Paramount Sponsors GROOMING KIDS In Child Drag Show, Democrat And Media Deny Grooming Despite VIDEO
Paramount Sponsors GROOMING KIDS In Child Drag Show, Democrat And Media Deny Grooming Despite VIDEO. Conservatives and Libertarians have been calling out grooming but the liberal media denies its even happening to their own detriment.
Discovery and Paramount are putting their weight behind normalizing child drag shows. In some of these shows children remove clothing in exchange for money.
In schools adult images are shown to children and when parents recoil in shock they are called bigots or far right.
Democrats are spiraling out of control and will face the reality come november in the midterms.
#Democrats
#OkGroomer
#Republican
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Paramount Plus and other big networks are sponsoring child drag shows, with one video depicting a child dancing on stage for money.
But it's not the first time we've seen this.
We also saw Desmond Is Amazing take off his clothes for money on stage.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is grooming.
The idea that they're going to make these kids feel normalized with this behavior so they will grow up and accept it.
Conservatives aren't wrong to say it's happening.
Come November, this will lead to a reckoning because regular middle Americans will not accept what they're seeing happening to children.
In our next story, YouTuber Ethan Klein has been suspended from YouTube after calling for a terror attack on the NRA conference before quickly walking it back, though he made many other statements calling for violence.
In our last story, Joe Biden says people shouldn't even have a 9mm handgun because it can blow out a lung out of the body.
He's wrong, but Let's take a look at what he's talking about.
If you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
We're consistently told that grooming is not happening.
We are told by the mainstream media that it's fake news, a right-wing talking point, and schools are not grooming your kids.
Well, I can show you that they are.
And this doesn't mean that every single teacher is.
It means that many of them are.
And there's ample evidence.
But presumably for tribal reasons, or perhaps malicious reasons, the media just lies about what's going on.
The story right now is that Paramount Plus, among many others, sponsored a drag event where a child dances on stage for money.
I think at one point the kid does a cartwheel.
Now, of course, many on the left and many liberals are saying it is but harmless fun.
It is people cheering and dancing.
It's a stage show.
It is not stripping.
It is not grooming, so they say.
But it is.
It is.
And look, we can try and figure out all of the reasons in the world that people on the left want this to happen and everybody has their theories.
The reality is, it is happening.
It doesn't matter what your opinion on it is, it literally is happening.
The narrative we often hear is that drag shows are not about stripping.
But I can actually pull up the Wikipedia entry for stripper and show you that this absolutely falls in line with one element of stripping.
That is, dancing on stage fully clothed for money is stripping in some places.
The idea that you have to be fully nude is not true.
What does this mean?
This is a perfect example of corporate mainstream America grooming children.
And what do I mean by grooming?
They are preparing a child for certain behaviors so that later in their life it is normalized, they expect it, or are used to it.
Children are the future.
That's not just some empty platitude.
It's a fact.
And right now, politically, we know that the left tends not to have children, and the right does.
If you take a look back in the 2000s, you can see that Republicans, typically conservatives, were having about two kids.
Liberals were having about 1.5 on average.
Surprise, surprise.
Twenty years later, Gen Z is slightly more conservative, though still very progressive.
That means, right now, If liberals are more likely to have abortions, more likely to have transgender children who eventually cannot have offspring, they're not going to have kids, and thus they need to make sure their ideology reaches your children.
And that's the point.
Grooming is happening in schools with books, with drag queen story hour, and with child drag shows.
It's not just what Paramount Plus is doing.
We also have... We also have Discovery Plus.
Launching a new show called Generation Drag centered on the stories of five teenagers and their families.
All of this is happening.
And there's a curious thought here.
If this is among the left and not among the right, and the right opposes it, substantially opposes it, and the left embraces it, You've got a cultural divide that cannot be mended.
And then you can see, with the escalation in calls for violence or the accusations of violence, it seems like we're headed towards some kind of major collision.
I don't know if you want to call it a civil war in this context, we're talking about children being groomed.
But as they say, socialists don't have children, they have yours.
So let's read the story and see what's going on with these kids.
And let me show you what they mean by grooming, what grooming is.
And yes, grooming is actually happening in schools and with your kids.
If you're not paying attention, it will affect your family.
Before we get started...
Head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., and you'll be helping support our journalists and our website.
We're hiring more journalists.
We're hiring more staff.
We're producing more shows.
A lot of really cool stuff is happening right now.
We got two big billboards in Times Square.
Right above Good Morning America, so everybody who works in those ABC buildings.
Yeah, that's TimCast IRL right above you, and that's all thanks to you.
Perhaps, as I've stated before, a little vanilla in terms of culture jamming.
It's just an ad, sure.
We've got some cool plans coming up in the next few months.
So we're going to be doing some fun stuff to make bold statements that won't just market TimCast and the work I'm doing and the work we do here, but also make powerful cultural statements so that we can push back And win the culture war.
Because if you don't, my friends, this is what you will get.
So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
And if you've got people who don't believe you, you know, not everybody wants to watch information that they will disagree with.
But I'm going to at least break down my arguments.
If you are someone on the left, someone who has shared this video with you, by all means, you can tell me my opinions are wrong.
But let me show you the argument, because at the very least, if you see my argument, you'll be better equipped to argue against it when other people bring it up, right?
Right.
So let's get into the argument.
What is grooming?
What's happening?
Here's an example from the post-millennial.
Paramount Plus sponsors drag event where child dances on stage for money.
At least two children are seen on stage with one dancing, dropping it low and collecting money from a crowd of grown adults cheering the child on.
The event, RuPaul's DragCon 2020, took place in LA and welcomed over 60 featured drag queens from across the country.
Featured talent, including drag queens such as Ahora, whose Instagram is ripe with videos of men wearing fake bouncy breasts, Madame LeQueer, and Trinity the Tuck.
Tuck refers to the practice of men tucking their genitals to present as women.
The video making its rounds online of DragCon is disturbing to say the least.
At least two children are seen on stage and one dancing, dropping it low.
That's when, you know, you get it, you squat.
And collecting money from a crowd of grown adults cheering the child on.
The other child dances with a drag queen.
Just last week, a U.S.
Air Force base canceled a scheduled Drag Queen, I'm sorry, Drag Story Hour following pressure from an expose by the Post Millennial.
As alarming as the video from DragCon is, even more concerning is the number of large brands and organizations which sponsors the event.
DragCon's website lists a number of sponsors, including a streaming service, Paramount+, makeup brand Anastasia Beverly Hills, Joanne's Craft and Fabric Store, Out Here Sexual Health, and the Los Angeles Public Library.
That is to say, my friends, public funding is going towards grooming.
I know, I know.
If you're a liberal, you may be cringing when I say grooming, but I ask you simply to comment and tell me why I'm wrong.
I'm not saying I am the arbiter of truth and morality.
I'm giving you my opinions and thoughts.
Don't like the word?
I don't know what to tell you.
Let me explain what I mean by grooming.
First, we have the sponsors for this.
You've got Wow Presents, you've got Fire Island, LA Public Library, Out Here, RuPaul, Golden Girls, Singer, Pretty Little Thing, Mickey's, Joanne, Anastasia, Paramount Plus.
In the video, You can see this child is bouncing around and walks over and collects money from the crowd.
Why?
Why collect money from the crowd?
Now, a serious question.
This little boy is dancing, collecting money, running around as everyone cheers.
He's probably very excited to be getting money from people as he does this.
This is grooming.
In what other context do people jump around dancing on stage and collect money from the audience as they wave it at them?
I'm sure you can think of some.
This may be grooming in any direction.
Who knows?
My point here is, this is the seed of stripping.
Don't believe me?
There was one video that went viral several years ago.
of a young child named Desmond, performing as Desmond is Amazing.
Now, I refer to this as stripping outright, grooming children.
The left and liberals argued it was not, it was a drag show and drag shows have nothing to do with stripping, which is not true.
First, let me pull up the Wikipedia article for stripping to explain to you that what you just saw from that little boy is stripping.
Stripping is a colloquial term that typically refers to women removing their clothing.
However, there are many circumstances where, in the greater context of these bars, women do not remove their clothing because it's not legal.
So what they do is they dance on stage and you give them money.
That's it.
Of course.
Many of these women, go-go dancers, bikini dancers, then go on and go to other venues where they do remove their clothing.
It's a grooming process.
Let me explain.
Wikipedia says, during each set of one or more songs, the current performer will dance on stage in exchange for tips.
Dancers collect tips from customers either while on stage or after the dancer has finished a stage show and is mingling with the audience.
A customary tip is a dollar bill folded lengthwise and placed in the dancer's garter from the tip rail.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Other common methods are insert the bill into the strippers cleavage from the hand or mouth blah blah blah
and I'll see you next time.
Yeah, okay.
There's also private dances and private parties.
But let's talk about the style of dress.
While working, a stripper is not necessarily required to remove all of her or his clothing.
Regardless of size, name, or location in the world, strip clubs can be full nude, topless, or bikini.
For any type of strip club, there are exceptions based on the individual dancer and management.
And clubs are classified based on typical performances, zoning, and advertised services.
Go-go dancing.
Bikini dancing.
Topless and fully nude.
In bikini performance, breasts and genital areas remain covered by revealing attire while providing services and entertainment.
That's not always the case.
Having known strippers.
I actually reached out when the Desmond is Amazing story was going on to some people I knew who stripped, and they said there are some areas where the women can't even show cleavage, and they have to wear what looks like a cheerleader's outfit.
But they're dropping low, they're dancing on stage, and men give them money.
It's the same thing.
Take a look at this.
Drag Kids Trend is a train wreck about to happen from Restoring America.
It's not just Paramount+.
Last week, it was announced Discovery Plus will be launching a new show called Generation Drag, centered on the stories of five teenagers and their families as they prepare for a performance in Denver, Colorado, celebrating teen queens, kings, and non-binary performers ages 8 to 18.
In the trailer, we see kids primping and posing in brightly colored wigs, skimpy outfits, and winged eyeliner.
If you want to make an argument that that is inherently not stripping, okay, fine.
I'm not talking about people just dressing up in outfits and then maybe doing like a modeling show.
You know, when models dress up in weird clothing and walk the catwalk, people aren't flinging money at them.
I actually know some top-tier models as well who work for some of the biggest agencies in the world.
When they do catwalk performances, what do they call it?
I forgot what they call it.
But when they walk down wearing outfits, People aren't throwing money at them.
There's something different.
Now, I called it grooming, and you want to know what I mean by that.
I mentioned it a little bit, but this little boy is going to grow up thinking that it's a normal thing for people to give you money to dance on stage.
What's next?
Well, maybe, having done this, someone will say, if you ever need money, just let us know, and we'll have you dance on stage.
Cool.
Then one day, an older gentleman will say, do you want to make some more money?
We don't have any drag shows, but we do have some shirtless dancing stuff.
Could make some money.
They then say, you know, if you ever need more, we've got other shows, you know, like
underwear stuff.
Then eventually they say, it's fully nude.
It's grooming.
The grooming process is to take a person and introduce them to something that's not that
bad.
Once they become accustomed to it, you escalate what you're doing.
This is what's often lost in the political conversation.
That's why this is grooming.
So for those that are on the right, let me break it down for you.
You have reasonable boundaries.
Here's the way I explain it to people.
When you first meet someone, you are neutral on them.
Or maybe not.
You might see someone who's got a big ol' MAGA thing on their chest, and maybe that means you like them or you don't like them.
If you're on the left, you might see a big ol' MAGA flag with Trump on their shirt, and you lean towards not liking them.
Will you strike them?
No, no.
You don't gotta like somebody.
You're not gonna go up and hit them.
That's weird.
But you are leaning towards negative.
How do you make this person lean towards positive if they don't like a Trump supporter?
So, we wouldn't use grooming in this context, but the same process applies.
You introduce this person to someone wearing a MAGA shirt who's very nice and maybe helps pay their medical bill or something.
Or their dog, you know, here's a GoFundMe.
Hey man, I'm really sorry about this.
I know we don't get along, we don't agree, but I want to make sure I can be there for you because we're all in this together.
All of a sudden, now they have a positive experience.
They say, you know, those Trump supporters aren't so bad.
They're misguided, but not so bad.
They moved over a little bit.
Your reasonable boundaries will gradually reset.
Eventually, you do this.
It's called love bombing in a political sense.
You keep saying good things to someone every time they do something, and they like the encouragement, and they move more and more and more.
The reasonable boundary is the position in which a person will not cross.
So let me try and break it down.
When you first meet someone, you will not hit them, and you might not even want to hug them.
You know, a full-on embrace.
Because you're like, look, I don't know, I'll shake your hand.
Maybe not even that.
Nice to meet you.
You're a stranger.
You've got to take some actions before you're willing to give them a hug or you're willing to hurt them.
Hurting is a bit further negative than hugging.
So if you want to convince someone to give someone a hug, you need to move them so that their reasonable boundaries reset.
Imagine it this way.
Here's your reasonable boundaries.
It's easier visually.
Let's say on a scale of 1 through 10, you're at a 5.
1 is hitting, 10 is hugging.
In order to get someone all the way to that 1, you need to get them to a 4, to a 3, to a 2, and then a 1.
Which means you need to generate hate.
You need to give them more and more reason to hate.
We're seeing this with media.
When media writes an article saying so-and-so is racist, Trump is racist, the next day they write Trump is the worst racist, then Trump is literally Hitler, then Trump is worse than Hitler, that is effectively a grooming process.
It's typically not how we refer to grooming.
So now let's go back to this little kid.
You take a little kid, and they're neutral.
They're shy.
They don't want to strip.
They wouldn't do anything like that.
They'd be embarrassed to be seen in their underwear or something.
You put them on stage.
You give them money.
Everyone claps and cheers.
It's so good what you're doing!
You're so brave!
The kid likes it.
It feels good.
That resets their boundaries.
Now, eventually, you say, wear this tank top instead.
It's a little bit more revealing, but no big deal.
It's just a day go, right?
Then, you reset their reasonable boundaries.
Eventually, you get them so close to something obscene, you've groomed them to that process.
This is what we are seeing now with what they're calling drag shows, when they have kids dance on stage, taking off their clothing, and being given money.
In this instance, Paramount wasn't having the kid remove his clothing.
But Desmond is Amazing did remove his clothing.
He would go on wearing a large outfit and then slowly pull off pieces of clothing in exchange for money, quite literally stripping.
That is grooming kids.
Here we go.
This is from vtdigger.org.
In Chester, a library's hesitation to host Drag Queen Story Hour sparks controversy.
The reason why this is sparking controversy is there's a question around why drag queens are being presented to children.
If you want to say it's, you know, it's art, it's fine, it's all that, why specifically have drag queens show up around kids?
It's normalization.
That in and of itself Make an argument for.
If you're a conservative, you probably don't like it.
If you're a liberal, you probably got no problem because it's not overtly sexualizing.
It's just people wearing weird outfits.
But it does reset the reasonable boundaries of these people and their children to accept what this behavior is.
It does not mean the end result will be exploitation of children.
Drag Queen Story Hour is to put drag queens in front of children so when those kids grow up they don't have a negative reaction to it and it's normal to them.
Conservatives probably don't like that.
But that in and of itself, just reading a book, Someone wears weird clothing you don't like and they read a book.
It's whatever, right?
But it will normalize much of the LGBTQ community because drag queens typically fall within it.
That's the goal.
That's it.
Now, again, I didn't say that's going to a dark place.
You may not like the cultural development, but this is why they do it.
From NPR.
Accusations of grooming are the latest political attack with homophobic origins.
And this is the inversion.
The recoil.
You see, people on the right are pointing out accurately that there is grooming going on in school.
And I will show it to you.
What the media and the left has to do is then say it's an attack, it's hateful, it's homophobic.
The goal being get regular people seeing this to think that those who are claiming grooming is happening are lying or bad people.
I got no issue.
Look, if you don't want your kids around drag queens at libraries, don't bring your kids to drag queen story hour.
I don't think the government should be funding it, but the idea is normalizing certain cultural behaviors.
If you don't like it, Don't engage with it.
If they were doing things untoward, like getting kids to dance on stage for money, that's where I'm like, hey guys, hold on there a minute.
We gotta think about what we're doing.
Because you're crossing a line with these kids.
And there's also drag queens who agree.
But let me show you.
Let me see if I can pull this one up.
Okay, here we go.
I'm just gonna go right for it.
Earmuffs.
This one might get me in trouble.
Actually, I can't read the headline.
I honestly, I can't, you know, I don't even know I can show it on YouTube.
I cannot show you what is in this book for children because YouTube would pull the video down.
They say, the Texas Tribune, a coming-of-age memoir by a California writer has been seized upon by politicians who want greater control over the kinds of books available in Texas schools.
How a young adult, adult graphic scene, touched off Texas' latest culture war.
They say Kathy May was getting her four kids ready for another day at school in late October, when she got an urgent voicemail from a friend.
OMG OMG this book.
Her friend said, alerting May to a book found by another parent in the library catalog of Keller Independent School District, where their kids go, called Genderqueer Memoir.
I felt sick and disgusted, May said.
Recalling text messages, her friend sent her showing sexually explicit illustrations from the book.
She was angry that any kid could access that kind of book in a public high school without their parents' knowledge.
The 239-page graphic novel depicts Kobabi's journey of gender identity and sexual orientation.
Quote, I can absolutely understand the desire of a parent to protect their child from sensitive material.
I'm sympathetic to people who have had the best interest of young people at heart.
Kobabi, the 32-year-old author based in California, said in an interview with the Tribune, I also want to have the best interest of young people at heart.
There are queer youth at every high school, and those students, that's who I'm talking about, is the queer student who is getting left behind.
Mae didn't read the book, but what she saw, a few pages of explicit illustrations depicting Adult Activities was disturbing to her.
It took less than a day for May and other parents to get the book removed from the district.
May tweeted the same day that after the school officials had been notified, the book was removed from a student's hands.
How are they responding to this on the left?
You're getting this.
For those that are just listening, it is an image showing a young elephant with blonde hair and two very angry elephant parents, a man and a woman.
The child is holding up a book that says frogs and says, we're learning about frogs in school.
And the mother elephant is yelling and jumping, they're grooming the kids to be amphibians.
If they were showing the child graphic sexual depictions, and the parent said, I don't want my kid seeing that, it's a bit different.
You see, there's a recoiling here.
They're trying to falsely represent what's happening, and I can't tell you exactly why.
I can only say that what they're presenting falsely frames the argument.
Typically, when parents get angry, there's several big stories.
In Florida, a young girl tried to take her own life because the school secretly was transitioning her into a little boy and she was depressed.
They didn't inform the parents.
This precipitated the Parental Rights and Education Bill in Florida, which says that teachers must inform parents about what's going on with their kids.
We also have, in Loudoun County, several books on critical race theory that say whiteness is bad or showing the devil a demon tail holding up a whiteness contract.
Parents are upset about it, naturally.
And this book, Genderqueer, which actually shows graphic sexual depictions to such a degree that Amazon has rated it 18 and up only, yet it still finds its way in grade schools.
This is what people are saying when they say grooming is happening.
Adults are showing graphic imagery to children, encouraging it, saying it's normal, and those kids will then have their reasonable boundaries reset and move towards Perversion.
These things parents want banned.
I saw this meme, the latest cartoon, on Facebook.
And I asked the people who posted it what their thoughts were.
In fact, I posted a link to the image from the book.
Needless to say, they were furious.
Don't post that stuff on my page.
Well, that's the book you were defending in grade school libraries.
On more than one occasion, parents have gone to school meetings and read from these books and have had the board yell at them and say, stop speaking, you're out of line.
Somehow, this stuff ends up in schools.
Here's the sophistry.
John Schwartz.
My story.
How I was groomed by my elementary school teachers.
From encouraging me to read and write to nudging me to think for myself, their pernicious influence burdens me to this day.
I present to you the juxtaposition so that you can decide for yourself.
The Texas Tribune explained the book showed graphic adult depictions of Adult activities.
Between two people, it was graphically explicit.
Is this a fair representation?
When The Intercept writes, I was being groomed because they were encouraging me to read and write.
Or is it sophistry?
Are they attempting to manipulate you into thinking what is happening is fine or not happening at all?
There was a tweet from Michael Malice.
He said they're not trying to shut down your businesses.
That's a conspiracy theory.
They're not trying to take away your guns.
It's a conspiracy.
They're not teaching your kids critical race theory in schools.
It's a conspiracy theory.
They're all conspiracy theories.
But all of these things have happened.
If you read nothing but progressive and mainstream outlets, you are being misled.
By all means, I encourage you to tell me I am wrong in the comments.
But engage with the argument.
Do you think, honest question, that it is okay for children to dance on stage with drag queens to take money from the audience?
Okay.
Yes or no?
Fine.
Answer the question.
We may disagree on that, but that's allowed.
Do you think it's okay for a child to come on stage and remove clothing, like Desmond is Amazing did, in exchange for tips from the audience?
Yes or no?
Just honestly answer the question.
Personally, I think the answer is no to both of these things.
Do you think that teachers in schools should be showing books depicting adult activities?
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 You may engage with people on the right and not like their opinions, if you are a liberal.
That's fine.
day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's America on Trial
You may engage with people on the right and not like their opinions if you are a
liberal. That's fine. There's a lot of people on the right I don't like either.
I do not believe that critical race theory should be banned from schools.
I believe that teachers should not engage critical race praxis in education.
There's a difference.
I think it's fine if you want to have Kimberly Crenshaw's Critical Race Theory book in a school to critically assess the merits of the arguments.
It's actually a very important thing to do.
What I don't like is what's called critical praxis.
And this is when you take the teachings of critical race theory and apply it to math.
Here's an example.
You could write, uh, a train leaves Pittsburgh traveling at 50 miles an hour, and another train leaves Cleveland at 70 miles an hour.
They're 300 miles apart.
At which point will they collide?
Right.
Typical old-school math word problem.
Critical race praxis would give you a different math problem.
It would say, Jerome has been stopped by a police officer 17 times this week, where Walter has only been stopped 3 times.
What percentage of police stops affect the black community over the white community?
That's praxis.
It's when you apply the teachings of critical race theory, or the ideology of intersectionality, into a problem.
These things exist.
You may have no opinion.
That's fine.
Personally, I think it's wrong.
I don't want critical race praxis taught, and I don't want Christian praxis taught.
I think kids should be taught to think critically.
But maybe it's no wonder they show you these things and then claim it's not actually happening.
That I was being groomed to read and write.
Sure, that's fine.
I don't care about that.
And maybe you'll encounter right-wing sophists who will manipulate and lie for political power.
I don't like the Republican Party!
I like maybe like ten politicians, if that.
What I like is what's true and what's really happening.
And what's really happening is that when you have children dance on stage for money, this is stage one of what may be grooming.
Now maybe it's not intentional.
Maybe they didn't bring these kids out to groom them, but why is the audience throwing money at them?
It is a shift in culture.
Now, maybe liberals are fine with it.
Conservatives certainly are not.
Where does this lead us?
What do you think will happen in 10 or 20 years?
Let's say 10 years.
When these little boys, they're in their 20s.
And it turns out they're all dancing on stage for money and getting naked.
Conservatives are going to be very much opposed to that.
It probably will not be normalized because this is too far outside of the reasonable boundaries of the right.
Throughout the past hundred years, it would seem that this process of The greater grooming phenomenon, or social engineering as some would describe it.
Mass social engineering.
We have seen conservatives slowly drift leftward.
Donald Trump, for instance, is the first president in U.S.
history to support gay marriage before being elected.
Isn't that crazy?
That's a fact.
Barack Obama opposed gay marriage when he was campaigning to run for president.
The Republican far-right, whatever you want to call him, MAGA guy, actually supported gay marriage.
You see, the problem for the left right now is they've shifted way too far, way too fast.
They have made tremendous strides in gaining control in terms of what their political cultural values are.
As I stated, Donald Trump is far right, you say?
Yeah, well, he supported gay marriage entering office.
The first Republican to do so, Obama, didn't even do it, as I mentioned.
But now the Democrats, and many on the left, are saying Donald Trump is far right.
And the far right is moving further right, when in actuality, the New York Times actually showed, according to their manifesto, they've actually shifted slightly leftward.
Just slightly.
Now, Pew Research shows they've moved a little bit to the right, but only a little bit.
Depends on what you're looking at.
The fact is, if Republicans are going to be defending trans people like Blaire White, but not the entirety of the trans ideology, and they're going to be defending gay marriage, they've moved leftward.
That's reality.
The trans debate could not even happen 10 years ago.
I campaigned on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT nonprofit.
One of the big issues was that there was a bill, I think it was called ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
There was anger from many LGBTQ groups.
They said that one group, the Human Rights Campaign, was okay with a bill that would not defend the trans community.
And they said, no, it's all or nothing.
But the HRC said, we'll take what we can get.
Back then, transgender rights were so outside of the mainstream that even mainstream LGBTQ organizations were not willing to publicly defend them, and they were willing to accept certain legislation.
I should say they were willing to publicly defend them, because LGBT was in there, but They were willing to take concessions.
There was not a great public debate on transgenderism because gay marriage was not won yet.
It wasn't until 2014.
Today, everything's shifted once again leftward.
If the left didn't shift so far so fast, or more importantly, if the left didn't embrace what some would describe as lascivious behavior, they'd probably win the argument.
When you're talking about transgender-affirming care, and that's it, well, then you're probably going to have a hard cultural argument.
But when you show children on stage dancing for money, it now becomes an argument about grooming.
And the reality is, many people on the left probably are not okay with it.
My question is, why defend it?
Because I know they do because when I brought up Desmond is Amazing and said, yo, this is stripping.
What Desmond was doing was not just grooming, it was stripping.
He was wearing clothes, going on stage, pulling off piece by piece, and then taking money.
You do not need to get naked to be a stripper.
He was stripping his clothes off for money.
And the left defended it.
And they said the right was making it up and the right was targeting children.
That's the problem.
Tribalism has become so entrenched on the left that they would outright deny And they've gone nuts, I'm sorry.
Showing adult activities in a middle school library.
Getting rid of that is not banning books, it's banning adult content.
unidentified
We've always been like, children shouldn't read that.
The left said it was a troll campaign, and that it was fake, and they're trying to smear LGBTQ people.
But it is a reality.
There are people who are trying to entertain this.
Snapchat had a filter that said, Love Has No Age.
What is that supposed to mean?
They were talking about LGBTQ issues when they said this.
I think they ultimately removed it.
This is the direction it's going.
You are going to shock middle America to its core when they see these things.
So I can only put it this way.
If you're on the right, if you're a conservative, or you just outright disagree with this, whatever your political position is, you need to share it.
And let people know.
And by all means, tell me what I'm wrong about.
You can disagree with me, but tell me what I'm wrong about.
I've shown you the parts of the video.
I've shown you the Wikipedia entry for stripping.
This is all just a simple logical argument and despite my opinion, I am not asserting a moral stance in what I'm showing you, but perhaps my framing is biased.
So, you tell me what I got wrong and comment below.
And if you don't think I got it wrong, share with your friends and ask them, did Tim get anything wrong about what's happening?
There are some books that are being banned that shouldn't be banned.
There are some books that I think are graphic sexual depictions that should be.
But does that mean I'm for all-around book banning?
Maybe just have an adult section, you know, and once someone's at high school and turn 18, it's like, all right, you can read it now.
Or maybe the school just shouldn't be paying for this stuff.
I'm not going to pretend to be the arbiter of morality or have all the answers.
But if you ignore this and don't engage on the merits, you will lose.
The Democrats who don't know this is happening, you're losing.
Same thing with the gun argument.
If you can't argue for what an assault weapon is, you will not be able to win that argument.
And that's why 36 states now permit open list carry.
Permit, I'm sorry.
They permit permitless open carry.
There, I got it.
So tell me what you think.
Either way, I think all of this is ultimately going to lead to a Republican sweep, among other things, in November.
But we'll see.
I could be wrong.
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.
You may wonder why it is that so many people think we are on the verge of a civil war, or that we are potentially in one, just in the precursor phase.
I'd like to bring your attention to an article from the Post Millennial.
YouTuber Ethan Klein calls for bombing of NRA conference.
Klein prefaced his calls for violence by promoting sales of his new shirts, which read, and gun violence.
Now, shortly after saying he wanted someone to bomb the NRA conference, he then walks it back.
But I do think there is some important context as to what he was talking about and why he said it.
I don't think that he was joking.
I think he knows that he wasn't joking.
And he even said he took it a little too far and then later said, well, he was joking.
In fact, when he called for the bombing of the NRA building, his wife says, yes.
Yes.
Now, in the full context of the video, it appears that one of his editors or someone working there, like, waves to him, like, stop, he looks over, and then he says, okay, took that one a little too far, then he goes on to repeatedly just dwell on the issue, saying things like, kill them with kindness, and that's what I, that's what I meant, and love bomb, YouTube has taken down the video.
Now, I don't care for the most part for these kind of internet drama videos, and it's kind of pointless that I say it because I end up doing them periodically anyway, but I think this one is important because following the suspension of his channel for one week, following his call for the bombing of the NRA building, he is now saying that he is getting death threats and waves of antisemitism flying his way.
There is no de-escalation here.
There's none.
Now, I'm gonna be perfectly candid.
Ethan Klein, I think, is a bad person.
I mean, it's not saying much.
I'm not trying to drag or insult him by saying that.
He recently, like, literally this morning, as I made a comment about not believing his apology, put up an out-of-context clip of me to make it seem like I'm advocating for private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Most of you who follow me know what my actual argument was.
That the Second Amendment protects the right to own everything, because it always had.
And at no point did we just decide some weapons were off-limits.
I mean, some people do, and they make those assumptions.
My point is that when the Second Amendment was codified, we had Corsairs and Privateers.
These were privately owned warships.
It was all legal, and you could have cannons.
Cannons, at the time, artillery.
This was the pinnacle of siege weaponry, and you were allowed to own it.
Why did that principle change?
At what point did we amend the Constitution to say you could not keep and bear arms?
No, in fact, it's gone the other direction.
Since the late 80s, or since the 80s, gun rights have continually expanded and now we have 36 states with permitless open carry and 25 with constitutional carry.
That is to say, if you want to make the argument that Today, we can't have certain weapons because they're too powerful, even though you could have the most powerful weapons back when they codified the Second Amendment.
It makes no sense, especially considering, in the Supreme Court's interpretation of 2A, our rights to own guns have expanded.
Well, here's the story from May 28th, before the weekend, but I want to show you the updated context.
Many of you have probably seen the story, but for those that haven't, YouTuber Ethan Klein called for the NRA conference in Texas to be bombed.
Quote, saw there was a big protest outside the NRA meeting, which was good.
Do we have any insight into what they're actually talking about there at the NRA meeting that's today in Texas?
Someone should bomb that building, he said.
Yeah, that's horribly wrong.
I don't even know if I'm allowed to quote that he said it, but I think... I think I need to.
Maybe YouTube won't be too happy about that.
We'll see what happens.
But I will add, this clip cuts off what he immediately said following, which I'm now going to show you.
Because, so here we can see, YouTube's removed the video, this was over the weekend, and I want to show you what I think is really important about this video.
Let me stress, I don't care about podcast drama, I don't care about, you know, these guys, many of these prominent podcasters, they get their clicks by doing interpersonal drama.
We're getting a little bit in there, sure.
But I just want to make sure we keep the focus on, or at least the context you retain, is the escalation in the conflict.
I want to play this for you, but I want to make sure this is clear because this is what's important about what's happening with Ethan Klein.
The one thing I think that is keeping this country together right now is boomers and some Gen Xers.
Boomers, for the most part, unified in their political views.
Not completely.
You know, they have some wedge arguments.
Gen Xers, similar but dividing.
Millennials, completely split to the point where, you know, Ethan Klein will call for the bombing of a building, walk it back, Millennials on the right will take that, cut out the part where he walked it back, post a video saying that's what's important, then I, not showing the video at all, criticizing Ethan Klein, Ethan Klein would then do the same in kind to me, taking a clip out of context to create the worst possible interpretation, which results in anger and animosity.
I'm not worried about the petty drama of this guy.
I am worried about crazy people who believe crazy things.
And of course, Ethan, with his massive influence, did not tell people the full context.
I always try to do so.
And you know what?
Maybe the problem is it's impossible.
Maybe I get it wrong too.
But I can show you the full context and I can break down where I believe on a very large podcast with millions of subscribers.
This was not a joke.
And by all means, give Ethan all the credit you want.
I did a segment last week where I legitimately confronted his arguments.
I did not insult him.
But this is what happens.
There is a need among every, all of these tribalists for escalation.
So this is what, this is how it began.
unidentified
I literally don't know what to do and I feel hopeless.
It's almost like this is one of the problems we have with escalation.
I think probably the only reason he walked it back is because they knew they were heading into banned territory, which has resulted in them getting suspended.
Alright.
Those weren't jokes, dude.
triggered over jokes I told and mass reported me. I got banned for a week and the episode was removed.
If only they cared about dead kids as much as they do jokes.
So I want to say sorry. Sorry y'all are such pathetic snowflakes. F the NRA and F Abbott." All
right. Those weren't jokes, dude. You said you got carried away and a little too passionate. I don't care
about what he has to say for me, and I don't care to do back and forth BS.
You know, I really do find funny in all of this.
The things that matter very little when it comes to the drama YouTube podcaster stuff, and I'll pause real quick.
Ethan Klein is a podcaster.
Podcasts have more influence, but, you know, YouTube as well.
It's completely nonsensical issues.
You know, like the Young Turks did a video where it's like, Tim Pool says conservatives are less ugly than liberals or something.
And it was like, I was citing three different studies and I was like, that's really interesting.
I wonder if that's privilege.
They don't care to actually get to the core of the arguments.
They're just screaming into the wind because it gets them clicks and gets them followers.
Now, I think Ethan Klein... You see, what happens with a lot of these people is that they get... We need to come up with a word that explains this.
What happens is, you take one person...
You put them in a room and they'll sit there and that's it.
They maybe read, they won't do much.
You take another person and put them in the room.
Now they start bouncing an idea back and forth between each other.
One person says the NRA is bad and the other person then enables or amplifies and says, you're right, I do think the NRA is bad too.
They keep bouncing this idea back and forth and among themselves exacerbate and grow this seed of hatred.
There's a video I often cite from CGP Grey called This Video Will Make You Angry that explains it really well, where he mentions that the different tribal groups online often don't argue with each other, they argue among themselves about how bad the other is.
And that's what we saw with the rise of the culture war, and now it's culminating in this.
When you have an audience that feeds on this rage and an escalation, You get carried away.
It wasn't a joke.
It was the next logical step in what Ethan Klein has said.
And he needs to say something more.
He can't say the same thing over and over again.
You've probably heard me talk about how the media did it with Trump.
You write an article saying Trump is a racist, you'll get a million clicks.
You can't write the same article twice.
But you can't now write Trump isn't racist, so what do you do?
In order to get that feeling back, to get that drive, you need to escalate the rhetoric over and over and over again to the point where you're saying Donald Trump is literally worse than Hitler.
Which is insane, of course, but they did say that.
For someone like Ethan Klein, who's continually riling up his base and pandering to the tribal outrage, F the NRA!
F the NRA!
He needs to bring it to its next logical conclusion.
I think that's a sign of, it's almost like a high skill NPC-like behavior.
Me personally, yeah, I won't play that.
I'm not going to pretend like I'm perfect, but getting to the point where you would advocate for something like that?
No, no.
I have scruples and I am well aware of reasonable boundaries and people getting carried away.
And plus, I just typically think most people are not researched enough.
I'll put it this way.
You know one of the things that protects me from flying off into, you know, rages like this?
Is that I think I'm smarter than a lot of these people.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I don't think that... I think many people are smarter than me.
My point, what I'm trying to say is, I don't trust them.
That's it.
They're making a joke about being arrogant, but, you know, truth be told, I am a little bit.
But what I mean to say is I don't trust everybody.
I don't trust... When they say, did you see X?
I'll be like, I don't know if I believe you.
So you're not going to get me to come out and drive this escalation, but this is what we are seeing.
Ethan then tweeted, I want to make it clear that I don't advocate for violence of any kind.
That is obvious to anyone that watched the segment and did not just the 10 second clip that was used to misdirect attention.
Republicans are now the party of dead children and nothing can misdirect from that, okay?
See, this is what I took issue with and this is why I, uh, so I quoted this and said, I was following until that last part.
Republicans are now the party of dead children.
Republicans are banning guns.
This is evidence, in my opinion, that many of these high-profile left personalities, 2.3 million followers, they're not serious people, and they're not making serious arguments, and what Ethan is doing is actually driving us towards a civil war.
I'm not saying him exclusively.
I'm not saying him to a great degree.
I'm saying it's just a grain of sand in a heap.
As Gen Xers, when the boomers age out and millennials take over industry, this sentiment will be persistent.
And it is.
But it's going to be persistent among those who wield disproportionate amounts of power.
Right now, one thing, as I mentioned, the thing that I think, one thing that's keeping us from civil war is that boomers are still here.
Boomers have a disproportionate amount of wealth and power.
Relative to generations past, millennials have an extremely disproportionately low amount of wealth and power.
If someone like Ethan Klein, who is wealthy and powerful, had the traditional level of wealth and power of, say, the boomers when they're at the same age, we'd be looking at some really crazy and dangerous circumstances.
But boomers are holding on to that, and so it's holding back what's to come.
Once Ethan Klein is in his 40s and 50s, and is a leader of industry, and he almost is, I mean he's a large influence, these ideas just spit on the Republicans as the party of dead children, irrespective of facts, and that's what you're going to see.
It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what drives the hatred.
So, what we do over at TimCast is I'll make the point to say leftists are pro-gun.
Say it all the time.
I'll often be like, the left, wait, I'm sorry, I gotta stop myself, it's just a force, it just, it comes out, leftists, I'm sorry.
Leftists are pro-gun.
Karl Marx said, under no pretext should the workers surrender their arms and ammunition.
Any attempt to seize it should be frustrated with force, if necessary, something like that.
It's liberals.
These establishment corporate liberals that are all about that.
I try to make sure we get that point across.
Because I don't care if you're left economically or whatever.
I care if you're fascistic.
Like, you think only the government should have guns versus the people.
I think the people should have them.
I don't like the government.
And I don't understand how you can say defund the police but arm them at the same time and disarm the population.
Seems to make not very much sense.
But anyway.
You know, Ethan comes out and he makes this point that he doesn't advocate for violence of any kind.
Well, he said he got carried away.
So he did advocate for very extreme violence, in fact an act of terror, but then walked it back because he thought he went too far.
That's not a joke.
And that was literal advocacy.
My response is that Ethan should have just said what he said on the show.
I'm sorry.
I wasn't thinking.
I just blurted it out.
It's completely inappropriate.
But to go on and say Republicans are the party of dead children is the real point.
I don't care what you think about Ethan Klein.
I don't care what Ethan Klein thinks about me.
I care about where this train is going.
And the train seems to be heading in a direction where the following response from this, from Ethan, is just to escalate.
It's all escalation.
He tweeted at Donald Trump Jr.
Remember when your dad inspired an insurrection that killed six people?
Donald Trump Jr.
posted Ethan Klein has 2.9 million subs on YouTube and has made multiple encouragements for violence and death against conservatives.
He didn't just say to bomb the NRA building.
He advocated for attacking Governor Greg Abbott and physical confrontation.
Well, I'll be careful with that last one.
But he said to stick... This is what's being reported.
I want to be careful.
Stick a wheel in the spokes of Abbott's wheelchair and then no one can, you know, so he'd fall out like direct physical action and attacks against him.
Now let's get personal here, but not in the sense that I care all that much.
Ethan said, if you want to know how deranged Tim Poole is, just watch this.
Thank you for shouting me out, Ethan.
I said, I appreciate that Ethan did not extend to me the same courtesy he demanded of the right.
He cut out where I said, and most people think that's wrong and we would need to amend the Constitution.
Privateers were legal when it was written and they could flatten coastal cities.
This is important.
To Ethan's defense, the video that's being circulated by people on the right doesn't include him saying, I shouldn't have said that, I shouldn't have said that.
When I was first sent the clip by everyone saying, look what he said!
So I had conservatives send me this clip of Ethan Klein calling for bombing the NRA building, And it stops right after he says it.
I said, oh really?
So I went and I found the full clip and I watched it and he immediately says, I went too far, don't do that.
For like the next 30 seconds to a minute he's like, peaceful protest in Minecraft, all of that stuff.
That doesn't change the base context of it.
He got carried away and he called for violence.
He did.
He said he got carried away.
He did walk it back.
Those are all true.
In my opinion, I think dude just went too far.
Now as for my argument, which he posted, where I just talk, it's me saying...
I said, the Second Amendment protects your right to own nuclear weapons.
And then I was asked, what about biological weapons?
Absolutely.
Delivery mechanism?
Yes, you better believe it.
And in the greater conversation, following the 16-second clip, I said, effectively what the conversation was, essentially what it was, is that, as I mentioned, Corsairs existed.
The governments of that era would contract privately owned warships to go and disrupt the supply lines.
This was full-scale warfare with the most powerful weapons at the time.
The Founding Fathers hired people who had these things.
They knew all about it.
And they said, you could have it.
It wasn't illegal.
You could own cannons, and you still can.
Why would that principle have changed?
It hasn't.
The argument could be that the Supreme Court might say, we're never going to allow that interpretation.
But just because they don't want to allow it doesn't mean the interpretation wasn't it.
Like, that wasn't the interpretation.
Long story short, I said, I think most people would agree that individuals shouldn't have nuclear weapons, and we're going to have to amend the Constitution.
Funny.
It's almost like my argument was in favor of limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.
Arms being a reference to all armaments.
Strange how Ethan Klein doesn't include that context.
I don't care that he didn't.
This is... It's a lot of childish nonsense.
We try to avoid a lot of the interpersonal drama.
I would say we do a small amount periodically, but we try to... I only think when it really matters, when it has a bigger impact or speaks to the larger conflict at hand.
The main issue I want to get to is... I will accept...
You know, here we go, Tim Pool, Ethan Klein talking at each other.
I also thought it probably would be a stupid segment to do because I wonder how many people really care about Ethan Klein.
But the real point, Ethan Klein is a very prominent millennial with millions of subscribers, followers, and tremendous influence.
When he says things like this, it's important because it shows you where we are headed.
We are headed towards a future where millennials will be at each other's throats to an extreme degree, where Ethan Klein, a perfect example of this, will demand you show the full context of my clip, but then not show the full context of my clip.
But the point here is not to say that I'm angered that he didn't.
I fully expect him to do this and more.
I expect him and the Young Turks and anybody else to pull up more clips and take them all out of context.
It's what they do.
The point is, for those that watch them, they are being riled up into a frenzy.
My thing is, we gotta stop gun violence.
People have a right to keep and bear arms.
We should not have only the police who are armed.
The police in Uvalde kept the parents out of the building, using their arms and authority, and then did nothing.
So I think we've got a problem of government.
I think we have a problem of establishment politicians embracing fascistic tendencies and policies or otherwise.
But ultimately what ends up happening is, right now you have politics as pop culture.
Ethan Klein is not a political guy.
He doesn't know a lot about politics.
He said so himself, and I'm not saying that as a dig.
He was a comic entertainment guy who made a podcast probably because he saw the way the winds were blowing.
He used to do these clips on YouTube.
They were funny, and he would make jokes.
He got a lot of followers.
He launched a podcast as the podcast era began.
He transferred his influence from comedy and entertainment into politics.
He hosted people like Jordan Peterson.
As politics began to turn, he also then turned with the tides.
He saw the way the wind was blowing and embraced leftist establishment politics with people like Hasan Piker and then condemning people like Jordan Peterson.
This is a guy who turns at the slightest breeze.
He's a businessman.
And he is a social media personality first and foremost.
I'm kind of different.
I got started in activism, protesting and working at non-profits.
I got into this from the political angle.
Having spent my entire life reading news and talking politics and discussing the war and being on the ground doing activism, then working at non-profits fundraising to help solve these problems before going on the ground at Occupy Wall Street, the entire trajectory of my life has been around politics and then into the media.
So there's two different worlds clashing here.
One is politics has become pop culture.
So the only thing that matters then is if you're an entertainer and your goal is to produce content, your approach is always going to be maximum audience.
Then you have where I come from.
Boots-on-the-ground activism protesting the war, boots-on-the-ground activism working for several non-profits, on behalf of many such as the ACLU, Greenpeace, the Human Rights Campaign, organizations called Pergroups, and homeless shelters.
And immediately following that direct-on-the-ground activism, activism as a career, I went to Occupy Wall Street, started filming, which pushed me into a media space.
Being in the media space, but coming from politics, politics has always been my passion, and I will always approach it from a political angle, an activist angle, in such that my issue is how do we solve these problems, not how do I maximize audience.
If I wanted to maximize audience, there's a lot of different things I would have done.
Things that I could be saying about Donald Trump or otherwise.
There are many people who launch podcasts after me.
I've been doing this for 10 years.
Who have way bigger followings, and it's because, is it the entertainment angle or the news and media angle?
Politics has become pop culture.
And because of that, you are seeing a dramatic escalation.
When Bears fans fight with Packers fans, it's sports, but riots and fights break out.
Not all that much, but soccer hooligans, whoa!
People fighting over soccer can get pretty crazy, but we have riots over sporting events.
Take that rage and anger and apply it to the new pop culture that is politics, and things start getting wacky, weird, and crazy.
All of a sudden, I have someone like Ethan Klein, who probably knows very little about politics and history, engaging in a political space, Twitter for instance, With someone like me, who's been doing activism for 20 years, and then getting into journalism and activism for 15 or so, and getting into journalism in the past 10 plus years, now I think it's going on 11 years, in what reality does this pan out well, right?
When you have pop culture elements embracing tribal politics instead of tribal celebritas, You will get chaos.
So what we end up with is Ethan Klein will demand you put him in full context but then take others out of context.
He will turn what should have been an apology into an attack on Republicans in the NRA because his goal is to entertain for his audience.
None of that is being said as a dig.
I'll entertain anyone's politics or arguments all day and night.
Ultimately, I think, for you and I, this drama stuff is petty.
But, in the bigger picture, my concern is, if people like Ethan, and many other conservative millennials, are embracing this kind of tribal escalation without thought, because it's pop culture as politics, We're going to fight.
And I hope it isn't the case, but people need to understand how politics is influenced by generational shifts.
People seem to think that the politics must escalate.
No, no, no, no, no.
What happens is the generations escalate.
When teachers go for young children and try to groom them and get them to embrace certain ideas, those kids grow up further left.
So what's happening now is children today are being indoctrinated.
And as they grow, they are further and further away.
The children of someone like Ethan will, who probably grew up, you know, he was an edgy teenager doing edgy comedy.
He's apologized for a lot of it because it's offensive now.
So he's going to raise his kids with that ethos.
Those kids are not going to grow up more centered like he did.
You know, he's in the center, he moves in a direction.
His kids will grow up already in the direction and move further away.
And over time, you have the boomers up top, where they're overlapping in their politics.
And then as they age out, what happens is the children of these generations that are hyper-polarized will be entrenched and be completely separated.
The one thing that could bring us together is growing up around each other.
I learned that growing up on the South Side of Chicago.
But right now what's happening is that the children of millennials, albeit very few to be honest, are growing up completely detached from the other side and assuming the worst about each other.
They're going to grow up and they're going to say, all conservatives are evil baby killers, and the left is going to say, what you think we are, you're the evil baby killers, you want abortion, and they're going to say, you want guns.
There will be no unity, and there will be only tribal animosity.
Perhaps we can get some kind of Romeo and Juliet scenario, where in the next generation, the children of Gen Z, a conservative and a liberal, are like, but I love you, and then they come together.
I don't know about that.
I can only see dramatic escalation.
There you have it.
Again, I don't care for the petty drama.
I don't care.
You can say whatever you want, dude.
I wish Ethan was a bit more honest.
You know, I have no problem showing his context.
Apparently he's not interested in showing mine.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Joe Biden has issued a statement on 9mm handguns, saying they can blow a lung out of a body!
I'm not sure that's true, but when you're talking about the destruction of someone's body from a handgun, I suppose you're just trying to be as graphic as possible, particularly if you're in favor of seizing people's guns and you oppose people's gun rights.
Now, while Joe Biden is basically saying that you should not be allowed to have a 9mm handgun, he's said something similar in the past, that it doesn't matter what round you're using, you should not be allowed to have certain magazines.
The NRA said that this was Joe Biden calling for banning 9mm handguns, and that's technically correct, but I don't think it's fair.
Biden was specifically talking about standard magazine size and saying he wants them to be reduced to minimal magazine size.
That is, the part of the gun that detaches to hold the bullets.
Joe Biden wants reduced from a standard capacity for a 9mm handgun, which may be 17 or 18 rounds, and have that reduced to 10 rounds.
He wasn't literally saying ban the 9mm.
But the rhetoric he's putting out right now, saying that there's no rational basis for defending yourself with a 9mm, just goes to show one thing.
The people who want gun control either have no idea what they're talking about, or they're straight up coming for all of your guns.
Now here's what I think.
I think we have Democrats who scream gun control and they win in some very strange ways.
And then we have Republicans who consistently, at the federal level, say, slow down there, Democrats, and then just give Democrats a concession.
Thus, we have seen, over the past hundred years, many laws curtailing our right to keep and bear arms.
However, since the 80s, it would seem that our right to keep and bear arms has expanded in only the best ways.
There's still some negatives, don't get me wrong.
A lot of guns get banned.
But let me just put it this way.
As those of us who believe in gun rights continue to make these arguments and desperately try to tell liberals that you don't know what you're talking about, it falls on deaf ears.
And thus, they ban things that seemingly make no sense, And then we keep passing constitutional carry and expanding our gun rights.
Aside from this article, Joe Biden clarifies 2A and says there's simply no rational basis for defending yourself with a 9mm handgun, which is insane, we also have another article, both from Twitchy.
We already won.
Tim Pool just absolutely buries Cenk Uygur in serious heated back and forth over guns and gun control.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Barrys.
I appreciate that Cenk engaged with me.
And I think it's an opportunity for me to express my ideas in more detail, because Twitter isn't so good.
And so, not trying to make it, you know, drama or anything.
No, I think Cenk genuinely made some points about gun control.
What we're seeing right now is hyper-tribalization.
From the Postmillennial, Biden booed while visiting Texas after mass shooting.
I'm not a fan of the framing, Postmillennial, because we also have from Huffington Post, Texas Governor Greg Abbott loudly booed at Uvalde Memorial.
The reality is, they were both booed.
People were just mad.
Now, I watched the video.
I don't think Biden was booed all that much as Abbott was.
In fact, people did cheer for him at one point.
But a lot of people were screaming, do something.
The people who are booing and cheering are gun control advocates.
So coming out and framing it one way or the other, I think it's not accurately explaining to people what's going on.
The reality?
Both face criticism.
But that's reality.
And I'll tell you this, some criticism for the Postmillennial, though I'm a fan, I don't like articles that are framed like, so-and-so criticized for X. We had an article that said, you know, up on timcast.com, Joe Biden criticized by conservatives over X. And I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It's like, you got to change that.
Say Joe Biden did X, then give us what the left and the right both think.
We don't need to frame articles as though the president's being criticized because you can do that for literally anyone at any point.
But right now, I can accurately criticize the president for this reason.
I'm not saying that you never want to talk about the criticism the president got.
I think it's important to point out that if all of the leaders that are coming down are getting some flack because people want to see action, don't just make it seem like it's only Joe Biden.
But the other point here is my concern with Joe Biden is his complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation on gun rights.
Take a look at this story from Twitchy.
Joe Biden clarifies and says there's simply no rational basis for defending yourself with a 9mm handgun that can blow a lung out of the body, as reported by Shelby Talcott.
Apparently, Joe Biden was speaking to reporters after returning to the White House.
Joe Biden on Monday.
This is from Politico.
Says he believes there's a realization among rational Republicans the nation can't continue like this after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Texas.
Biden says rational Republicans offer hope for gun legislation.
Yeah, no, that's not reality.
Sorry.
I mean, rational Republicans, you can call them whatever you want, but they're, I don't know, shill Republicans.
Republicans at the federal level, yet for the most part, they're Democrats.
Republicans at the state level, and this is why it's important you go out and vote, have been passing constitutional carry across the board.
When we look to the states, the states are being strengthened.
Gun rights are expanding.
36 states allow permitless open carry, and 25 states have enacted constitutional carry.
Now that is incredible.
Since the 80s, we have seen no-issue states become shall-issue.
Even states like Illinois used to have strict gun control.
Donald Trump says some of the strictest gun control in the nation have shall-issue now.
So across the country, gun rights are rapidly expanding.
But let's take a look at how these things are framed.
Joe Biden also said, The Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.
You couldn't buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed.
I think things have gotten so bad that everyone is getting more rational about it.
No, Joe, you're wrong.
Yeah.
You're completely wrong.
You could own a cannon.
People did own cannons.
The epitome of siege warfare.
People owned warships.
I know, you've heard me say it a million times, but in this context, just for those that haven't heard it, corsairs and privateers existed and were hired by the government.
Could you imagine a private corporation actually sailing the seas with destroyers?
Submarines with nukes on them.
I mean, it's crazy, right?
That's how it used to be.
Now, the planet has homogenized to a great degree, and governments typically control all of the arsenals, but private military contractors exist.
They have advanced weaponry.
Maybe they just have no need for weapons of mass destruction and destroyers, but there are also private cargo ships, freighters, that have...
Effectively armed units, literally armed units, they have private military contractors on these boats armed with high-powered rifles.
And they have to defend themselves in the high seas because pirating is still a thing.
Joe is wrong.
And the good news is that looking at all of this, gun rights are winning.
So here's what I want to get to with this.
Joe Biden says a 9mm can blow the lung out of the body.
No, I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean.
I mean, I think if you wanted to remove someone's entire lung, you'd need, like, a cannonball.
But that would just vaporize their body.
Anything large enough to blow a lung out of your body is going to just vaporize your body.
I suppose a 50 BMG, but that would just, I think you'd explode.
Like, I think, for real, and the bullets are big for 50 BMG, but I'm pretty sure if you got hit with one of that, you, like, you'd explode.
Maybe explode isn't the right word.
Because people might think they would detonate.
What I mean is, the velocity and the size of that round would cause cavitation, which would cause your insides to spray out the back, removing your lung, but turning it into a fine powder or dust in the process.
This is what was explained to me when I was taking a look at a 17 Super Mag Bolt action.
They were like, it's for small game, but the cavitation is so intense because the speed is so high, it vaporizes their insides, creating a vacuum, and that's what I mean.
Anyway, gun control winning.
This is the point.
This is a white pill moment for those who believe in gun rights.
I want to show you this article.
We already won Tim Pool buries Cenk Uygur.
Okay, okay guys.
I'm not here to... They've put all the tweets in place.
I want to talk to you about the ideas from modern progressives and liberals like Cenk Uygur and then talk to you about the reality of gun rights and how we are winning.
Cenk Uygur tweeted, Isn't it curious that everyone outside of reporters know that taking money from the gun lobby to make sure there is no gun control is a bribe?
It's money in exchange for a vote.
Yet no one who works in mainstream media figured that out.
Almost like they're paid to cover it up.
So I saw this tweet.
And I just... It's an unfair tweet.
I said, so is student debt forgiveness.
The Democrats are offering up cash to the highest income earners in the country To vote for them.
Joe Biden's like, we're gonna forgive $10,000.
Like, you're cutting them a check.
Who's paying for that?
The taxes to pay for that are gonna have to come from everyone, which includes the majority, I believe 87% of people with no student loan debt, and the lowest income earners.
People with college degrees make more money on average than those without.
So why are we paying their debts?
Now the point here was, first, Cenk is wrong.
He responded with, um, Let me show you what he responded with.
He says, I like owning guns.
Why should I lose my guns?
I do think they did miss one of my tweets on this because I quoted him as well.
like gun manufacturers or drug companies or oil companies or bankers, our government is
supposed to serve us, not their corporate donors.
I said, I like owning guns.
Why should I lose my guns?
I do think they did miss one of my tweets on this because I quoted him as well.
I said, student loan forgiveness also pays the profit of predatory lenders.
It's not all federal government loans.
It is also private loan issuers as lenders as well.
When you pay their debt, you are typically paying the interest and profit to those big companies.
And, as I stated, you're giving money from the lowest income earners to the highest income earners, not average Americans.
But I don't think Cenk cares.
Or he's just ignorant.
But I said, I like owning guns.
Why should I lose my guns?
Cenk responded, this is exactly the kind of selfish, right-wing thinking that has led to thousands of massacres in America.
My hobby is fantasy football.
If it got thousands of people killed every year, I'd be willing to give it up for the general good, but you guys have no empathy for others.
Cenk is unwilling to make rational, reasoned arguments on function.
It's all emotion.
You have no empathy.
That's not an argument, my good friend.
Whether I do or don't is not relevant to the conversation.
The function of the Second Amendment and a gun is irrelevant to whether or not an individual has empathy for somebody else.
The point of the Second Amendment is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Or that's what it says.
It is for the defense of a free state.
To protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Now what does that mean?
Enemies could be anything.
Typically, the context is human beings, but it could mean animals.
An enemy of a free state could be a bear attacking your village, and thus, you need to protect it.
The fascinating thing here that you need to understand is that when the Second Amendment was created, there were no police forces.
Police was a relatively new concept, I believe coming into play around the end of the 1700s.
So, there was some idea, but law enforcement was handled by local militia.
So the right of the people to keep and bear arms was so that there could be a police force as well.
Maybe a more primitive version of it, but we didn't have police back then.
If there was a crime committed, the men would take up their arms and stop the person, and they'd be brought to a court.
Evidence would be presented by the prosecution.
But there weren't police as we know it today.
That's really fascinating, isn't it?
I have empathy for people who are hurt by gun crime.
All of them.
Absolutely.
But that doesn't change the fact that if you think only the government should have guns, and you want to take away the people's rights to self-defense, you are a fascist.
Not in the total and absolute manner, but you are engaging in fascistic, authoritarian ideology.
Only the government should keep and bear arms.
Well, then they will wield it against you with impunity.
Yeah, we don't want that.
I responded.
Because Cenk Uygur said right-wing thinking.
Karl Marx said not to give up your guns.
Dude must be right-wing.
Karl Marx said under no pretext should workers surrender their arms and ammunition.
Now if you think about it, if the leftist position is that you should not give up your guns, but also that the means of production must be retained by the people or government, the government should be producing guns and giving them to the people.
Karl Marx said so.
Now, some have pointed out that that wasn't his true position.
His true position was that the workers should have arms until the revolution, and then they should give up their weapons.
That's not true.
Karl Marx, as far as I know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm, maybe Karl Marx did come out and say, once the workers seize the means of production, give up your guns.
I don't think so.
I don't think Karl Marx viewed the world in that way.
He believed that there would always be people who wanted to control everything, and the workers, that meant the government when it took over, and the workers should be armed.
And think about it.
If you wanted to give the most charitable approach to socialism or communism, It would function a whole lot better if everyone had guns, right?
I mean, if you have the party members, the generalissimo, the dictators, saying, we're in charge, and they seize your guns, you don't really have ideological communism.
I mean, it is communism.
But the idea that everyone owns everything.
No, if the government can take something from the people and they can't have it, it's not communism.
At least the way they're trying to describe it.
I mean, it's the manifestation of communism.
But when they say that everyone without everything, in true socialism, that means guns too, baby.
And that means when the government tried to oppress a group of people, they're armed.
And an armed society is a polite one, right?
One person responded, the last NRA meeting banned guns, bro, you are over with.
I saw that.
Over with.
That's what you think?
I said, have you checked the gun laws lately?
36 states have permitless open carry.
25 have constitutional carry.
You're the minority on the issue we already won.
Yeah, those who believe in guns.
Someone else responded.
Why do they always stop at rifles?
Should we be allowed to own nuclear missiles?
What about fighter jets?
Tanks?
I said yes.
Oh yeah, I love it.
Jank responded.
This is a perfect example of how right-wing is absolutely insane.
Here is Tim Poole saying everyone should be allowed to have nukes.
Have you ever lived in the real world?
Do you want everyone you've ever met to have access to the button?
Only an actual lunatic would think that.
And I said, you literally can.
How do you think they are made?
Private entities make them and fill out the paperwork.
You think only the government has nukes?
This is the fascinating thing.
Do these people not realize that weapons manufacturers are making these things?
They don't understand that.
Now, to clarify on a point I responded with, I said a single individual can have a nuke.
You just gotta fill out the paperwork.
Clarification.
I'm not sure on if you are just a single person operating under your own name, but a single person can form a corporation, and you can fill the paperwork out.
Now, there are restrictions, of course.
There are international treaties.
But there was recently, within the past 10 years, a gravity bomb had been made.
The government contracts this labor out.
Weapons manufacturers are making these things.
But let's step back from the nuke thing, because nuclear weapons may be specific, and there are a bunch of treaties in place specifically for nuclear missiles.
Let's get to the nitty-gritty of, I don't know, cruisers, destroyers, Scud missiles, Hellfire missiles, etc.
These are made by the weapons manufacturers.
They're made by Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing.
They're privately owned.
They can do what they want.
Individuals I have met who have their government certification are able to carry NFA items en masse everywhere.
Now there's interesting issues with state laws.
They don't got to worry about the feds though.
So they can have short barrel rifles, rifles suppressed.
They can have a whole bunch of crazy weapons.
How else do these people think they are made?
Because the Second Amendment does protect your right to keep and bear these weapons.
Now, over the past several hundred years, we have enacted interpretations and precedent on the Second Amendment.
That is to say, right now, if you want a nuclear weapon, you'll need to probably form a corporation and fill out a bunch of paperwork and it'll take a long time, but you can do it, I'm pretty sure.
There are restrictions on these weapons.
There are restrictions on individuals, but they don't seem to get this.
They think no individual has these weapons.
Who does?
I mean, let's just slow down.
Let's start with the fact that the president himself has access to these weapons, and no one else does.
That's an individual, but I get it.
You're saying you want the government to restrict these things, and solely the government.
They have, but private entities are manufacturing these things.
You can't then come out after I say that and go, well, but Lockheed Martin is a large corporation.
I don't care!
They're a private entity!
That means the CEO could be like, I would like our Hellfire missiles shipped to this place at this time.
Private weapon manufacturing is everything.
So what do they think is happening?
Do you think that if you ban these weapons, these weapons won't exist?
I think a fair point that many people have made is that gun control will make certain acquisitions more difficult.
And many of the people who are buying guns and committing these crimes are doing it legally and with background checks.
And thus, if there was extreme gun control, many of these people would not have been able to buy them.
That's the fascinating thing that I don't think comes up in the gun control argument.
The left says, we need background checks!
And the right says, we have them.
They say, but there's a gun show loophole!
No, there isn't.
There's a private selling that you're able to sell privately to people that you know.
But I'm pretty sure At a gun show, you have to have background check forms filled out.
Because I don't think... I think the law is that you're not allowed to solicit a gun sale to the public unless you're going to do a background check.
But private sale is like someone you know privately asks you.
There's a difference.
And it's by jurisdiction and it's heavily restricted.
The issue here is...
These people don't seem to understand that guns will always exist.
3D-printed guns exist.
Private manufacturers exist.
That the Second Amendment means that if the U.S.
wants weapons, it will be through private manufacturing.
Or, so long as the U.S.
wants weapons, they do come through private manufacturing.
And if you were to ban it, where is the U.S.
government going to get its weapons?
These are the hurdles that they don't seem to understand.
Gun rights are winning.
Texas has constitutional carry.
West Virginia has constitutional carry.
25 states, and soon Florida will as well.
Once Florida does, 26 states!
We'll have constitutional clarity.
And I hear from these people.
They say, nope, we're in the majority.
The majority wants background checks.
I'm like, that's stupid because we already have them.
But there are loopholes.
A minority issue, the majority of people, there are already background checks in place.
Telling me, well, most people want to ban assault weapons.
Define assault weapon.
They can't.
Here's what we get.
When people like Cenk and these liberals don't understand anything about guns, many of us who are for gun rights, and it's not a conservative position, it's a libertarian position, it could be left or right because many leftists are pro-gun, we keep trying to tell you you don't know what you're talking about!
But they don't listen.
Fine.
Because they don't know what they're talking about, they do stupid things like, in Maryland, they ban the M1A, but not the SCAR-20S.
It's an example I bring up often because it's personally affected me.
I'm like, why can't I have an M1A, but the modern .308 rifle, the SCAR-20S, which is arguably better, you're allowed to have.
Because they don't know what they're talking about.
Joe Biden says things like, 9mm is going to blow up your life.
Okay.
The dangerous thing here is when they don't know what they're talking about, they try to ban things that make no sense.
But in the end, so long as they don't know what they're talking about, gun rights keeps expanding.
By all means, Cenk, don't Google search it.
Don't have a real conversation.
But you'll lose because of it, and you are losing.
Gun rights are winning.
So for Joe Biden's 9mm claim, whatever, dude.
It's not gonna happen.
Because private manufacturers need to distribute them.
So what are you going to do?
Make it an NFA item?
That's one path.
I don't think it'll fly.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
