Elon Musk CONFIRMS Trump Will Be Brought Back To Twitter, Despite Trump's Claim HE WILL Be Back
Elon Musk CONFIRMS Trump Will Be Brought Back To Twitter, Despite Trump's Claim HE WILL Be Back. Trump may want to stay on Truth Social but he will need to rejoin Twitter to compete with Democrats in the upcoming election.
Democrats are losing it over the idea of Trump coming back and since the launch of Truth social even Trump as claimed he won't come back.
But Republicans will need to combat the narrative and with Elon restoring accounts they will be forced to rejoin twitter if they want to be competitive in the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential races
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk has confirmed Donald Trump will be unbanned on Twitter, and this means Trump will be back.
No matter what Trump wants to do, his account will be restored.
Even if he's saying he's going to stay on Truth Social, personally, Trump will have no choice but to come back to the platform, because if he wants to get votes, he's going to have to fish where the fishes are.
In our next story, Lori Lightfoot of Chicago is being slammed for calling people to arms and telling them to fight.
Funny, Alex Jones was banned for basically saying the same thing.
In our last story, Bill Gates flip-flops as COVID is just like the flu.
Colbert gets the flu.
His show is shut down twice in a month.
The institutions are crumbling.
Everything seems insane, and let's break this down.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us 5 stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In a breaking news story that has shocked this nation to its core, Elon Musk has announced
he will reverse Donald Trump's ban on Twitter.
And that means regardless of whether or not Donald Trump wants to come back to the platform, he will be back on the platform.
His account will reappear.
It will have all of those Twitter followers.
It will be verified.
And Donald Trump has said already he won't come back to the platform, that he will be using Truth Social.
Which presents a bit of a problem for Donald Trump.
He needs to fish where the fish are.
People on Twitter need to hear from the former president.
And going on Truth Social might be a space for him to talk to his supporters.
But if Elon Musk takes over Twitter, all of those people are going to get their accounts back on Twitter.
The president, former president, will have his account back.
And this will be a much more effective medium for getting out the ultra-MAGA narrative.
Ah, yes, the ultra MAGA narrative.
Right now, the establishment is losing control.
Bill Gates recently reversed his position, flipping on COVID, and basically saying what conservatives and libertarians have been saying for the past year and a half.
And if I told you what Bill Gates said about COVID, maybe I would get banned.
Well, he basically said it was like the flu.
I humbly disagree.
Because YouTube says you're not allowed to say that, right?
Take it from Bill Gates or not.
The point is, the narrative is flipping.
Even those who are pushing fake news and disinformation are coming around and starting to repeat the same lines.
Joe Biden cannot maintain the facade anymore.
Democrats can't.
Ratings are collapsing.
Elon Musk is taking over Twitter, and it is the return of the ultra MAGA narrative.
Now, by ultra MAGA, I am speaking somewhat in jest.
Joe Biden recently was talking about inflation and warned that the ultra MAGA agenda will
only make everything worse, which I'm pretty sure nobody believes, because, well, back
when the narrative was in dispute, more so because people on the right or anti establishment
people had a chance to speak, we saw what happened under Donald Trump.
The media lied all day and night about what Trump was doing.
Then pro-Trump personalities, post-liberals, and anti-woke people were calling out the lies.
And we were getting the truth.
The truth was the economy was doing really, really well.
Donald Trump was not as bad as the media made him out to be, but they needed to seize control.
And in 2018, they issued sweeping bans of pro-Trump personalities.
Just about two years after the wave.
I mean, it was 2015, 16, 17 and into 18 that this pro-Trump narrative was allowed to persist.
In the next several years, people still pushed back and eventually the establishment lost control completely.
And that's what we're witnessing right now with Elon Musk taking over.
Today, gas prices are at an all time high.
Inflation is through the roof.
Diesel prices all time high.
Baby formula shortages have mothers freaking out.
And I know we said it on Tim Cast IRL the other night that mothers can just breastfeed.
It's not entirely true.
And many mothers can't.
So formula is important.
All that matters is it's time for reality to set back in.
And that means Donald Trump returning to Twitter.
So as much as he might say no, the news that Elon Musk is bringing him back is massive.
Because in the end, it means Donald Trump will be back on the platform trying to fish where the fish are to win votes to secure these votes.
And the time frame, my friends, three months.
The deal is expected to close in three months.
I don't know if that means right when Elon Musk walks in, he's going to unban Trump, but that should be what Elon Musk does.
Well, let's slow down.
I want to talk to you about what's going on right now with the narrative.
Donald Trump is actually suing Twitter.
He has lost his, that is a lawsuit thrown out already arguing that Twitter violated his rights by banning him.
So when Trump says he's not coming back, his legal team is still fighting for him to come back.
This means the narrative can change right before the midterms.
Maybe it's not all good, though, for the Trump supporters.
Maybe Democrats are hoping that Trump comes back and they can then scream, look at what's happening!
The insurrectionists!
Ah, quick, go vote!
Maybe that's the real play.
Maybe that's the variable that helps Democrats maintain control.
Far be it from me to try and predict the future.
Let's read the first story from the Wall Street Journal.
But before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com and become a member by clicking that sign up button in the top right.
As a member, you are helping our journalists keep their jobs.
We are a member-funded website, basically, so all the news we write, the opinion pieces, the columns, everything we do, the fact-checking, it's thanks to you as members.
You will also get access to members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, but I will do you one more.
As a member of TimCast, you are supporting the expansion of counter-infrastructure in big tech.
Recently, TimCast announced that we migrated our website over to Rumble infrastructure.
Is Rumble a guarantee safe space?
No, no, of course not.
Nobody is.
Is Rumble better?
Yes.
At the very least, is Rumble competition?
Yes.
We have more announcements coming soon.
When you sign up for TimCast and support our website, we are recycling much of this money into infrastructure to compete with Silicon Valley and Big Tech.
We use Rumble Video Player for our members-only content, and now we are on Rumble's cloud services, hosting the website in its entirety.
I mean, there are some plugins and stuff, but you know what I mean.
As a member, we will continue to expand the use of infrastructure away from big tech, Silicon Valley, oligarchs, elitists, and cult members.
Because we're going to put our money where our mouths are.
So we're going to hire more fact checkers, more writers, we're going to produce more content, we are expanding, and we are focusing on replacing every piece of infrastructure we use with alternative means to stop the censorship.
That means we will be more resilient.
That means we will be less likely to get censored.
And that means as Rumble expands their competition against Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley will be forced to bend the knee and say, please don't leave us, please.
Oh yeah, that's coming.
With Dan Bongino, people like Dinesh D'Souza, using Rumble, YouTube will one day wake up and say, we have lost a large portion of market share to these alternative platforms, the alternative networks, the alternative infrastructure, and they will be forced to concede.
You cannot maintain this censorship.
Now, there is another thing that's happening.
I mean, Elon Musk buying the platform is a major spike in the vampiric heart of these demons.
And it's a good thing.
But I really mean it on the infrastructure stuff.
At the very least, by moving us, by moving over and using the resources we have, thanks to you as members, to this alternative infrastructure, it is putting pressure on these other platforms.
That is awesome.
We got more updates coming soon.
Our developers are working behind the scenes to make more, to bring on more new infrastructure.
I can't wait to announce the next move we're making because I think it's going to be one of the biggest and most important infrastructure declarations or announcements.
But let's read the news.
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Elon Musk says he would reverse Twitter's ban on Donald Trump.
I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country.
Elon Musk said he would reverse the ban, quote, I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump.
I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice, said Mr. Musk, who was speaking virtually at a Financial Times Autos conference.
Mr. Musk called the ban a morally bad decision, saying permanent bans undermine trust in Twitter, quote.
If there are tweets that are wrong and bad, those should be either deleted or made invisible.
And a suspension, a temporary suspension, is appropriate, but not a permanent ban.
Mr. Musk agreed last month to buy Twitter in a deal.
This we know.
So there it is.
He's bringing Trump back.
Now, Trump previously said he will not return.
I reject that statement, Donald Trump.
I do not believe it for a moment.
Donald Trump is still in the midst of a legal battle to come back to the platform.
I genuinely believe Trump will be back on Twitter.
That doesn't mean Truth Social has to go anywhere.
Truth Social in the past couple of weeks has been expanding rapidly.
They're saying within, I think, like a month or maybe a few weeks, you will be able to use Truth Social in your browser.
Now, I have an iPhone.
I don't use iPhone, so I've posted like two truths on Truth Social.
Conservatives are really bad at branding, mind you.
My favorite meme was they were like, Trump should have just called it Covfefe because people would have downloaded it for fun and been on it.
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.
Whatever.
I think Trump will be back.
I think Truth Social and Twitter will both host Trump's thoughts, but truth is safer.
meet and greet tickets. See you on the tour. Whatever. I think Trump will be back. I think
truth social and Twitter will both host Trump's thoughts.
But truth is safer. As much as people like Elon Musk. Truth will be safer. Fox News reports Trump
will not return to Twitter even as Elon Musk purchases the platform will begin begin using
his own truth social.
Trump said a Musk Twitter takeover would be a positive development, but he will stay on his own platform.
Now, here's what I find interesting.
Here's a few reasons why I think Trump will be back.
Take a look at this story from CNBC.
Elon Musk denies claim by Truth Social boss that Trump encouraged him to buy Twitter.
Elon Musk flatly denied a claim by the head of ex-President Donald Trump's new social media company that Trump had encouraged Musk's bid to buy Twitter.
Now, why would that be?
They say Nunes, during an appearance on Fox Business, had said that Trump's social media app, Truth Social, was all for Musk's move to take Twitter private with a $44 billion buyout offer.
President Trump basically, before Elon Musk bought it, actually said to go and buy it.
Why would Trump claim that?
Why would Nunes claim that?
Why would Elon have to deny it?
I think this shows that very much Trump and Trump's team are interested in Elon Musk taking Twitter because of what it might mean.
Now, this one's a bit of a stretch.
I don't know for sure, but why would they be acting like they're involved in this in any way?
I mean, let's make it simple.
Nunes is basically saying there was some involvement from Trump to Elon.
Sounds like he wants back on the platform, and I think a lawsuit suggests this may be the case.
from theweek.com. Federal judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against Twitter. This is from May 7th,
2022, mind you. US District Court Judge James Donato dismissed former President Trump's lawsuit
against Twitter on Friday, though Trump's lawyers will have a chance to submit an amended complaint
by May 27th. Trump sued Twitter for banning him from the platform after January 6th, the riot,
blah, blah, blah.
The lawsuit alleged that Twitter violated the First Amendment, that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional, and that Twitter engaged in deceptive and misleading practices.
The plaintiffs argued that although Trump, I'm sorry, although Twitter is a private company,
it was operating as a state actor under governmental coercion when it banned the plaintiff's accounts,
and could therefore be sued for First Amendment violations.
The suit presented what plaintiffs described as examples of Democrat legislators threatening
new regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 amenity for defendants and
other social media platforms if Twitter did not censor views and content with which these
members of Congress disagreed.
Donato wrote, the plaintiffs fell short of the mark in attempting to prove the conduct
allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right was fairly attributable to the state.
That's a judge.
I disagree with that judge.
Because we actually have a couple lawsuits.
Take a look at this from HoustonPublicMedia.org.
Texas argues Facebook and Twitter are a modern-day public square in defense of censorship law, HB 20.
Lawyers for the state of Texas told a panel of federal judges on Monday that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms act as a modern-day public square and can thus be required to host objectionable speech under a state law banning censorship of certain viewpoints.
In this case, those requirements have been set forth in House Bill 20, a state law banning social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users from removing an account because of viewpoint discrimination.
These social media platforms control the modern-day public square, but they abusively suppress speech in that square.
Texas adopted HB 20 last year in the wake of several high-profile cases, conservatives being banned, blah, blah, blah.
Let me tell you about why I think this one can fly.
There's something called POPs.
P-O-P-S.
Privately Owned Public Spaces.
In New York, during Occupy Wall Street, there's a privately owned space.
It's open to the public, but it's privately owned.
And when people showed up to protest, ultimately, the police tried to kick them out.
Eventually, a lawsuit was won, where the court said, If it is open to the public, it is open to the First Amendment on speech grounds.
Now, there's a difference between a virtual space and a physical space that I get.
But I believe if Twitter says, y'all can come hang out in this space, it is open to the public, but we own it.
Then people are allowed their free speech rights.
In California, this is fascinating too because it's liberals that don't like it, but in California they have a similar law where you're allowed to go on private property for First Amendment reasons.
Yes, I know this because I used to do non-profit fundraising on private property.
Period.
Every morning, In the office, we get our clipboards, and they would say, everybody, you're gonna go to these locations, and you're going to fundraise there.
Some locations were really bad, and you'd roll your eyes and be like, how am I supposed to raise money there?
Some were really good.
But often, you would be sent to grocery stores, shopping centers, things like that.
Some of these shopping centers didn't like that you were there, but guess what?
You have a legally protected right.
So there were several instances where I would be at a shopping center, like a supermarket, And the people there would come out and they would be like, you can't be here.
And I would say, yes, I can.
And they would be like, no, you can't.
It's private property.
And I would say, ma'am, we do this for a living.
We know exactly what we're allowed to do.
And then they would call the cops.
And usually the cops would never even show up.
I once had cops show up and all of a sudden the cops walk out of the building With this lawsuit, I think they have an argument.
They've set a threshold.
50 million users.
OK, sorry about this, sir. We tried letting her know, ma'am, he's allowed to be here. He's doing
nothing wrong. You are allowed for First Amendment reasons on private property. Bam. Not in the store.
That's where the interesting thing was. There's a compromise in all this. It's not black and white.
With this lawsuit, I think they have an argument. They've set a threshold.
Fifty million users. They've said First Amendment. You are a modern day public square.
I think that's right.
But let's go back to Donald Trump's lawsuit.
About what's, you know, what's currently going on here.
And I want to show you this.
Attorney General Eric Schmidt, Missouri and Louisiana, just filed suit against Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Fauci and other top ranking officials for colluding with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech under the guise of combating misinformation.
This is where I think Donald Trump is correct.
Big tech platforms were colluding with Democrats.
We know this more overtly from Judicial Watch and others who sued.
We also know this from statements made by the government.
Take a look at this.
In the May 5th, 2021 press conference, Jen Psaki said the president's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation.
Now, that is not a direct... No, they're not saying you must.
Well, hold on.
In the same press conference, Psaki said that President Biden supports better privacy protections and a robust antitrust program.
Then, July 15th, Psaki stated, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff.
I don't agree with this judge who said that you missed the mark.
If the government comes to you and says, if you do this thing that we don't like, we're gonna be upset about it.
I think we should regulate your entity, your business.
And they're doing it in private communication with you?
We get it.
That should not be legal.
The government should not be allowed to go to you and say, do it or else.
Now.
If the government said, we're going to regulate speech in a way that protects the speech, that's different.
There is a, some people might, you know, probably these liberal types will be like, how can you say the government has a right to regulate a business, but when they threaten to regulate a business, they're wrong, because there's negative and there's positive.
Positive, the action, so the action taken Let me clarify.
If the government goes and says, we don't like this speech, ban it.
You are in violation of the First Amendment because you have singled out speech you don't like and you want it removed.
If the government goes to a private business and says, we don't like this specific speech, we think you should be regulated so it shouldn't be allowed.
Coercion.
Now, what if they said, we don't like this speech from happening, but the government has no right to limit speech.
Therefore, we think you must be regulated to allow speech.
If the government has regulation that protects speech, you are not infringing upon someone's rights.
If the government passed a law that said, we are passing a law saying that arms manufacturers must give people guns within a certain amount of time, you are not restricting the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms.
You're not infringing upon it.
You're actually helping make it better.
Therein lies the big question.
Now, of course, the First Amendment says, make no law respecting an establishment of.
Now, there's arguments there.
The point is, if the government said, we don't like that Twitter is censoring any political speech, we think it should be regulated, and we're going to tell them this in private.
I don't believe that violates any rules, because they're saying, we want to protect the right of speech for all people.
But if one group singles out what they don't like, now they are using the power of government for personal political benefit.
Big difference.
So I will just say this.
Donald Trump's lawsuit, assuming it continues moving forward, says to me that Donald Trump intends to return to the platform.
He has to!
I mean, come on.
If they give him his account back and he doesn't come back, he's hurting himself.
Maybe he'll wait a little bit, but he's got to.
Please!
Donald Trump, you gotta come back!
Bring the fun back!
Check this out.
Jimmy Kimmel.
Truth Social is not so different from Twitter.
They will delete your account if you use the platform as a tool for a crime or any unlawful activity, like, I don't know, starting a riot in the Capitol, maybe?
Trump didn't do that.
But these people are just not smart.
Trump did not incite violence.
It didn't happen.
It's funny because you get a tweet from Lori Lightfoot where she's like, this is a call to arms and we're gonna fight!
And it's like, hey, hey, that's dangerous rhetoric, right?
No, they don't care.
That's allowed.
Alex Jones says, keep your battle rifles ready!
And they say, you're banned.
Oh, okay, alright.
Empty promises.
You see, these people don't realize.
He says, the biggest no-no, the one they actually call truth number one, they will delete your account if you use the platform as a tool for a crime or any unlawful activity.
Now, what I'm wondering is, maybe this is why Trump hasn't been posting on Truth Social.
He's banned from that one, too.
I think they're talking about Antifa.
I think they're outright saying that the right isn't organizing illegal activities like Antifa does, and Antifa gets away with it.
Yeah.
You wanna know why this is so important?
You wanna know why I think Trump will and must come back?
It's because of narrative control.
Take a look at this.
His remarks come as gasoline prices have hit an all-time high.
Donald Trump needs the narrative.
He needs a way to bypass the media.
That's why the journalists hated him so much.
They loved him and hated him.
They loved him because it was just endless controversy and they could not, they could, you know, just talk non-stop and never shut up.
But they also hated him because they couldn't lie anymore.
They'd come out and they'd be like, Donald Trump says this, and then Trump would post the video and they'd be like, oh.
They would say, Trump said this, and then Trump would tweet, no I didn't, I said this.
And they would go, grrr.
Then Micah Brzezinski said, Trump thinks he can come out and tell people what to think, but that's our job!
No.
Gas prices have hit new records.
Fuel costs, a key marker of the continued inflation in the U.S., continues to surge.
The average price is $4.37 per gallon, and diesel is at $5.50 a gallon.
and a thirty seven cents per gallon and diesel is at five fifty a gallon.
Both all time records.
Imagine what the news cycle would be if Donald Trump was was on Twitter right now.
Donald Trump is on Truth Social, in fact, I don't even know, let me see if I can pull up Trump's Truth Social, because I don't even know if I've actually even seen, I've seen some of what he's said, but is he talking about, I can't pull it up on, I can't show you his Truth Social on the screen because it's not on browser.
So I don't think he's actually talked to.
Oh, he does.
He says gas prices have just hit an all time high, the equivalent of a massive tax hike on America.
I'm glad you're talking about it, Mr. President.
However, imagine what would happen in the news cycle if Donald Trump was tweeting about it, forcing the blue check journalist to listen to what he has to say.
We'd be way better off.
Maybe.
You know, look, every time Trump did something, the media lied about it.
It was good because we called it out and we proved they're liars.
Now, granted, when the media lies today, we still call them out and prove they're liars.
Joe Biden is desperate.
He's blaming the ultra MAGA.
OK, well, let's put Trump and ultra MAGA back up top and have them talk about it and counter the narratives from Joe Biden.
Blah, blah, blah.
He talks about inflation.
Blah, blah, blah.
Biden used the occasion to continue to ramp up his rhetoric against the GOP, accusing Republicans of having no concrete plans to address higher costs.
They have no plan to bring down energy prices today, Biden said.
No plan to get us to a cleaner, energy-independent future tomorrow.
My plan is to lower everyday costs for hardworking Americans.
Blah, blah, blah.
They're all lies, of course.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that everything's the fault of Joe Biden.
When he was addressing inflation, he said, we had a pandemic, we have a war.
He's not wrong about that.
You know what he should say?
I think a good president, I think a better political strategy would be to say something like, I will not lie to the American people.
First, I'm going to say inflation is caused by several factors, two of which are no one's fault.
They were not Trump's fault.
They are not my fault.
And that's the reality.
And that is a pandemic happened.
Now we can talk about the responses to the pandemic and how that may have affected the economy.
But you've got two different administrations involved.
I think everybody can take a little bit of the blame, maybe some more so than others.
We also have a war in Eastern Europe.
But Joe Biden should have then said, but I do accept responsibility because I am in charge and I am the leader.
And rest assured, I will do the best that I can to make sure we make it through this and your lives improve.
But Joe Biden can't do that.
It's why he's a bad leader.
And I will say the same thing of Donald Trump.
Trump is also not the kind of person to accept responsibility.
I think you need some humility.
I can absolutely understand the criticism of Trump, where he's always just like, it's not my fault, it's not my fault.
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 The truth is, under Donald Trump, things were better.
They were.
Even during the pandemic, surprisingly.
So Biden absorbed a lot of this after-pandemic garbage, but guess what?
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcast.
He's the one who announced the ban on travel to Europe.
He wanted that ban on travel to China.
It is not all Joe Biden's fault.
But Joe Biden is the leader now.
Joe Biden shut down Keystone Pipeline.
Gas prices are through the roof.
Joe Biden banned fracking on public lands.
This is partially the responsibility of Joe Biden, who is the leader.
At the very least, the buck stops with you.
I will not blame someone for external factors, but I will blame them for being bad leaders.
Donald Trump, I will say, did a lot of good things.
I do not think leadership was one of them, and I genuinely mean that.
Donald Trump was divisive.
Donald Trump took the bait.
Donald Trump got angry too much.
But he did a good job in a lot of ways.
I thought No New Wars was tremendous.
For the first time in my life, a president with No New Wars.
That's amazing.
The economy was doing really, really well.
And so I said, I can accept that he's not really a leader guy.
I mean, he's a leader, he is.
Does he exude charisma?
Yeah, he's a little brash and divisive in many ways.
But the economy was doing well.
The problem was the media.
If the media just said, we accept that Trump X, Y, and Z, we accept the good economy, people would not have been at each other's throats.
But see, the media was dying, and they are dying, and their narrative control is dying, and they're freaking out, and they're screaming, and they're crying.
But Elon Musk making these moves all around just good, good news.
In the meanwhile, in the short term, before this happens, we've got to recognize Biden's economic woes with surging mortgage rates.
FDA's working on baby formula shortage but there's no national stockpile.
One reporter said they asked members of Congress about the shortage and they said, what shortage?
They didn't even know.
We got this one.
Attacked on every front.
Area restaurant on inflation and food shortages.
This is local Ohio, but you'll see tons of these stories where they're talking about how bad things are getting.
CBC.
I know this is Canada, but, you know, we share similar economic issues.
Food prices could continue to soar due to fertilizer shortage.
And now, the House could vote today on $40 billion to go to Ukraine.
That's amazing.
Why are we continually dumping tens of billions of dollars into Ukraine instead of, I don't know, solving our problems?
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
If Donald Trump gets re-elected, if the Republicans win in November, if Donald Trump gets his Twitter back, if all of these things are true, I believe we will start to see a shift in the narrative.
We will start to see real American issues make the forefront of the news cycle.
This will force members of Congress to change their positions and focus more so on fixing these economic problems.
Trump needs to gain control of at least his share of the narrative again.
Because right now, you do have Twitter.
But it's not just Trump.
There needs to be pushback.
With Elon Musk taking over Twitter, bringing back Freedom of speech, to a certain degree.
We're going to start to see more pushback on these narratives and these lies.
Once we do, and we say things like, shutting down Keystone was bad for gas prices, they might bring it back.
And then you'll see gas prices go down because of speculation.
Now, if you want to blame speculators for driving the price, by all means, go and do so.
I'm not defending them, but speculation causes the price to go up.
It's really that simple.
It's not the only reason, but narrative plays a role.
If the media isn't focused on an issue, then it's not talked about in politics.
Take a look at Roe v. Wade.
All of a sudden, the lockdowns, the immigration, the war, it all gets washed away when the Roe v. Wade thing leaks.
Pfizer data came out, and how many people have started digging through that?
A lot of documents.
But the narrative changes as soon as people just Here's the story.
Donald Trump had that power to sway the narrative and force people to focus on issues.
He can do it whenever he wants.
Because the journalists are addicted to him, and the media did not know how to respond.
In the meantime, we're dumping money into a war in Ukraine we should not be involved with.
We've got food prices through the roof, food shortages, baby food shortages, gas prices, diesel and... What do you call it?
Just gasoline and diesel are both through the roof.
Fuel is just nuts.
And now we have this hilarious propaganda.
Treasury Secretary warns of damaging economic effects of limiting abortion.
Okay.
Elon, bring Donald Trump back.
That's what we need.
Texas, sue these platforms.
Don't stop.
Keep suing them.
I've never been a small government conservative.
And so these narratives on the left don't work on me, where they're like, Republicans always said they wanted small, small government, but now they want to regulate private business.
And I'm like, wow, that's crazy.
I've never been one of those people.
It really makes you wonder.
My positions have always been regulation.
My positions have always been that centralized power is a bad thing.
So, when I was younger, I was more on the left.
I was more liberal, like these big corporations should not have unfettered, unregulated access.
I didn't like it.
And now, today, I feel the exact same way.
I don't care what your company is.
When you control the commons and cause damage in the public space, you will be regulated.
Many people on the right, libertarians or otherwise, are saying, no, no, we shouldn't allow that.
We shouldn't have that because it's a slippery slope.
It's about negative enforcement.
It's about making sure these companies can't do a thing.
Not that they should promote a thing.
I don't want big tech companies picking winners and losers.
I want to regulate them in a way that says, you are not allowed to control speech.
Think about it.
This idea from many on the right, they're like, if you regulate them, they'll use the power against you.
If the power that the government has is to restrict action, that's it.
Then there's no risk.
I suppose the issue is, if you allow the government, if you allow these businesses now to operate with impunity, they will always censor.
Now they're saying, you know, Elon Musk is coming in and the left is freaking out.
But Elon Musk is not promising to censor.
He's promising to lift censorship.
And that's why they're mad.
They're losing power.
And good.
They should.
Narrative is the beginning of everything.
Votes can only happen if the idea exists.
Harry Tubman famously said, I have freed many slaves.
I would have freed many more if only they knew they were slaves.
If you don't know about something, how can you vote to change it?
I think it's funny.
It was Steve Jobs who said, how does someone know if they want it if they don't know what it is or they've never seen it?
And it's like, oh, that's a good point.
So he made the iPhone.
Some people thought it was a dumb idea.
He's like, no stylus, right?
But people did want it and it became the standard.
I think we need to make sure we have a decentralized communication apparatus, be it Twitter or otherwise.
I think the next thing after Twitter is lawsuits against YouTube and Google or, you know, Facebook, whatever, because they are all playing the exact same games.
They are of the same ideology as Democrats, effectively providing in-kind contributions in regular communication with them.
And it's about time a judge simply said enough.
But it's gonna start with lawsuits.
Let's see Trump come back first.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
So this morning when I get up and take out my phone, I go on Twitter, I see that Beetlejuice is trending.
And at first I got kind of excited, because I heard a rumor they wanted to make a Beetlejuice sequel.
And of course, Beetlejuice is an American movie classic.
You know, the Tally Me Bananas song, and Beetlejuice is trying to get people out of the house, and then the sandworm for some reason, which makes no sense.
No, imagine my disappointment when it turns out they were just talking about Mayor Lori Lightfoot in Chicago, and I went, ah, they're just insulting the woman's appearance.
Okay, well, I get it.
I saw this story the other night.
Tweeted about it.
Lori Lightfoot basically told people to go get guns and go fight, and nothing happened.
No suspension, no reprimand of any sort on Twitter.
Lori Lightfoot said to my friends in the LGBTQ plus community, the Supreme Court is coming for us next.
This moment has to be a call to arms.
We will not surrender our rights without a fight, a fight to victory!
All right, so the narrative now is basically that with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which is the conservative compromise, by the way, we're now going to see the Supreme Court overturn gay marriage.
And I kid you not, I think it was Eric Swalwell who was like, they want to ban interracial marriage.
And it's like, bro, bro, Eric, Eric, Eric, I understand you're trying to make a slippery slope fallacy argument, but you went too far.
I'm pretty sure that like Clarence Thomas, who I'm pretty sure his wife is white and he's black.
I'm pretty sure they're not going to overturn interracial marriage.
Loving v. Virginia was the precedent.
I think you've gone too far, too far.
Now, of course, Lori Lightfoot is trying to play that slippery slope argument.
They've taken Roe v. Wade and the next they're gonna take away same-sex marriage or whatever, which I just, I really don't see happening, but I'm not gonna pretend it's not possible.
You have had people argue it was a bad ruling, so maybe.
However, I think there's a big difference between Roe v. Wade and Oberville, which is, what is it, Oberville v. Hodges or something?
The idea being that with Roe v. Wade, the initial ruling actually had a question about viability of the fetus.
That at a certain point, it is not just the mother whose privacy rights are in question, but also the baby itself.
And so that's why they were basically like, okay, maybe after the first trimester you can't do the abortion thing, but in the first, it's like, the baby can't survive on its own, so it is the mother who has full control and responsibility.
But then there's questions over, like, ownership of another person, and whether or not you can terminate its life by choice because it's dependent upon you.
Tough questions, tough questions.
But.
The general idea here is that in this ruling, it wasn't an issue of equal rights for a woman.
It was a question of where do the rights of the baby begin, and where do the rights of the woman begin, and how do you deal with two individuals in one body?
That is a very difficult question.
When it comes to Oberfell, you have a legal adult wanting to have legal protections under the law when it comes to marriage, because the law recognizes that two people can join in a union.
And the idea was, civil unions are different.
They're not the same thing.
And thus, you're not providing equal protection under the law.
I do not see how there would be a reading which would end the right of same-sex marriage.
I don't.
It's possible because you get bad Supreme Court precedent sometimes.
But I think ultimately, as I stated the other day, the end result is going to be abortion is going to be banned.
I really think that's the case for two reasons.
The expansion of personhood rights in this country tends towards expanding personhood rights, which means babies will likely see greater and greater rights while they're in the womb.
More importantly, as technology expands viability, the question of viability and the rights of the baby then expand along with it, in which case we will probably come to the point where a fertilized zygote is viable because it can be placed in an artificial womb, in which case they're going to say, you cannot terminate the life of the baby.
At that point, it becomes interesting because abortion would probably still exist, because they would abort the pregnancy, but be legally required to preserve the life.
It'd be very, very interesting, I suppose.
So, the issue there is, abortion for women, many of these liberal women, is, I can't afford a kid, so kill it!
Which is a weird argument to me.
It's a weird argument.
There's the argument that's like, there's a meme going around on the left where it shows a kid living in squalor, like on a dirty mattress covered with stains.
And it says, just because the child was born doesn't mean you saved a life.
And it's like, that's a crazy way of saying poor people should die, or should not be alive.
It reminds me of that Family Guy joke where Stewie is like, it's not that I want Lois to die, it's just that I don't want her to be alive anymore.
Like, that's the joke.
Okay, so I'll say that's what they're claiming about these kids.
Here's the interesting position.
If you have the ability to save the life of a fertilized egg, you want to terminate the pregnancy and it's at like three weeks or something, and it can be placed in an artificial womb, I don't think they could allow that.
Terminate the life?
Hmm.
Right now the question is among the left is, and this is the meme they go for, this is the argument they make, and I can respect this to a certain degree, that no one has the right to force you to give up your body to someone else, be it your blood, your organs, for any reason, period.
Now some argue, on the right, if the woman makes the choice to carry the life she's responsible for, in fact, many on the right say regardless of rape or incest, you can't punish the innocent life.
Now this is a question of whether or not the government can force you to provide your body against your will.
If you take action that results in a baby being in you, there's a question of responsibility.
If someone forces that upon you, now you've got a question of force upon you.
But what happens if we say, OK, the life can be removed from you?
No one has a right to mandate you give up your body to someone else.
But you can't kill the baby because it can be put in one of these plastic bags and then grown and live.
All of the women who get elective abortion for financial reasons, you're out.
That's where I think the end result of this will be.
Now, anyway, I don't want to just harp on the abortion argument because we've been doing it non-stop.
I want to talk about the social media and social justice argument.
Lori Lightfoot says, call to arms.
We will not surrender our rights without a fight, a fight to victory.
I'm old enough to remember when Alex Jones got suspended for urging people to keep battle rifles ready.
The Ars Technica writes, after holding out for a few weeks, Twitter joined the chorus of social media and tech giants that have pushed Alex Jones, who have punished Alex Jones for questionable content.
Do they have the quote here from him?
I don't know exactly what it was, but Alex on his show, he was like, people, you gotta get your battle rifles ready or something like that.
And they argued, that was him arguing for people to get violent.
According to a report by the New York Times, Jones tweeted a link to a Periscope live broadcast.
I'm going to call it shenanigans, okay?
supporters to ready their weapons against the media and other groups.
Twitter issued the seven day suspension after a user flagged the tweet and the company determined
that it violated its rules against inciting violence.
I'm Nicole shenanigans.
OK, they're going to say, according to a BuzzFeed News report, Twitter also suspended Alex Jones
is info work out this afternoon.
The InfoWars Twitter account will not be able to tweet, retweet, blah, blah, blah.
This was four years ago now.
Alex Jones got banned for a metaphor about being ready for a fight.
Now, a poor choice of words, I can recognize that.
But what about Lori Lightfoot?
This moment has to be a call to arms.
terms. She's literally saying get weapons and we will not surrender without a fight.
Okay, I get it, dude. Alex was being metaphorical and so was Lori Lightfoot, but there are no
there. There are no rules.
The rules are as follows.
The left who controls these institutions will wield them in any way they see fit.
If it's good for the revolution, it stands.
If it's bad for the revolution, it goes away.
Alex Jones was bad for the revolution, so get rid of him.
Lori Lightfoot is good for the revolution, so support it.
Now, what happens when you get these people taking up arms and heading to the home of Samuel Alito as they did?
I tweeted, arrest them.
Arrest these people.
It's from TimCast.com.
Pro-abortion activists protest outside the home of Samuel Alito.
Pro-life protesters marched into the neighborhood of Aledo on Monday evening in protest of the leaked opinion he authored to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The protest was organized by D.C.-based Antifa group Shut Down D.C., who collected names and information on everyone attending through an RSVP list.
Approximately 100 people were involved in the protest, which took place in the quite upscale Virginia neighborhood.
The activists repeated, pro-life is a lie.
You don't care if people die.
Alito is a coward.
Abort the court.
And if we don't get it, shut it down.
Among other more crass chants.
It's illegal.
These people should be arrested.
They're not going to be arrested, but whatever.
There's this viral video from this guy.
It's really cringey, but I think I think this country is doomed to collapse.
I mean, you hear me say it often, but aside from the market crisis, you now have people who are trying to find a path towards virality.
And they're using politics to do it.
And they say, everyone's a grifter, everyone's a grifter, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, let me explain.
It used to be.
That somebody would post a video and it's like, Charlie bit my finger!
He bit my finger, Charlie!
And everybody was like, wow, look at this video, let's all watch it because it's entertaining.
People would then try to emulate and rip these videos off.
We had a period.
I'll tell you, the biggest mistake that YouTube made was banning prank channels.
It used to be that somebody would make a video where they like dressed up like a clown and they would like lurk up on somebody and go, yeah, I'm a clown!
And then people would scream, eee!
And then, eventually, YouTube was like, dude, these pranks are getting out of hand, because everybody kept one-upping each other, trying to get viral shot content.
And people were going insane with it!
There are these videos, where dudes would walk up, like they would walk through black neighborhoods, and say the word, nickel.
Okay, I gotta be very careful about how I enunciate the word, nickel.
Dimes and nickels.
Okay.
But they would say that, and they would walk up to black people, trying to make them think that they were saying the N-word, and then fights would break out.
Now these videos were fake.
They were fake!
And I was talking to a friend of mine who believed they were real and was, like, entertained by them.
And I'm like, dude, these videos are not real.
The black people who are in this are in on this.
And they didn't believe me.
And I was like, do you think that if you walk up to some, like, random black people and just say the word nickel, they're going to punch you in the face?
That's ridiculously racist to believe.
These videos were overtly racist.
You could tell when the pranks were real, because they'd walk up to somebody and say it, and the guy would just go like, dude, what?
Come on, man.
And like, I'm like, what do you think happens when you insult a random person?
Do you think they just throw themselves into a violent rage?
But anyway, I digress.
His videos were getting more and more extreme, and then YouTube was like, we are shutting this down.
Unless you tell people these pranks are staged, because everybody was one-upping it.
So now we have these videos.
There's a guy and he's like, he looks at the camera and he's all angry looking and he's like, Kavanaugh lied under oath!
So the right's going to make fun of him and they're going to call him out.
The left's going to be like, if the right's making fun of him and he's saying something we agree with, we better promote this!
Kids are seeing a path towards virality.
Through politics.
They're going to embrace politics.
It's going to get crazier and crazier.
And then eventually, in 10 years, you're going to have some Gen Alpha 20-year-olds, and they're going to be like, if we don't get it, burn it down!
There's no justice!
And you're going to see it.
That's why you have people out protesting.
Do they know why they're protesting?
Of course they don't.
Pro-life is a lie.
They've never talked to a pro-life person in their lives.
Anybody who actually talks to someone who's pro-choice or pro-life realizes that the bulk of the arguments in the political sphere are just wrong.
But, conservatives tend to know what leftists think and liberals think, not the other way around.
So, for a conservative, they're like, you know, abortion is wrong because the babies are alive too.
The left says, they're not pro-life, they want the death penalty.
And it's like, the argument from conservatives are that the babies are innocent and have committed no crimes, and criminals have committed crimes.
Granted, I don't like the phrase pro-life anyway.
But here we are.
I love how they called it a vigil.
A vigil.
Oh, yes, a vigil.
Protesters converge on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's, uh, on home of Alito in response to Roe v. Wade.
They say the group held a vigil.
Oh, a vigil.
Yeah, because parading and picketing would be a crime.
Here we have feckless Governor Glenn, Glenn Youngkin, which is, I guess, the best you could do in Virginia, considering you had Northam.
He says, we have been coordinating with Fairfax County PD, VSPPIO, and federal authorities to ensure there isn't violence.
Virginia State Police were closely monitoring, fully coordinated with Fairfax County and near the protests.
Arrest them.
I love how everyone's like, Glenn, he goes on to say, Virginia State Police will assist federal and local law enforcement as needed to ensure the safety of our citizens, including Supreme Court justices who call Virginia home.
This is amazing!
People who walked into the Capitol building, they're being charged with very serious crimes, even though the police opened the door for them.
Not every single person, but I know the Young Turks aren't smart enough to actually watch the videos.
So they think that every single person who walked in the building was a rioter.
There were rioters, the rioters would be arrested.
But what about the woman who had her home raided because she looked like someone who went in the building?
You had anyone in or near the Capitol being beaten down with a brick to the face by the state.
Did I mean that metaphorically?
Now, you have people in clear violation of the law protesting at the private residence of somebody.
The media is covering it.
It's all throughout the public sphere.
And Glenn Youngkin did not have these people arrested because there is no law anymore.
Period.
Our culture is unwilling to enforce the law.
Make sure you recognize that.
And that's when the system breaks.
Cultural enforcement is everything.
The law clearly says you cannot picket parade or picket or parade in front of a member of the court's home.
Justice Is more important than free speech.
And that's true.
You can't have free speech without justice.
So in the issue of justice, people need to not protest to change.
The goal is to intimidate the courts.
Cultural enforcement is everything.
Our culture is uninterested in enforcing the law when the left is engaged in violations of it.
In D.C., on January 20th, 2017, black-clad lunatics ran through D.C., smashing up windows, setting fires, and just wreaking havoc.
Not only, and this group, many of them were arrested, but not only were they cleared of all wrongdoing, D.C.
had to pay out millions of dollars to them.
The system cannot maintain itself in this way.
And the end result, in my opinion, is going to be a total collapse.
Because when you feel there is no system, why adhere to any of its rules?
What's going to be the end result for the right?
Well, I will say conservatives tend to be particularly cowardly.
The MAGA crowd, no, but many conservatives, yes.
The argument I gave last time was, if you had Uh, if conservatives genuinely believed that abortion was killing a baby, then they would be intervening to save the lives of lives of babies.
But instead, what they're doing is they're saying, I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to a congressman.
Now, I don't know what you do in these circumstances, but I can say the left goes around smashing up windows and they go to the homes of these justices.
These justices have curtailed the rights to keep and bear arms over and over again.
Republicans don't do anything.
So maybe cowardly isn't the word in the larger scale of things.
I should say there are many cowardly conservatives, for sure.
Perhaps the right word is maybe honest, maybe naive.
Many conservatives are like, I believe if I work within the law and try to change it, everything will work out right in the end.
And then their rights just keep getting crushed generation after generation.
It's only now the MAGA crowd emerged that things are starting to get pushed back upon.
And Joe Biden is like, this ultra MAGA agenda is dangerous, the most extreme.
Oh, here it is.
Start crying, baby.
Because for the longest time, conservatives rolled over on every issue.
But the MAGA crowd ain't doing it.
They're saying, no, we demand.
And the Democrats don't know how to handle that.
So Joe Biden says, my entire life, we've just gotten what we've wanted from conservatives who just give up.
What was it, before the 90s, Republicans didn't hold the majority in Congress for like 40 years?
Now that's incredible.
But here we are, something's changing.
Lori Lightfoot vows Chicago will be an oasis for abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
And that was always allowed because that's the compromise.
Conservatives aren't saying ban abortions across the country, although many, many want that.
Right now, what they're saying is states choose.
Okay.
I wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all of this is that Republicans win in November and then get a federal abortion ban.
I would not be surprised.
However, Joe Biden would veto it.
They would not be able to muster enough votes to overturn a filibuster.
So I don't think it happens.
But here's a potential scenario.
The House goes Republican.
The Senate goes Republican.
The House votes to make abortion illegal nationwide.
The Senate wants to uphold it, but filibuster hits.
Now, it's possible that once Republicans have the Senate, they shut down the filibuster and say, simple majority, because they could.
They would be able to do it with the new rules they could set.
Then it goes to Biden.
And Biden says, you're going to need a veto-proof majority.
So either way, there's no point in overturning the filibuster if the end result is going to be that Joe Biden blocks it anyway.
But 2023 comes around.
And this is all during 2023.
And in campaigning, Donald Trump says, quite frankly, once I get in office, I will not veto this legislation to ban abortion nationwide.
And then, uh, it happens.
And then, my friends, you will see a civil war.
But as I stated early on, with the abortion argument, the tendency of this country is to expand personhood rights.
I do not see the end result being the stripping away of personhood rights for the unborn.
I think we see it expanded.
We had Plessy versus Ferguson.
Separate but equal.
Eventually, that was shut down.
We had Roe v. Wade, and I believe, eventually, that will be shut down, as it is now.
And we will look back on history, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, and I believe, down the line, it is very strong probability that people will be like, I can't believe they ever supported something as barbaric as Roe v. Wade.
Because personhood rights expand.
I can't believe they ever supported Plessy v. Ferguson.
But now we can see that it's struck down and our culture just rejects that outright.
Now, of course, you have the critical race theorists.
They actually want a return to that.
They're reactionaries.
They say it was better way back then with segregation.
That's what they believe.
And if you actually read their writings, I'm sure the uninitiated liberals who just follow the trends would never understand that and would deny it was true because they've never read what Derrick Bell actually had to say about it.
But this is where things are going to turn.
I think Civil War.
You're going to get Supreme Court precedent.
The left is going to be like, no, abortion.
Abortion won't be the reason for a civil war, but it will be a catalyst, the spark that ignites it.
But I suppose we'll wait and see.
I don't know how else you can, I don't know what else you can do, but it's happening right before our eyes.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Bill Gates is spreading dangerous disinformation.
And I think we have no choice.
My friends, I think we have to ban him from the Internet and prevent him from speaking out about COVID ever again.
Because recently, Bill Gates said that COVID is kind of like the flu.
No, it isn't.
That is not true, Bill Gates.
He said that it's a fairly low fatality rate, and it's a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like the flu.
Nope, I reject that outright because I will get banned on YouTube unless I say that, I guess.
I don't know what the rules are anymore, but welcome to the wonderful world of censorship.
Where our good friends over at MythInformed, Mythicist Milwaukee, tweeted Ivermectin saves lives and got a 12 hour suspension on Twitter.
I kid you not.
Ivermectin does save lives, by the way, because it is used as a treatment in Africa for river blindness.
And it is considered an essential medicine among the World Health Organization.
MythInformed simply said Ivermectin saves lives, and they got suspended for it.
And so I tweeted, because we're just trying to test the waters, Ivermectin saves lives in Africa.
I suppose you can get river blindness anywhere, but it's mostly a Sub-Saharan Africa thing.
And for the time being, it seems like my tweet is fine, but myth-informed was not.
This is the hypocrisy of censorship.
That Bill Gates recently could come out and say this.
And that's it?
Are we allowed to talk about this?
Is Bill Gates right or wrong?
Well, let me tell you, my friends.
Bill Gates is not a doctor.
He is rather out of shape, frumpy, frail, and a bit obese.
So don't take medical advice from Bill Gates.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
I don't care what he says.
I don't care if he confirms your biases or else.
Or otherwise.
Or else.
Or otherwise.
But here's the story.
Aside from Bill Gates, I'd just like to point out Stephen Colbert cancelling upcoming tapings of The Late Show while dealing with a possible recurrence of COVID-19 two weeks after first testing positive.
That's right.
It's been two weeks since Colbert already cancelled his show, and he's cancelling his show again because he may have COVID again.
Here's where we're at.
Where we are at is that Bill Gates is now saying exactly what every conservative was saying a year and a half ago.
And Colbert, who is, I believe, triple vaxxed, is within two weeks of having COVID having another resurgence of COVID.
You know, I'm not here to issue any speculation.
I'm just here to point those things out and ask you to think critically about what's going on.
At the same time, we're being told over in Maryland, there's gonna be a new wave of COVID infections.
And over in China, they are locking people in their homes.
Woman is dragged away screaming from her home by Chinese officials in hazmat suits, while her son tries to protect her as COVID lockdown intensifies.
What was that saying?
You will own nothing.
You will be happy.
Let's talk about some of the cultural changes that are happening here.
Because I have no real comment on the health implications of Bill Gates' statements other than to point out he's a hypocrite, and according to YouTube's rules, Bill Gates is spreading dangerous disinformation.
Bill Gates, as reported by KUSI, said during an interview to promote his new book that COVID is just like the flu, hurts the elderly more, and the vaccines are imperfect.
Really?
Regarding the vaccines, Gates said once Omicron comes along, the vaccine is not reducing transmission hardly at all, particularly about three or four months after you take the vaccine.
Gates' words are going viral online because the nation's top lockdown opponents were saying the same things since the pandemic began.
Many Americans and social media users were even kicked off the platforms for saying these exact things.
Well, let's break this down.
Bill.
Um, you can say it's kind of like the flu, I guess.
But the mortality, I think, of COVID was like twice that of the flu, I think.
But it was mostly in the elderly.
So I just think it's funny that he's coming out and basically saying what everyone else has been saying the whole time.
I also think it's funny that just weeks after first testing positive for COVID-19, the Late Show host Stephen Colbert has canceled upcoming tapings due to what could be a recurrence of COVID-19.
The 57-year-old host first tested positive on April 21st, canceling the night's taping ahead of a previously planned week off.
The show returned with new episodes on Monday, May 2nd, though now will be out for a bit longer as production is paused yet again.
I think this is actually fairly simple.
In this context, Stephen Colbert wasn't better, but they didn't want to lose money, so they were like, let's just, you know, he's mostly better.
I wonder how many people they got sick.
Blah, blah, blah.
I just don't care.
I literally don't care about COVID.
I don't care about any of this.
I don't care to talk about it.
with the recurrence of covid out of an abundance of caution for his staff, guests and audience.
He will be isolating for a few additional days, blah, blah, blah. I just I just don't care.
I literally don't care about covid. I don't care about any of this. I don't care to talk about it.
That's not relevant. I'll tell you what's relevant.
Our culture has imploded.
It's on fire.
It is it is it is chaos and insanity that Bill Gates can come out and say the opposite of what he was saying before.
And you can come out and you can say, well, you know, Bill Gates is realizing.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Why was Bill Gates allowed to spread dangerous disinformation?
Why?
The system is broken.
These people are insane, period.
That's it.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
What else can be said?
I don't know if the Democrats will try and reignite the COVID narrative for the election.
I really doubt it.
I think COVID, for the most part, people are just sick of it.
Philadelphia tried implementing a mask mandate that lasted four days because nobody was adhering to it because they were like, no.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think Colbert is done.
I think late night TV is done.
I think big tech institutions are done.
I think Elon Musk was able to get in and do what he did because the institutions are crumbling.
They have failed and something new is rising in its wake.
Good.
Fine.
Whatever.
I mentioned that video in the previous segment where this guy is like, you know, he's screaming about like, why won't Merrick Garland arrest the Supreme Court justices for lying under oath?
And I'm just like, yo, when millennials inherit the courts in the next 10 years, it is gonna be lit.
They're gonna be like, I can interpret the law as I see fit, so you're getting arrested!
And then the right-wing judges are gonna be like, you're getting arrested!
And then everyone's gonna be arresting each other.
I don't see how civil war is- I don't see any way out other than civil war.
I mean, we got a strong moral issue in abortion and Roe v. Wade.
We've got the media being psychotic.
The institution's upholding crackpot BS.
Okay, okay, let me slow down.
Colbert.
He's this guy who produces this segment.
We have it right here.
Look at this.
The Vax scene, and it's people dressed like syringes dancing, and I've never wanted to punch my monitor more than watching something like this.
Now, not any personal violence, no, but like, just my monitor like, ah, make it stop, I don't want to watch this.
I think we all knew that the system was rotten to its core when the vaccine segment was made.
When regular sane humans watched this, I guarantee you there are no millennial leftists who believe in Marx or otherwise who watched that and they were like, well, yeah, vaccine with Colbert.
I assure you, there were no libertarians, post-liberals, or conservatives who watched that and were like, yeah!
I assure you, everybody watched that was like, something is seriously wrong with Stephen Colbert.
Which is the point.
Okay, let me slow down and try and wrap my thoughts up so you can understand what I'm trying to say.
The fact that Bill Gates was allowed to spread disinformation then, or he's spreading disinformation now, shows the institutions have no idea what they're doing.
The big tech social media platforms and censorship have lost their minds.
There are no experts.
There is no authority.
It is chaos.
Bill Gates, he was allowed to say what he wanted, but Joe Rogan wasn't.
I'm looking at the ratings for late-night TV and I was like, wow, that's kind of crazy.
I know that, you know, the way we do our shows over at Timcast are a different kind of format.
It's VOD, video on demand, and a live show that people watch later.
They watch the reruns.
We actually rival the key demographic viewership of late night television.
Not Colbert, he gets about double what we get.
But I'm like, who's still watching this?
And then we had an interesting conversation the other night on Timcast IRL with Daryl Cooper of Martyr Made.
He was telling me before we started the show that his parents love watching late night TV, that's what they would do.
They would work all day, they'd come home and they'd put on Leno.
Now, you've got Colbert or whatever other late night show.
The thing is, they're making fun of that demographic.
That's what I find interesting.
When you take a look at the ratings for Colbert or even Cable News, you can see that they're getting millions of viewers over the age of 55.
Yet, these networks are making fun of viewers over the age of 55.
Why?
Isn't the weirdest thing?
You know, I was thinking about Generations and aging and stuff.
I saw this uh this clip of the the woman is like a news story about the woman who played one of the one of the angels from Charlie's Angels and they're like she's 72 and look how young she looks and I was like why would she want to?
No, I mean for like why would you want to look like you're young?
I just don't understand that that's weird to me.
I guess my my beard's starting to turn white.
I don't care.
You know, my hair fell out a while ago.
I just put a beanie on.
The truth is, I've always worn the beanie even when I didn't have hair, but I digress.
Like, you look the way you look.
You're gonna age.
You're gonna get old.
That's a part of being alive.
And you have your demographic, your peer group.
Why do you want to jump to a different peer group?
I just don't understand it.
And I see this with the decay in things like Colbert and the media and everything just falling apart.
I don't know.
You know, I don't know.
This is not the same as I normally do most segments where I have like a key news story where I hyper focus on it.
But I was just thinking about the generational collapse, the desperation of the older crowd to appeal to a younger crowd and their failures to do so, and the gap between how information is consumed.
So, you know, people have always tried to look young, I guess, but if you were 70, don't you want to just hang out with 70-year-olds?
I'm a millennial.
I am 36 years old.
Wow, I'm an old man!
And I have no interest in cranking up Billie Eilish and going and hanging out with a bunch of 19-year-olds.
I got no problem.
Actually, I actually do think Billie Eilish is pretty good, by the way.
But it's not like I didn't grow up with Billie Eilish.
Although, you know, actually pretty good.
But I'm not gonna be like, let me desperately try to fit in with these young people.
I'm like, I have my peer group, I'll fit in with who I fit in with.
And if I'm at like a skate park and there are younger people, we all get along.
We share in culture.
And I'm not saying people who are different ages don't hang out.
I'm just saying we consume information a certain way.
The older generation consumes information a certain way.
It is insane how desperate these attempts are.
So let me talk about Colbert.
Colbert was getting the terrestrial television viewer in the 1990s.
Our parents, the boomer generation, were in their 30s.
And so they were, for the most part, watching shows like this.
Now I know, Gen Xers were entering their 20s.
And so they were probably watching a bit of this as well, but also something new and something different.
People who are in their late 20s, in the 90s, had kids who are now, you know, Gen Z, not millennials.
Although I suppose you can be an older, there's overlap between generations.
Anyway, the point is, At some point, when consumption of information changed, I really think 2007 and 2008 was a revolution.
It was this massive moment, and maybe it was even like 2012.
Maybe it was like the end of 2012.
You know what?
I think it was maybe the end of 2011 and into 2012.
We started seeing these changes because cell phones started becoming prominent in 2008.
But I think it was this period, this term, Obama's first term, where the world collapsed.
It did.
We just didn't realize it at the time.
Let me explain.
The advent of Internet everywhere.
I grew up with the Internet, but a rudimentary version of it.
I had a cell phone, and you couldn't really do anything Internet with your cell phone while you were out.
So I'm working at O'Hare Airport.
And I had a phone, I could text people.
But it was expensive, it was like 10 cents per text, so you couldn't really do it a whole lot.
And even to receive texts, it was crazy.
I was like, stop texting me, you're costing me money!
How insane was that?
But around 2007, we got the unlimited plans, and we got internet on the phones, thanks to the iPhone and a bigger screen.
All of a sudden, we were online all the time, everywhere.
Vice emerges at this time.
Vice is producing documentaries on YouTube.
They're getting millions of views.
Millennials started consuming digital content on demand.
This is when everything started changing.
Ratings started collapsing.
Nobody was watching TV anymore.
And the people who ran the establishment did not get the memo.
So, to our good friends over at Stephen Colbert's show, what happens?
Well, they normally would say something like, we want to make content for the key demographic, which means people age out of our viewership demographic, and we try to attract younger viewers.
The only problem is younger viewers don't watch terrestrial television.
They were watching YouTube and then eventually Netflix.
So what happens now is the one group that probably would want to watch Colbert, older people, and they do, are being mocked, belittled, and made fun of.
The whole time, Trump supporters, you're seeing this weird, unintelligible world being presented to an older crowd that doesn't want to watch.
And young people don't want to watch either.
So now everything's fragmented, breaking apart, and in shambles.
I don't know how we survive that, the cultural decay or the cultural collapse.
That, with the hyper-tribalization, there's no answer to.
That's why I just feel like maybe the segment that I needed to do is this, that the system has imploded completely.
It's long been crumbling.
The Titanic hit the iceberg in 2008 with the financial crisis and the expansion of internet being everywhere, and all of a sudden you had a perfect storm, and here we are.
From then, you get fractured culture, animosity, hyper-tribalism, and that's it.
I saw a tweet from Vosh, everyone's favorite child-loving leftist.
And he was talking about, Nancy Pelosi tweeted something.
She said, we need a strong Republican Party so that they'll support women's choice.
And he said, that's insane.
Nobody who voted for Trump is going to change their mind.
It's not going to happen.
He's completely right.
I'm like, look, I think these people live in a wacky world of fake news.
They're entitled to their opinions, but I don't think they have logic.
I think they're backed by emotion.
I think, for the most part, whatever faction this is, we're looking for logic, not emotion.
The other side is looking for emotion, not logic.
Which is why there's a consistent request for legitimate arguments as to back up their claims so that the world can function.
Anyway, all of this comes together in... I was just looking at these stories, and in my mind I pictured a pile of rubble.
That's what I saw.
I was like, Bill Gates coming out saying the opposite of what he said before, and there's no repercussions, there's no censorship?
Why?
What are the rules?
Why?
How are we supposed to function?
Stephen Colbert, the vaccine guy, is now sick twice in the span of a month.
How is any of this supposed to make sense?
How is anyone supposed to build a life off of something that is nothing but chaos?
They can't.
If we cannot plan ahead, people will lose their minds, and everything is going to fall apart.
If MythInformed can't say that ivermectin saves lives when it does, and it is a World Health Organization essential drug, We don't know what the rules are!
That's kind of the point of my tweet.
When I said Ivermectin saves lives in Africa, I was like, let's have a control.
Now it's hard to know exactly why I'm allowed to tweet this.
Maybe they'll suspend me.
Whatever.
I don't care.
I'm just, I'm just, I'm losing it.
I'm sick of it.
If things don't make sense, how do we function as a society?
Perhaps that's the point.
Perhaps the end result is just to drag us from our homes and lock us in COVID lockdown despite cases going down.
Maybe that really is it.
If the world is chaos and you don't know how to function, you can be arrested, you can be banned, you can be shut down at any moment.
Bill Gates.
Let's go back to Bill Gates.
Kind of all over the place, the segment.
That's kind of the theme, isn't it?
Am I allowed to agree with Bill Gates on this?
What if I said Bill Gates was right?
Would I get suspended?
According to YouTube's rules right now, yes.
So I can only say Bill Gates is wrong!
About which point?
I don't know, whatever.
Don't trust Bill Gates.
Don't trust any of these people.
Just talk to your doctor, I guess.
There's no real answers.
Stephen Colbert, was he right?
I don't know.
His show's been shut down twice now in the span of a month.
So I'd assume he's doing something wrong, but I don't know.
There is no... There are no rules.
That's ultimately the point I'm thinking of.
You know, I talked about this the other day on Timcast IRL.
We, whatever faction this is, we're looking for the ground rules.
How do we learn to live together and compromise?
But since 2008, there has been what I would describe as fire.
A chaotic and destructive force that has been expanding, consuming, and ripping things apart.
It's only gotten worse.
And it's reached our institutions, like big tech, and it's reached the media, to the point where things that don't make sense get repeated, fake news contradicts itself, and there's no way to actually know what's really going on.
Cue Yuri Bezmenov.
Demoralization.
And that's what it feels like.
All of this.
All of this chaos.
Politico reports in 2017 that Ukraine's meddling in the 2016 election to help Hillary has backfired.
And then in 2020 report, actually that story was Russian disinformation.
But they reported it and never retracted it.
How do you know what's true?
I don't know, I suppose.
But that's the point here, I guess.
That's why we have TimCast.com.
That's the goal.
They want to destroy everything, burn it down.
They want to be insane.
They want to chase after money.
I'll tell you what we're going to do at TimCast.com.
We are going to just try and create base reality.
We're going to try and say, here are the things we can confirm, and we'll start over.
And we'll call Colbert a lunatic.
And we'll call Bill Gates a lunatic.
I will tell you these people are psychopaths.
I don't blame Colbert.
For everything?
I think he's looking at the network and the advertisers and he's shaking like, I don't know what to say!
You know?
I think that's what he's genuinely going through.
I don't think Colbert is part of any kind of cabal.
I think he's shaking like, I will lose my ads, I will be kicked off TV, what do I do, what do I say, I don't know anymore, and eventually their heads will figuratively inflate like balloons and just burst from the cognitive dissonance.
At a certain point, they're going to have to land on one side or the other.
Bill Gates is going to have to land on one side or the other.
Eventually, these people are going to have to say something was right or something is wrong.
Or, they'll just have their weird crackpot zombies following in lockstep behind them with nonsense without logic.
Look, I'm reading the story about Colbert, and I thought two things.
I don't watch his show, and I don't care about him having COVID.
And so I was like, maybe we should talk about the decay of media.
But then I was like, who cares?
How do we have a conversation about these psychopaths who are losing relevance?
Maybe it's time we just say this.
It is time to take the rubble, the ashes of the old that have failed miserably and are decaying every day.
Put them in that boat and kick them out to sea.
Adios, everybody.
Have a nice day.
If Bill Gates is now saying this, I'm curious what the left is going to say.
Bill Gates was wrong the whole time, but he's right now, or he's wrong now and he was right the whole time?
Pick one.
Because the right, whatever you want to call it, has been consistent on their opinions.
I'm just frustrated.
That's the point of the segment.
Total frustration with watching the psychopathy, the psychopathy of these institutions that make no sense.
We don't know what the rules are, and if we don't know the rules, how can we function within this?
No idea.
None whatsoever.
Head over to TimCast.com to become a member if you want to find an anchor to reality, because that's what we'll do.
