a $200,000 car, you know, I look at that Tesla plaid, you know, $150,000 car, and I'm just like, I don't know what I would do with it.
I do have a Tesla.
Okay, I do have nice cars.
And they're expensive.
No joke, right?
I bought expensive cars.
But it's kind of just like, Some of it's investment.
You know, I mentioned before I bought a Challenger.
It's just sitting in the garage.
You know, it's an investment.
I don't want to just have U.S.
dollars.
But what do I really buy?
We just hired a journalist at TimCast.com.
I'm like, if I'm gonna spend X amount of dollars, can I just have someone do good stuff?
It's better to own an excellent piece of journalism, in my opinion, than a car.
So, for me, there's that investment.
It's all an investment.
Everything goes towards it.
Elon Musk, I guess, is buying Twitter.
That's a good investment.
I'm happy with that.
I think he'll make a lot of money off of it.
You know, a lot of people are saying that he lost money because Tesla stock fell, like, 12% or something like that, and then it shot back up.
But when I see reports that, like, Vijaya Gade gets $17 million, it's way more money than I got.
What does she do with that?
She's working for a company.
She's not... I mean, what is she buying?
Maybe that's it.
These people want material stuff.
These are the people that believe that your golden toilet will get you to heaven.
And I don't fault Trump for reportedly having a golden toilet.
I don't know if he actually does.
But, you know, when you have billions upon billions of dollars and you're like, I don't know what to do with it, I shrug.
It's about power.
That's what the money is.
Now the left seems to think you can just take that money, throw it up in the air, so that everybody gets some, and the economy will be fixed.
The economy doesn't work that way.
That's ridiculous.
If you took the cash from every single billionaire and flooded the market with it, you would just get inflation.
That's all that would happen.
Supply and demand.
It's like really simple economics.
So when they're like, we should, there should not be billionaires, like dude, taxing all of Elon Musk's unrealized gains would not put a blip in the U.S.
economy.
But it doesn't mean that Elon Musk can buy a bunch of stuff.
I think there's got to be certain restrictions on the ultra-wealthy.
The problem is there's coalitions of the ultra-wealthy, so there's no real solution here.
When you look at Twitter, 50 billion dollar company, or whatever, 40 billion dollars, Maybe less.
The issue is you have a handful of ultra-wealthy elites who control finance and get whatever they want.
Why should I care about 3,000 tyrants 1,000 miles away versus 1,000 tyrants 3,000?
Did I say it right?
It's the line from The Patriot.
You know, I love that movie.
He's like, tell me, why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?
My point is, Elon Musk is a billionaire.
Am I supposed to be upset?
Billionaires already owned Twitter.
And I don't mean just Jack Dorsey.
I mean the handful of these massive investment firms.
It is what it is.
You're not going to change that system by just taxing these people.
But I wonder.
You know, Elon Musk seems to be doing cool things with his money.
He wants to go to Mars.
He's building a starship.
He's building a city.
He's trying to change culture and have an impact.
But what about these other people?
You know, they use institutional power to enrich themselves, to live in absolute comfort, and they gloat and laugh, but they don't put their money towards anything.
And there's the big difference.
Taylor Laurence, I want to mention something.
She gets paid a hefty sum from the Washington Post.
There's some really interesting reports that I'm getting.
We're looking for verification on her contract with the Washington Post and the guarantees she gets, because boy, do they sound silly.
But she uses the Washington Post infrastructure to support her, to protect her, and she wields it as a weapon.
Independent people like Tim Kast or The Daily Wire built their own platforms and wield their own power to counter.
Elon Musk is buying up institutional power.
See, the independent people, smaller independent businesses and independent media, puts their own neck on the line.
My personal money that I make from running this business goes right back into that company.
For Lorenz, the Washington Post makes the money and then uses that money to satiate her whims.
And then she gets her compensation and puts it in her pocket.
Now, to be fair, I probably make way more money than Taylor Lorenz does.
And I get paid a salary from the company as well.
I just mean, she didn't build that company.
It is not money that she earned.
They hired her and then gave her access to these weapons in financial markets.
Whereas TimCast.com was solely built by me with all of your support.
We have no institutional investors.
We have the company, there's no investors.
100% of it is owned solely by me.
I am the board.
That's it.
And I'm looking forward to it staying that way because it's going to be really interesting as we go into the future.
But there are going to be challenges as we expand because there are certain legal limitations and requirements that I don't even know if I'd be able to deal with.
And that's why companies typically take investment.
But this is the point.
Are you wielding power you earned?
Or are you wielding power someone else handed you?
I also want to mention one quick thing.
That billboard I put up in Times Square with the help of the Daily Wire guys?
You know, a lot of people are like, so what, what's the point of the billboard?
unidentified
I would like to explain something very simple to all of you.
Perhaps they saw the billboard and they were angry because they feel trolled.
The point of it was just to make a statement that we too can wield institutional power and expose you and call you out.
But do you understand the power of a Times Square billboard?
How many tourists pass through Times Square every day?
What is it, like a million?
How many of them stop to take a photograph?
How many of them will take a photograph that includes that billboard in their tourist photo that they will then post to Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and TikTok?
The ad doesn't just exist in Times Square.
As more and more tourists go and take photos, that ad becomes a permanent fixture.
Ever watch a movie where someone goes down to Times Square?
Look at all the ads.
I think it was, uh, take a look at Captain America.
Ah, Marvel reference.
At the end of Captain America, um, I think he's in Times Square, right?
He runs Times Square, and he's looking around, and there's ads everywhere.
Those ads are real ads, and they will be permanently in that film.
I think they're real ads, but there's a lot of things that do this.
They've got every photo, every video, everything filmed in Times Square all the time, with millions of people everywhere.
Those ads are permanent.
That's why they're so valuable.
Tourist attraction.
So that ad about Taylor Lorenz?
It's permanent.
And there will come a time, maybe in 50 or 100 years, when people go back and look through the historical record, and they say, take a look at these old-timey ads.
I mean, we've done it.
I got a Life magazine from 1944, just before D-Day.
Incredible read, by the way.
So much is the same, but so much is different.
Seriously.
And you can see the advertisements.
And we laugh at them.
Haha, look at these old ads for cigarettes.
Someone's going to look back 50 years from now, 100 years from now, 80 years from now, and they're going to say, look at these ads in Times Square.
What were these about?
Hey, look at this weird one.
Taylor Lorenz doxed libs of TikTok.
What was that about?
And they're going to look it up and they're going to find the story and say, wow, that's so crazy.
And that's your legacy, Taylor Lorenz.
Forever.
Forever.
You can't run from it.
You want to enter the public arena and play these games, these games will be played.
Cry and scream and spit and yowl all you want, I don't care.
I did not insult you.
I did not disparage your age or your looks.
I didn't even disparage your reporting.
No, I said, in fact, it was warranted.
What I disparaged was you publishing the address of someone.
And you didn't like that, did you?
Well, with great power comes great responsibility.
And I certainly agree with that assessment.
That for me, y'all who watch these videos, who support our sponsors, who are members at TimCast.com, have granted us great power.
We have some wealth.
I say some, because as much as we're making a lot of money and we're hiring people, I look at Vajayagada getting $17 million a year and I'm like, man, I wish we had $17 million a year.
But with that great power comes a responsibility.
And that responsibility, in my opinion, is to empower you back.
Now, some have said, Tim, how about instead of buying billboards for $100,000, why don't you give 10 of your members $10,000 and give back?
That's actually a really great idea.
Yeah, maybe we'll do that.
There's sweepstakes rules and stuff, but maybe we will actually do that.
Maybe we can do this.
I don't know if we can do a hundred grand, but maybe we can do once a month, we select 10 random members and give them a thousand bucks.
We can do something like that.
I think that's a really great idea, because that's a promotional campaign, where it's like, hey, you know, when you become a member, you are automatically entered into a contest to win a thousand bucks.
Every month we'll do a drawing.
And we can livestream it.
We can put it on the vlog.
It's a brilliant idea.
When someone said, why spend a hundred grand on a billboard, I'm like, they don't cost that much money.
You can get, there was one I posted on Twitter, you can get a billboard in Times Square for $17.50 per display with a minimum of 10 runs.
So your ad can appear 10 times in Times Square for $175.
I mean, that ain't bad!
I don't know how many people have $175 lying around, but I think most of you could probably save up for that, right?
You want to buy a PlayStation 5, you're looking at $400-$500.
Hey, how about this?
How about you buy 20 runs of your ad in Times Square saying whatever you want to say?
Is it really effective?
Well, 20 times, you might need a little bit more than that, but that's pretty good.
And if these billboards, some of them are on a 15-minute cycle, we're talking about your ad running every 15 minutes, 20 times, so you're gonna get out of that, what, 5 hours?
Over 5 hours.
So multiply that by five and you got a full day.
A full day of your ad appearing every 15 minutes and people will see it.
It'll be in photos.
It'll be in videos.
Think about the value of that.
If you can save up for that much.
So the point here ultimately is times are going to change.
We're starting to challenge the establishment.
We're doing crazy things.
You know, we got this billboard in Times Square calling out Taylor Lorenz.
We're planning big marketing runs.
We're planning a bunch of crazy ideas.
I want to put some well-known faces on some very large billboards, and I want to do it because it's going to make these people livid, and it's going to promote the work we do.
But it's not even about making them livid.
That's a bonus.
The point is, it's time to start engaging with institutional culture and taking it over.
You know what I want to see?
I want to go into Times Square and I want to see ads for Jordan Peterson, for Dave Rubin's show, for Louder with Crowder, for all of these independent voices.
That's what I want to see.
I want people to know exactly who we are and that we are coming.
And we will challenge that machine.
I like the idea of that sweepstakes, though.
Imagine, you're just a member at TimCast.com, but a humble $10 per month to help support our work, and then one day we hit you up and say, we got a check for you for $1,000.
Because we can allocate, it's only $10,000 out of, you know, everything our members give us, and then you win.
I don't know what the laws are for that, though, so I don't know if we can do it.
It was a good idea, though.
Maybe we can do something like that.
We've got a bunch of plans.
There's a lot of infrastructure work happening behind the scenes I wish I could tell you about, but I do believe next week we will have a really great announcement to make.
Someone else might make an announcement before us about it, but we'll see what happens.
