Leftists Threaten ACTS OF TERROR Over Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Ruling, GOP DEMANDS FBI & DHS Intervention
Leftists Threaten ACTS OF TERROR Over Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Ruling, GOP DEMANDS FBI & DHS Intervention. Already over 20 pro life groups have been attacked or even fire bombed.
Now flyers are emerging calling on the far left to engage in further terror and escalating their terror campaign. The flyers demands riots and come from the group Jane's Revenge.
Some are likening this to the Bleeding Kansas phase of Civil War which took place 7 years prior to the start of the US Civil War and ended with the start of the national conflict.
Republicans are calling on the FBI and DHS to investigate and label Jane's revenge while Democrats continue to encourage more protest
#civilwar
#roevwade
#scotus
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is June 21st, 2022, and our first story, The Night of Rage.
Far-left terrorists are putting up flyers calling for riots after already a couple dozen pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized or even firebombed.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade may lead to extreme violence, and this may signal civil war is coming.
We may be in the bleeding Kansas period pre-civil war.
In our next story, Stephen Colbert downplays and defends his staffers who were arrested for illegally entering the Longworth House building of the Capitol.
He tries making it seem like they didn't do anything wrong, even saying they were detained when they were arrested.
In our next story, huge news!
The Twitter board has unanimously approved Elon Musk's bid.
It now goes to the shareholders to agree, and for Elon Musk to secure his financing, and the deal is done.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
We are all patiently awaiting the release of the Supreme Court opinion on Roe and Casey.
Many expect Roe and Casey to be overturned and for abortion to become an issue of the states.
Should that happen, far leftists are planning more acts of terrorism.
I say more because they're already doing it.
The latest story is that the Knight of Rage flyers are popping up in D.C.
ahead of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Over the past several weeks, we've waited eagerly as opinion days, as they're called, occur.
The Supreme Court releases their opinions on many cases.
Everybody sits by waiting as Supreme Court, from about 10 a.m.
to 11 a.m., reveals their opinions on certain cases.
So far, the decision on Roe and Casey has not come down.
Though the leak happened some time ago, everyone is just waiting patiently for it to happen.
I don't think it's tomorrow.
I think Thursday is the next opinion day.
I'm not sure.
Some have said that it was going to be Tuesday and Thursday because yesterday was the federal observation of Juneteenth.
But it could also be next week.
Who knows?
The Supreme Court could put it way off.
But this right here, the threat of terror, the firebombing of pregnancy centers, suggests that civil war is rising.
Yeah, I know, I know.
I talk about it a lot, but I gotta tell you guys, I don't think I'm wrong.
Of course I don't think I'm wrong.
Maybe some of you do, but I think at this point, if you're ignoring the signs, it's just wishful thinking.
Normalcy bias or optimism bias.
Last night on TimCast IRL, we were joined by Mary Morgan of Pop Culture Crisis, another one of TimCast.com's shows.
And she said, nothing ever happens.
The Internet is fake.
She doesn't think anything is going to happen.
Maybe she's right.
Or maybe she's just young.
I take a look at the violence that we're already seeing.
I take a look at the court case, Texas v. Pennsylvania, or the Texas GOP saying they don't recognize Joe Biden as legitimately elected, which is shocking.
It's absolutely shocking.
I take a look now at the, depending on which source you use, 20 plus pro-life targets that have been attacked with either firebombs or vandalism.
And it's not just my opinion.
There are many who have written about the possibility of civil war.
There are many who have written that we are in the precursor to civil war.
And some have even suggested that abortion could be the major moral catalyst, not unlike civil war.
Well, my friends, either because we are thirsty for escalation, either in our writing or in our politics, or because it is true.
We now have an article talking about how this, what we are seeing, Jane's Revenge, they call it, the far-left terror group, They are arguing that we could be entering the bleeding Kansas phase of Civil War.
It took place about six or so years before the Civil War, and it was a Kansas territory internal Civil War over whether or not Kansas would be a free state.
Or a slave state.
Now, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.
For obvious reasons, we are not going to experience the same kind of civil war the U.S.
experienced a long time ago.
I mean, for one, weapons are different.
Communication is way different, much faster.
The borders between states matter a whole lot less.
Geography played a huge role in the first civil war.
Texas basically said, we had to join the South because of geography.
We were locked out from everywhere else.
California, however, was a free state despite all the territories around it being, well, just territories.
Something is happening.
The Bleeding Kansas phase was a famous period, notably giving rise to the legacy of John Brown, who you may know as the guy who led the raid on Harper's Ferry, was captured and hanged for treason.
He's a Civil War hero to those who believe in abolition.
He was an abolitionist.
But many thought he was a crazy person.
History is written by the victors, and to this day, John Brown is celebrated as a good guy.
Now, I think some of the things he did, horrifying.
I think what he fought for was the right thing to fight for.
But a lot of those same issues, a lot of similar issues around states' rights, around whether or not the federal government would actually uphold the law, they're happening now before our eyes.
And the FBI says they are investigating these attacks.
Republicans are demanding that the group Jane's Revenge be labeled as domestic terrorists.
Can they?
I don't know.
I just think that what we're seeing here in the U.S.
with the January 6 hearings, with the inability or unwillingness of the federal government to go after the far left in the same way they go after the right, it shows you there's a clear delineation.
Some have political power and establishment authority and they will wield it.
And many of us, we don't have that.
It's not just about what's happening with these pro-life centers.
It's not just about what's happening with January 6th.
It's about what's happening with me.
With Timcast.
You guys know that we were subjected to eight swattings.
And that, that's just our studio.
I've had private residences that nobody knows about.
Somehow, the tenants there were swatted.
We've had a bomb squad show up, credible threats.
You'd think this would be an extremely high priority, right?
For some reason, it's not.
The media won't cover it.
They're not talking about it.
Yet, a crying journalist?
That's front page, front and center.
There is a clear delineation before our eyes.
You can see it.
It seems like these people on the far left continually get away with their crimes.
Because I think Civil War is coming.
And it's kind of clear, isn't it?
The same thing happened in the first Civil War.
The federal government wasn't enforcing laws in the North, and so the South said, we're done.
Maybe it'll happen again?
I don't know.
But let's read the story and see what's going on with the far-left terror group Jane's Revenge and the Night of Rage.
And I want to talk to you about when the Democrats tried to overthrow the election and so did many prominent celebrities.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work as a member.
You get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, uncensored, not family-friendly, Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
You'll be supporting our journalists, for which we just hired a couple more.
We are launching a couple documentaries.
Well, I won't say too much, but we're gonna be launching a couple documentaries.
And that requires money.
There's no guarantee that we make all of our money back from doing these things, but I think it's important that we cover the news and we launch these projects.
It's with your support, we'll do more.
So go to TimCast.com, sign up in the top right of the screen, you'll see it.
Smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read the first story from The Daily Caller.
Night of rage.
Eerie flyers pop up in D.C.
ahead of Roe v. Wade decision.
They report, unsettling flyers have begun to appear throughout Washington, D.C.
Warning of riots should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
The flyer, which has circulated on social media, was also reported on by the Wall Street Journal.
Warns of a night of rage should the High Court overturn the landmark ruling as anticipated.
D.C.
call to action.
Night of rage.
The night SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade hit the streets.
You said you'd riot.
The poster continues.
To our oppressors, if abortions aren't safe, you're not either.
The poster is signed Jane's Revenge, a pro-abortion advocacy group that has taken responsibility for several attacks on pro-life organizations.
It's overt terrorism.
It's overt.
A letter purportedly from Jane's Revenge and posted to the Anarchist Library says the impending decision is an event that should inspire rage in millions of people who can get pregnant.
Do you mean women?
We need the state to feel our full wrath.
We need them to be afraid of us.
Whatever form your fury takes, the first step is feeling it.
The next step is carrying that anger out into the world and expressing it physically.
Consider this your call to action.
On the night, the final ruling is issued.
A specific date we cannot yet predict.
But we know is arriving imminently.
We are asking for courageous hearts to come out after dark.
The letter asks individuals to make your anger known.
The organization also released a statement recently saying the leash is off.
For attacks on pro-life operations, promising violent attacks against oppressive infrastructures.
Rest assured that we will.
And those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti, the group warned.
What are they talking about?
Killing people?
Jane's Revenge has taken credit for a Molotov cocktail attack on the offices of Wisconsin Family Action in May.
While other pregnancy centers have been vandalized, including one with the slogan, Jane Says Revenge, spray-painted on the Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center.
A Linwood, Washington pregnancy center was vandalized with the words, Jane's Revenge.
And if abortion isn't safe, you aren't either in May.
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.
The Washington Examiner reports, FBI investigating series of attacks and threats against pregnancy
centers and faith-based groups.
Well, okay, I'm glad to see that.
Forgive me if I'm a little biased, but I just wonder why it is.
That my workplace can be harassed relentlessly, and it is.
That my employees can be harassed relentlessly, and they are.
That cybercrimes can be committed against my associates, and they have been.
That we have been swatted eight times.
Yep.
We have had the bomb squad show up.
Notice I'm in a different place, huh?
We've had to spend... I think we're looking at six figures plus on enhanced security, probably more.
We've had a credible threat that forced us to evacuate our studio.
All of this well-documented, the credible threats, some of it was reported on and easily provable, the police are even seen on camera on the property, yet we don't make the cut with the mainstream press.
You'd think that one of the big, you know, most prominent primetime political shows would have some coverage.
It's not.
We're ignored.
The far left, and we have evidence, strong evidence, that it is, far left hacker groups and things like that, they get away with it.
We take a look at what's going on, and the FBI is investigating, sure, but what about the 2020 riots?
Where's the accountability for the 30-plus dead?
No.
The machine is clearly enforcing everything in one direction.
Against the right.
They say January 6th, January 6th, January 6th, over and over again.
But it was a far leftist that just tried to kill Kavanaugh.
It's far leftists that are protesting in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices.
Where's federal law enforcement?
Oh, but they can show up to a garage over a pull rope.
Yep.
They can raid the homes of a GOP frontrunner in Michigan.
They can raid the home of the wrong woman.
I believe she was in Alaska.
Maybe it was Washington, I'm not sure.
The wrong woman, because she looked like someone who was in the Capitol.
Yet they can't figure out who has been abusing the...
Multiple people swatted.
It's not just me.
The quartering.
Jeremy Hambly got swatted.
And it seems like it was the same person.
A person who maybe even slipped up.
We think we know who's doing it.
Where's law enforcement?
They've not conferred with me.
I've got no information about what's going on.
The media doesn't report on it.
Some outlets, the Post Milani on the Daily Wire did.
It's fascinating.
No, to me it just says... There are...
There are certain people who are more equal than others, as the saying goes.
That we here, we do political shows, we comment on the law and on elections, on politics, but we are not considered of equal protection as it would seem.
Now look, maybe they're working on the stuff behind the scenes, but they don't tell us.
We have no idea.
Same old, same old.
In fact, the last time we talked to the cops, they were like, have they given you any updates?
I'm like, no.
No one's told me anything.
We've received no updates.
We have no idea.
Even though we've cooperated, given evidence.
Seems like nothing's happening.
And it seems like, based on what we know, they could shut it down in two seconds.
So I have to wonder.
How it is, they haven't arrested these people yet.
Here's the story from the National Review.
Jane's revenge threats against pro-lifers presage a new Bleeding Kansas.
It's a scary thought.
Wesley Smith writes, I wrote that the country is entering a violent time akin to Bleeding Kansas, an era during the 1850s when pro- and anti-slavery partisans, most famously the abolitionist terrorist John Brown, violently contested with each other for political control of the then territory.
The alleged attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by a pro-choice fanatic is the most extreme of such recent actions.
But partisans on both sides of political and cultural divides have been pursuing increasingly violent means of promoting their ideological desires.
We've seen violence from Antifa, the Capitol rioters of January 6th, BLM protests in which cities burned and people died, the violence at Charlottesville, the attempted mass assassinations of congressional Republicans that almost took the life of Representative Stephen Scalise, and in years past, the murders of abortionists.
I'm gonna pause.
I don't completely agree with the characterization, but what you need to understand about Bleeding Kansas is the duration.
It was 1854 to 1861.
I mean, we're talking about seven years of conflict.
It wasn't just something that happened overnight.
Now, we've seen violence against abortion centers and abortion providers.
Those were a long time ago.
I don't know where we're at now.
There certainly is a lot of political violence.
But most of it, lower tier and coming from the left and gradually getting worse.
Now, they're going to say, as Catherine noted earlier, a radical pro-abortion group called Jane's Revenge, which claims to have burned and vandalized pro-life offices in crisis pregnancy centers, threatening at some locales, has just issued a communique threatening worse to come.
From Jane's Revenge, another communique addressed to pro-life organizations.
Communique is a very far-left colloquial term.
It's what the extremists at Occupy Wall Street, and I don't mean the people, I mean the extremists at Occupy Wall Street, the people who are pro-violence, pro-revolution, they called it their communique.
Sure.
You published an open letter.
Calm down.
It's not France.
And slavers?
No one forces women to seek help at crisis pregnancy centers, which offer help for mothers both before and after birth.
But then, logic and true compassion have nothing to do with any of this.
Hello Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI, and President Biden.
Are you going to do something about this?
Or keep pretending the biggest threats to peaceability and comity in the country are white supremacists?
Let me give you a little history lesson.
Not that I think Wikipedia is the best source on the planet, but let's talk about Bleeding Kansas and John Brown.
We work very close to the John Brown Raid Headquarters.
I've been there a couple times.
It's crazy to see.
This is a dude that just straight murdered people.
Because he was like, you're bad people, murder ya.
You know, the funny thing is, John Brown's ideology, outside of the violence, you know, he said, the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, the Golden Rule, I'm like, I agree with that.
He believed in freedom, and he thought slavery was wrong.
And John Brown was upset that abolitionists were pacifists and refused to do anything about the violence and the slavery.
And so, he said enough.
And then he and his kids and supporters took action.
Check this out.
Bleeding Kansas.
The conflict was characterized by years of electoral fraud, raids, assaults, and murders carried out in the Kansas Territory and neighboring Missouri by pro-slavery border ruffians and anti-slavery free-staters.
According to Kansapedia of the Kansas Historical Society, there were 56 documented political killings during the period, and the total may be as high as 200.
It has been called a tragic prelude or an overture to the American Civil War, which immediately followed it.
The conflict centered around the question of whether Kansas, upon gaining statehood, would allow slavery like neighboring Missouri, or prohibit it and join the Union as a slave state or free state.
The question was of national importance because Kansas' two new senators would affect the balance of power in the U.S.
Senate, which was bitterly divided over the issue of slavery.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 called for popular sovereignty.
The decision about slavery would be made by popular vote of the territory settlers, So this was seven years.
The American Civil War, of course, started 1861.
It led up to the Civil War.
We don't say it was part of the Civil War.
in Kansas. So this was seven years. The American Civil War of course started
1861. It led up to the Civil War. We don't say it was part of the Civil War and
that's the important thing I want to point out when talking about Civil War.
We say historically April 12th 1861 but hold on there a minute.
I believe it was seven states seceded from the Union well before that.
Look at this.
On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, 4 million of the 32 million Americans, 13% were enslaved black people, mostly in the South.
They want to mention the practice of slavery in the Union states was one of the key political issues, etc., etc.
During the 1861, the Civil War effectively ended April 9th, 1865.
In the beginning, the secession crisis.
It's absolutely fascinating.
Let me read for you this so you can understand.
Not that history repeats itself, but that it rhymes.
For Wikipedia, they write, the election of Lincoln provoked the legislature of South Carolina to call a state convention to consider secession.
Before the war, South Carolina did more than any other southern state to advance the notion that a state had the right to nullify federal laws and even secede from the U.S.
The convention unanimously voted to secede on December 20th, 1860, and adopted a secession declaration.
It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about the states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution.
The cotton states of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed suit, seceding in January and February of 1861, before Abraham Lincoln was even president.
That's crazy.
President James Buchanan.
His term ended March 4th, 1861.
So I tell you this.
Bleeding Kansas was a period of seven years before the Civil War where up to 200 people were killed.
Over politics.
So maybe we are some ways away from an actual civil war.
Don't know.
Or maybe it's not about the death.
It's about the escalation.
And we can take a look at the year 2000.
George W. Bush, Al Gore, the conflict.
What that led to throughout the 2000s.
Which brings us to the economic crisis.
Then we get Occupy Wall Street.
Then we get Donald Trump.
And now here we are.
We're living in history, a major historical moment.
Many people just don't realize it because you're swimming in it.
Many people don't realize you are frogs in a pot and the water is boiling.
And I don't know exactly what's going to happen, but I can tell you, if you think 2016 mattered, if you think 2012, if you think 2008, 2022, the midterm elections, it's about four and a half months away.
And then the 2024 election.
It's crazy to me, the naivety of people who think we are not heading in this direction.
When you had a major lawsuit, Texas v. Pennsylvania, I'll say it a million times, I've been bringing it up over the past couple days, suing, arguing that four states were violating the Constitution over how they handled their elections.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Texas, having no resolution, has now asserted they do not see Joe Biden as legitimate.
Which is, in my opinion, it's just crazy.
That's where we're going.
What do you think's gonna happen in 2024?
You think a Democrat can win?
I don't.
And it's not just because Joe Biden's effectively burning this country to the ground.
It's because Republicans and Libertarians are winning.
They're winning at the state level.
Many of these people are furious that the demands, the questions they asked, the lawsuits proposed, were never even answered.
Dismissed on standing and not merit.
And it's almost like it was on purpose.
How stupid do the Supreme Court justices have to be not to realize that if you do not listen to the argument made by the Texas Attorney General, You will not shut down their argument.
You will exacerbate their position, and they will escalate it in the years to come, making the threats to this country substantially worse.
Props to Alito and Thomas, who said we should hear this out.
But the other justices, being morons, cowards, or, for all I know, being malicious, ignored the case and said we won't hear it.
The Texas AG argued about the constitutionality of voting.
The Supreme Court could have taken it up and said, let's hear it.
And they could have very easily said, the way that Pennsylvania handles their elections and their courts, they decide, not you.
This argument is settled.
Now, maybe Texas would not have been satisfied by that.
But the Supreme Court would have at least said, we've heard your argument and here's our rebuttal.
Here's our assessment.
At the very least, you offered up the opportunity that some people in Texas and other red states might be like, you know, to be fair, the Supreme Court, they gave us an argument.
So if you're somebody who is accusing another state of breaking the law or the Constitution, and the Supreme Court says, don't know and don't want to hear it, well, your opinion is not going to change.
Your opinion will become entrenched.
Next up comes more elections.
In 2024, can a Democrat win?
My fear is this.
Republicans are outright refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election.
That we know.
The courts needed to hear the arguments.
They didn't.
So come 2024, what's to say that these Republican states don't just say, screw off, don't know, we're not certifying the results?
It already happened in one county.
One.
Hopefully that's the end of it.
They say a red wave is coming.
Good.
Get out and vote, no matter what you think about the elections, because it matters.
There's a wager meme going around.
Let's just call it Trump's wager.
It's not really Trump's, but... If there really is fraud, and you think there is, and you vote, doesn't matter, right?
If you don't vote, doesn't matter, right?
But what if there isn't?
What if you actually do have an impact, and you don't vote?
Now you're helping the other guys win.
You're helping the Democrats win.
And if you do vote, you're helping the Republicans win.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Now look, everything else I think should be investigated, I think should be heard in court, so that we can restore confidence in our system.
I believe there are too many people who want to believe they can't be wrong.
I think I can be wrong.
Show me evidence and I'll accept it.
For the time being, I think the reality is, lots of people hate Donald Trump.
And that's why I think they fear Ron DeSantis.
Because even Bill Maher said Ron DeSantis would be better.
Yeah, Ron DeSantis has embodied a lot of what Trump embodied, but he's more tactful, he's younger, with military experience, and he's a fighter, and he's fearless.
That's why I'm like, I think he's a better choice.
I just don't know if he's going to drain the swamp.
I think Trump would get in there and just...
So, for me, I'm up in the air.
You know, I said a few months ago I'd probably prefer to vote for Bernie Sanders in a 2024 election.
If it were Trump, I'd vote for him.
Just because I think what's happening in this country is getting crazy.
But honestly, I just don't know.
I think we are in this period.
I think we are probably in the bleeding Kansas period, which means pre-Civil War.
Civil strife.
Call it whatever you want.
We are seeing, according to Stephen Marsh, who wrote the book The Next Civil War, I believe more than 70 deaths per year.
Which means there are a lot more people.
But if this were to go on for seven years, we're looking at way more people than died during Bleeding Kansas.
Which ultimately led to the American Civil War.
Perhaps that's why Bleeding Kansas ended, I suppose.
Because the Civil War started.
That's where we are.
I'm not a psychic.
But I think it's important you pay attention to this stuff.
Another thing that's kind of funny, a lot of people pointed out that like, Tim, you talk about Civil War a lot, and then you move to Harper's Ferry!
And I'm like, well, we're not literally in Harper's Ferry.
We're in the Tri-State, but we're really close.
One of the most significant locations in the Civil War.
And we can take our bikes and go ride.
We're a little bit far away from the John Brown raid headquarters.
Close enough.
And there's memorial stuff there.
Let's talk about what else we have that's leading us in this direction.
Republicans demand FBI and DHS designate members of Jane's Revenge as domestic terrorists.
I don't know if such a thing can be done.
I mean, they can say the acts that are happening are terror.
I also want to point out, are these women holding up plastic hangers?
That's weird.
I don't know if a plastic hanger would do the trick.
It's supposed to be a wire hanger, but anyway, I digress.
I don't know if the government can actually designate a group as domestic terrorists because of the First Amendment.
The narrow ruling here, in the event that it expands two-way rights, which everyone expects, is that New York, Maryland, parts of California, New Jersey will no longer be able to deny you a concealed carry permit.
They can't require a reason.
You need only apply.
You get it.
Now, most states require a handgun class, including West Virginia.
West Virginia has constitutional carry, meaning if you're over the age of 21, you can walk in, do your background check, give your ID, buy a gun, and in fact, I'm sorry, if you have a concealed carry permit in West Virginia, that is your background check.
It clears you.
You can buy a weapon, put it in a waist holster, or put it in your coat, and conceal it, and walk out.
You don't need any special permits.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
In West Virginia, constitutional carry means that after you do a normal background check and buy it, you don't need a permit to conceal carry.
If you do get a conceal carry, you gotta take a course, a training course, and then, I think 18 to 21, a conceal carry is required.
Some states have reciprocity, meaning your conceal carry in West Virginia will work in other states, but Maryland, New Jersey, they don't allow it.
These states are no issue.
Meaning, even if you, in good faith, try to get a concealed carry, they're gonna be like, no, get out of here, we're not giving it to you.
Now, here's where the interesting thing is.
The Supreme Court could potentially issue a broad ruling.
They could say, New York's requirement For a reason is a violation of the Second Amendment, but New York's requirement for a permit is also a violation.
And this applies to all states.
Could happen.
Let me show you.
In this article from Bloomberg Law, they say, the important one is here, DC v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision that basically said that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.
However, that was at the federal government level.
In McDonald v. Chicago, the 2010 decision struck down Chicago's handgun ban, finding that Heller applied to the individual states, not just federally.
This means that after 2010, this is expansion of gun access and gun rights.
States could not ban access to weapons, and they did.
Now the argument is, as we continually expand, can you require a permit?
I think that's an infringement upon your rights to keep and bear arms.
I think it's clear cut.
Will the Supreme Court be so bold as to say if D.C.
v. Heller applies to the individual states, their ruling would as well, and they say you cannot require a permit because that is the government infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms.
It is.
Look, I get it.
If you're a liberal and you want gun control and you're like, no it isn't, no it isn't, it is!
Infringe, okay?
If the government requires you to fill out paperwork so they approve you having this, that means if you were keeping and bearing arms without government permission, a permit, a cop could arrest you for keeping and bearing arms.
An infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.
The government should have, according to a no authority, to arrest you for having a gun.
Unless, you've gone through due process.
That means, if you're charged with a felony, and as part of your, you know, penalty, there's a period where you can't have a gun, that's due process.
But we'll see.
Now here's my point.
If they come out and say everybody can have concealed weapons, I don't think there's gonna be riots, nor civil war.
Because when the far left shows up with their bricks and molotovs, and all of a sudden everyone's got, everyone's strapped, You might see an initial spat of violence when the far left realizes you can't use terror against people anymore.
Because all of a sudden, these people showing up with guns and Molotovs will face an equal footing.
These leftists are engaged in terrorism.
Firebombs are not legal.
They don't care.
Many citizens in, say, I think there was a pregnancy center in Maryland.
You can't protect yourself in Maryland.
It's ridiculous.
But what if they issue this ruling, and all of a sudden everyone's walking around with concealed carry and you won't know who?
They don't even need to be carrying.
Just the fact that you won't know if they are or aren't means you're gonna be a bit more polite.
An armed society is a polite society, and I'm telling you this as someone from Chicago.
You know why?
I can't tell you how many stories there were.
I'll tell you a story.
Some dude in my neighborhood, you know, where I grew up.
Parking his car, going to a party.
Car was full of like five people in the car.
They didn't realize it, but they parked in front of a drug dealer's house.
Drug dealer walks up and taps on the window and says, what do you want?
They tell him, F off.
They get into an argument, the dealer's like, get out of here!
Because what they do is you pull up, the dealer walks out of the house, throws in the car, they yell at him, the dealer pulls out a gun, goes pop pop into the car, two bullets into the gut of the dude sitting in the passenger seat, they peel out, didn't realize what happened, look over and see the dude bleeding to death.
You see, that dude with the gun, he knew they didn't have a gun!
Only criminals have guns.
Those people in the car, they didn't think that guy had a gun.
What happens when they come out and they say, no, no, no, everybody's likely armed?
When you get into a road rage incident, this is what I always understood.
I'd have people who would get road rage in Chicago and I'd tell them to shut the up.
Because you never know when you're gonna scream at some dude who's illegally strapped because Chicago's got problems and it happens enough, who gets out of the car with a gun and points it at you.
I've been shot at while driving in Chicago.
I say, be polite!
Be polite.
And you know what?
If the criminals are armed, and they know you're not, they're not gonna be polite to you.
But if everyone's allowed to conceal carry, they might start.
Let's change that culture.
This could prevent the conflict.
Now I think it's fair to point out it could exacerbate it, but I don't think so.
If the far left showed up with weapons and people aren't defending themselves, it's possible that when people start defending themselves, the far left comes out with weapons and starts shooting back.
That's a fact.
Considering what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse, we're already seeing people defend themselves.
But I have to wonder what would happen.
I don't know, I can't see the future.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Seven staffers for Stephen Colbert were arrested for insurrection!
Now, they weren't literally arrested for insurrection.
You may have heard the story, but neither were people on January 6 arrested for insurrection.
Now, to be fair, there are many people who have been charged with seditious conspiracy.
But if I'm going to be talking about what happened with Stephen Colbert's staff versus what happened with many of those who entered the Capitol building on January 6, then Stephen Colbert's staff did substantially worse.
And I can prove it.
I mean, just basically looking at the basic news stories.
Now, Stephen Colbert has come out to defend his staff members, calling it puppetry in the first degree, engaging in semantics and sophistry to try and downplay what his staffers did.
And what did they do?
They were unlawfully inside one of the congressional buildings.
Apparently they were like banging on doors or doing something like that.
That's just what one of the reports had been saying.
They were not allowed to be there.
They had apparently, according to some reports, been let in by Adam Schiff.
And the police saw them, said, you were told to leave, you're under arrest.
That's the big issue.
These are people who are in, what is it, the Longworth House?
Working for Colbert, doing bits, were told earlier to leave, stayed, and got arrested for it.
Now, I can already tell that many of those who like Colbert and establishment liberal types and leftists are like, it was not an insurrection!
unidentified
What happened on January 6th was a violent... I'm not talking about that.
You had multiple entry points to the Capitol building.
You had a violent riot.
Very bad.
Those people should be arrested and charged.
That's what you get when you engage in violent riots, regardless of your politics.
And many of them were fighting with cops, and it was just really, really bad.
Yeah, okay.
Sure.
You want to talk about that as a violent riot?
I've long said it was.
I've said it was bad.
All of that stuff.
You want to talk about the other side of the building where the cops opened the door, fanned people in, and then stopped to take selfies with them?
Now, Colbert, you're in trouble.
Colbert's staff weren't in the Capitol building, but the point is, if the Capitol Police are guarding the Capitol in general, and they say, don't come in, and you do, you get criminally charged.
There's one guy right now, he called for a bench trial with the judge, and said, the police let us in, and then the judge is like, here's a video of you climbing through a broken window, dude, you knew you were trespassing.
There's another guy.
Cops opened the door and fanned him in.
And he said, cops let me in.
And the judge went, that is a video of the cops letting you in and waving you in.
OK, what are you going to say?
You see, this is what Stephen Colbert doesn't tell you.
This is how the mainstream corporate press manipulates you.
You come to a show like mine, and I will tell you, there were violent rioters fighting with cops, and people got injured, and it was bad.
And those people should be arrested.
And there were other people who were let in and waved in by police who had no idea what was going on.
Those are both true.
And because of this, a man has been acquitted.
What Colbert won't tell you is that second part.
He'll just say, insurrection is when you try to stop the electoral process.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, no, no, no.
When the mainstream corporate press says all of these people are insurrectionists, and a large portion of them were welcomed into the building by the police, you've got a problem.
So a lot of people, I don't even know if you can call it an insurrection, because they didn't come with a real plan to do anything.
That's according to the FBI.
Some people have been charged with seditious conspiracy, but we'll see how that plays out.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm more than interested and happy to see if the charges stick and if there's real evidence.
We'll see.
Most of the people there who were rioting had no plan.
But besides the point, I have no problem with those people.
I should say, they should be charged and arrested.
Let's read the story.
From TimCast.com, Colbert defends his staff after their arrests for unlawful entry at the Capitol cause it to puppetry in the first degree.
The late show host Stephen Colbert defended his show's seven staffers that were arrested for unlawful entry at the Capitol last week during Monday evening's episode.
Colbert called their actions hijinks with intent to goof.
Ha ha ha.
The seven staff members, including the puppeteer behind Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, were at the Capitol filming interviews related to the January 6th Select Committee.
According to reports, they began banging on the doors of Republican members of Congress after they had already been told by Capitol Police to leave the building.
Last week I heard from my old colleague Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, Colbert said during his show's opening.
Triumph offered to go down to D.C.
to interview some Congress people to highlight the January 6 hearings.
I said, sure, if you can get anyone to agree to talk to you because, and please don't take this as an insult, you're a puppet.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Any Republican who agreed to speak with his staff.
You are... not smart.
Or naive, is probably a better way to put it.
And I think we may have one of these people on the show, on TimCast IRL.
But I have no problem saying, maybe not smart's not the right word, but naive.
They're going to chop up what you say, they're going to make you look insane, and there is nothing you can do to get that message across.
Colbert, right now, is misrepresenting exactly what happened here, and what happened on January 6th, because he is a bad person.
You will not get a fair shake having a conversation with his staff.
You'll see it.
Mark my words, here's what they'll do.
You think that you can be honest and say something like, well, you know, look, we appreciate you coming down to cover this.
What we want with the January 6th hearing is to better understand what happened on that day.
And we want to know about the police who let people in the building.
We want to know about why there were no National Guard.
And what they'll do is, if you give them even a perfect quote, a perfect one, they'll take clips of when you're not saying things, of when you're pausing.
Let's say this.
Let's say you get asked a question by a comic, and you're sitting there listening, going like this.
You've got a furrowed brow.
And they'll be like, what do you think about this violent insurrection that was attempting to destroy the fabric of this nation?
And you'll be sitting there with your brow furrowed being like, that's an extreme characterization.
Then what they'll do is they'll take that footage and then they'll put in something else.
So it sounds like they're asking you a different question and you're reacting to it.
You get my point?
They'll say something like, I heard that you once ate.
Banana flavor, a banana on pizza with whipped cream on top.
And you'll go, what?
No, that's, that's, excuse me?
That's not true.
Then they'll splice in different audio of them saying, this was an insurrection.
This was an insurrection and we're trying to preserve this country.
Don't you think that's a good thing?
No, no, that's not true.
That's not true.
Oh, he's supporting the insurrection.
They will put whatever they want because we're a comedy show!
It's not real news.
Here's how Colbert frames it.
Colbert explains the story behind Stafford's arrest on Capitol Hill.
Let me show you the dirty game he played.
He says, my staffers were detained, processed, and released.
A very unpleasant experience for my staff.
A lot of paperwork for the Capitol Police, but a fairly simple story.
No, they weren't detained.
They were arrested!
You sophist!
You are lying!
Detained is when they stop you and say, I'd like to ask you some questions.
Arrested is when you're coming with me for criminal charges.
And they were criminally charged.
Detained, processed, and released.
Detained, processed.
You get arrested and processed.
You see, he's manipulating you.
Until the next night, Colbert continued, when a couple of the TV people started claiming that my puppet squad had committed insurrection at the U.S.
Capitol building.
Colbert did not name names, but that quote came from Fox News' Tucker Carlson.
And what did Tucker Carlson actually say?
Well, hold on.
Let's read.
He says, first of all, what?
Second of all, huh?
Third of all, they weren't in the Capitol building.
Fourth of all, and I'm shocked I have to explain the difference, but an insurrection involves disrupting the lawful actions of Congress and howling for the blood of elected leaders, all to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
Let's start with what Tucker Carlson actually said.
Quote, Adam Schiff illegally gave producers from CBS access to the Capitol and then the crew, which includes the show's senior producer, director, comedian, and writer, remained in the House Longworth House office building after hours, and the point of them being there was for them to harass sitting members of Congress, Carlson said.
Now that's Carlson's framing.
You can say their intent was to make a joke and have a goof.
Fine.
But Tucker said they were in the Longworth House office, not the Capitol building.
Colbert is lying.
This is why he didn't name names.
Because TV people is nondescript and he's trying to make it difficult for lawsuits to be levied against him.
Well, as Washington Post accurately points out, it was Tucker Carlson.
That doesn't make Stephen Colbert immune from these defamatory or manipulative statements, but I don't think anyone's really gonna sue him over it, but this is how he manipulates you.
This is how they lie, cheat, and steal.
Do not give them interviews.
You'll notice they try and play these games where they're like, we'd love to get you on the phone for an interview, and you're like, send me the questions via email and I'll respond.
No, we can't do that.
But even then, you're not safe.
You'll get an email from a journalist, and they'll say, what do you think about the insurrection at the Capitol?
And you'll say something like, well, I believe it was bad that people were rioting and those who committed violence should be charged.
But there were many people who were let in by police, and I think that needs to be investigated.
Let's say that's your quote.
What they'll do is, they'll say, when asked, Tim Pool responded in a way that downplayed the insurrection and sought to to absolve these people of their crimes and even insinuated some of these people were innocent.
And what can you say?
Because it's an opinion statement.
No matter what you say.
In fact, you could outright say it was wrong what happened and these people should be prosecuted for the crimes committed on January 6th.
And then they will say, they responded in a way that downplayed what happened, and noticeably absent was condemnation for the actual insurrection.
And you can be like, but I said they should be arrested and charged!
And they'll say, but you didn't call it an insurrection.
So in our opinion, there is no safe way to talk to people who are liars, cheaters, and thieves.
And that's Colbert.
His goal is to manipulate the audience, not to inform them.
So that's what Tucker Carlson actually said.
He didn't mention the Capitol Building.
They weren't in the Capitol Building.
Who said they were?
That's the dirty game they play.
It was first-degree puppetry.
Look, my point is not that they actually committed an insurrection.
I get what Colbert is saying to a certain degree about how there were people on January 6th actually fighting with cops during the counting of the Electoral College votes and all that.
Totally get it.
My point is, if you have this story from CNN, a man who said January 6th was magical acquitted!
Heavens!
A federal judge on Wednesday found Matthew Martin not guilty of four federal misdemeanors related for trespassing, marking the first time a U.S.
Capitol right defendant was acquitted of all charges.
Martin, who worked for a government contractor before his arrest following the riot, successfully argued that a Capitol Police officer waved him into the building.
At least one video played during the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm in a waving motion.
The acquittal is a major milestone in the January 6th investigation.
Here's my point.
If you're going to argue every single person here was an insurrectionist, my point is that they weren't.
Some people were rioting and trying to break in the building, and I don't know what their objective was because even the FBI said they didn't really have one, they were just rioting.
Many others were welcomed in by police.
It is on video.
The cops opened the door for them!
Now, of course, there's video of people smashing windows, and then people reaching their hand and opening the door.
Things like that.
I think they smashed the windows out and climbed through the windows.
Other people opened the door from the inside after getting in.
All of that bad.
Whether you can call it an insurrection, I think it's a riot.
I think it was a riot.
And I don't know, to me, and this is where it gets into the semantics and opinions, I can understand why someone would call that an insurrection.
Absolutely.
The electoral vote was being counted.
People were breaking in.
I don't know what they were looking for because apparently the FBI said they weren't really, they were kind of aimless, in which case I'm like, was it insurrection or just people rioting?
As for the other half, you know, or more of people who are on the other side of the building, where the cops open the door and people just walk in very slowly with flags, you can't call that an insurrection.
People thought the building was open to the public.
There were no gates.
There were no signs.
The Young Turks would be wise to actually read the news, but I'll tell you this.
If you believe the Young Turks and Colbert, then I know what network you watch.
Colbert said, if you don't think it was an insurrection, if you don't know what event I'm talking about, then I know what network you watch.
Well, that's funny, because Tucker said they were in the Longworth House Office, and Colbert said they weren't in the Capitol.
Right.
Tucker didn't mention that.
He didn't say that.
He did say insurrection at the Capitol, or they were given access to the Capitol, because the Capitol complex is bigger than just the Capitol building.
And then he specifically said Longworth House Office.
If you watch Fox News, you're gonna get framing.
Not a big fan of all of it.
If you only watch mainstream press, you have no idea what's going on.
The Young Turks criticized me, saying I gave the dumbest argument because I said, how can you charge someone with trespassing if they were let in the building and there were no signs?
And then they engaged in outright ignorance and sophistry by saying, maybe the climbing over broken glass and through windows, Tim!
Well, maybe if the Young Turks actually read the news, which they don't, they would know that there were multiple entry points to the building, and that not everyone was engaged in violence.
And there is a video showing police opening doors and waving people in as CNN notes as to why a man was found not guilty.
Because the video shows a cop waving him in.
Amazing, isn't it?
And so this story is April 6th.
I believe it was in January I made that point.
The Young Turks were like, so stupid!
And then I was proven right.
You know, when you actually read the news, and you actually read the court documents, you'd be surprised to find that it's not always as they frame it.
And that's what Colbert does.
That's the game being played here.
I'm sick of it.
It's just, it's manipulation, it's lies, and there are people who are so dumb, they just believe all of this stuff.
What do you have to do to wake these people up and tell them this is not true?
Tucker, in my opinion, is not trying to literally claim they engaged in insurrection.
And that wouldn't be my, that's not my point either when I jokingly say insurrection.
My point, and presumably Tucker's point, is that what Stephen Colbert's crew did was worse than what this guy, Matthew Martin, Matthew Martin was let in.
And they charged him.
And people are told this was insurrection.
Stephen Colbert's crew was not let in by police.
They were let in by Democrats.
If Republicans were letting these people in, yeah, they'd be saying they were engaging in insurrection.
They tried claiming that, who is it, Senator Loudermilk or Rep, I don't know,
giving a tour to people was like pre-planning for insurrection.
They said the same thing about Lauren Boebert and many others who gave tours to people about these congressional buildings.
It's absurd.
But this is the world we live in.
There are people who believe Stephen Colbert, no matter how many times he lies, cheats and steals and manipulates, and there are people who don't.
I've often said that the political conflict we face, the culture war, is between those who are discerning and those who are uninitiated.
And I think that may be one of the easiest ways to explain it.
Because if you talk about, say, globalists versus nationalists, or authoritarian versus libertarian, or all these things, you're not getting to the root of what's really causing the problems.
And that is people who believe the lies versus people who don't.
People who watch Tucker Carlson are likely to get about a third of their news from other sources.
Not all of them.
But we've seen the data.
Conservatives get their news, about a third of it, from liberal sources and two-thirds from conservative.
Moderates from two-thirds come from liberal sources and a third from conservative.
So there's a blend of people looking at the other side and trying to understand.
And liberals get 90, I believe it's 95 percent of their news from liberal sources, barely any from conservative outlets.
So they literally don't know what's going on.
So let's throw it to our good friends, the Young Turks.
Why did they not know about my- why did they not understand my argument, which turned out to be true and correct?
Because they don't read the news.
They get their news secondhand from pundits and opinion people and liars like Colbert, and then they think it's reality.
They get their news from comedians like John Oliver, and they think it's true.
They are the people I call the uninitiated.
They don't actually read the news.
They are undiscerning.
Then you have people like you and I. Those of you that are listening and listen to my shows and share them.
Share them if you would.
Yeah, you see, we fact check.
How did you come to find the Tim Pool Daily Show on iTunes and Spotify?
Word of mouth.
I've not done any traditional marketing for Timcast.
We've only recently, in the past month, done traditional marketing for Timcast IRL.
The first time!
We bought a big billboard in Times Square and billboards across Chicago.
And that's me saying, you know, I'm not going to do modern digital.
I was like, I want to be in these traditionally establishment spaces.
But most of what people... The biggest reason how people found out about this show is they searched for it, and it was shared by their friends.
People were interested and said, I'm going to seek out something different.
Think about it.
You turn on late night TV, on mainstream news or whatever, and you're gonna get what you get.
These are people who are just programmed by their TVs to watch what they watch.
Watching something like this requires you to come and seek it out.
These are people who are looking for something different.
They're looking for what's going on, they're looking to hear opinions, and they're looking for people they can trust to give them the bigger picture to the best of their abilities.
Colbert doesn't do that.
People just turn it on because it's routine.
And because of that, they have no idea what's really happening in this country.
And that's why they vote for people like Joe Biden.
Maybe that will change.
Because now, gas prices are at record highs.
Inflation is higher than you even realize.
They say 8.6, but you gotta incorporate the smaller product sizes along with the increase in prices.
It's worse than it's been in a very long time.
And many older people have told me it's never been this bad.
We had Dennis Prager on IRL last week.
And he was like, it's never been this bad.
Or something to that effect.
And I've heard it over and over again from boomers and silent generation types, older people, who say it's never been this bad.
Well, I imagine it's only going to get worse because people aren't paying attention.
They watch people like Colbert lie and defend criminal behavior and then expect us to condemn people who are waved in by police.
January 6th was bad.
The riot, specifically.
But I think all of these people who were waved in and let in and didn't know what was going on, they should be pleading not guilty.
Because many of them had no idea what was happening.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Twitter's board has unanimously approved Elon Musk's takeover bid, recommending to the shareholders to vote yes, sell the company to Elon Musk, you will get a $15 per share premium, and then maybe Elon Musk will do something to save the platform.
The internet is a dirty cesspool.
Most of you know this, we have that phrase, welcome to the internet.
However, we do use this space for Sharing political ideas, debating public policy, selling products.
I mean, it's a massive portion of our economy and of our lives.
But there is something interesting here.
You see, when Elon Musk made the move to buy Twitter, panic ensued.
Vijaya Gadde of Twitter reportedly cried.
Many people were wondering, is there some kind of Enron-type cover-up happening behind the scenes?
Now, this deal is great.
I look forward to a platform owned by Elon Musk, and I look forward to him actually at least attempting to uphold his values so he claims a free speech and letting people speak their minds.
But in this, we've seen some interesting things.
Notably is that right after the deal was announced, leftist accounts saw a massive purge in their following, and people associated with the culture war right, be it moderate, libertarian, liberal, or whatever, saw a major increase.
I, for instance, gained over 100,000 followers in like three days.
Now, people try chalking it up saying, oh well, it's because people are coming back to the platform, but you know, I don't buy it.
Which, my friends, brings us to something called the Dead Internet Theory.
Have you ever heard this one?
It's a conspiracy theory, and the idea posits that the internet died sometime in 2016 or 2017, and now it's almost entirely bots.
That is to say, anyone who's allowed to post on the Internet, it's just it.
You're allowed, and there's very few people.
Most people don't realize that the Internet is comprised of bots imitating people to make you think there's popular opinion, when in reality, there is but a select few that actually engage.
Now, it's not true.
I mean, we'd like it to be true, but it is somewhat true in many ways.
Bots do dominate many platforms, as Elon Musk points out.
What if?
It actually is mostly true.
I'm not saying I know it is.
And that's why truth social is so dangerous.
And that's why Elon Musk's takeover is so dangerous.
When you look at Donald Trump's truth social, you can see there's actually a ton of engagement.
What if?
That's where the real people are.
What if there's very few of them?
What if Elon Musk, getting into Twitter, exposes that this platform is just a bunch of bots pushing bot opinions and there's actually only a few thousand people who really do post?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
I mean, look, they ban small accounts that say Learn to Code, they ban Alex Jones and people associated with the right, and there's only acceptable people who are speaking up.
Also, Occupy Wall Street accounts were banned as well.
What if it really is true, the dead internet theory?
Well...
Let's take a look at the story about Elon Musk and give you the news first, and then we'll talk about dead internet theory, which, um, it's really creepy.
But I mean, I'll say this.
Donald Trump won because of meme magic.
Everybody knows it.
Well, anybody honest knows it, that people were memeing Trump to the presidency.
What if after this, there was a panic and some form of the dead internet was then enacted?
They banned tons of people and then slowly rolled out bots to make you think the internet was still functioning.
I mean, you can go to websites, you can read, you can comment.
The point is that many of the accounts you interact with, and this is true, are bots.
To what degree, though, is the interesting question.
Before we get started, my friends, you must head over to festival.minds.com.
That's festival.minds.com.
We're having a big event this weekend.
I hope to see you all there because this is a bold move in culture war politics and conversations.
At the Beacon Theatre, June 25th in New York City.
And I believe, let me make sure I have the time, the doors open at 7pm, the show is 7.30pm to 11pm.
There's going to be a whole lot of people.
I'm going to be on a panel with James O'Keefe, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ben Burgess, talking about media manipulations and what's happening.
And this will be a really interesting conversation, because you've got Tulsi, who's more progressive, but obviously she's, you know, I don't know if she's friends with Tucker, but she goes on Tucker.
Ben Burgess, I think he's of Jacobin, so he might be more left-leaning.
James O'Keefe, of course, and I.
Should be a really fascinating conversation.
Plus, we've got tons of stand-up comedy.
We've got Jamie Kilstein's going to be doing comedy.
Go to festival.minds.com.
Use promo code IDEAS and you can get 75% off.
We want to pack this place.
So, I'm going to be there.
It's going to be fantastic.
There's VIP tickets.
There's like meet-and-greet tickets, I think.
And they have festival for 50% off on the website.
But if you use IDEAS, you get 75% off.
And here's the best part.
We know that people are hurting.
Not everybody can afford to go.
Some people are like, dude, I'd come, but I can't afford it.
You can submit an application for free tickets because two things.
One, obviously we want to pack the place.
We want this place sold out.
We want you all to be there.
We want to make this more about the ideas.
The reason tickets cost money.
I'm not organizing this.
This is organized through mines, but I'll just tell you.
Paying for the hotels and flights of all these people to bring them out, it costs money.
I'm not being paid to be here, mind you.
But organizing this thing costs a lot of money.
Renting the space costs a lot of money.
But...
Obviously, we want people to be there because the ideas and the mission is the most important thing.
So if you go to festival.minds.com, there's a free ticket request form.
Fill it out.
Seriously, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Poole, James O'Keefe, Cornel West, Dr. Cornel West, Blair White, Colman Hughes, Daryl Davis, Seth Dillon, Zuby, Majid Nawaz, Nick Gillespie, Bill Ott, MediaCrossman, Chrissy Mayer, Ben Burgess, Stephen Bonnell, Libby Emmons, Margaret Kimberly, Winston Marshall, Ryan Long, Tyler Fisher, Jamie Kilstein.
It's gonna be awesome!
It's gonna be really cool, and I guess it's like a meet-and-greet thing, so maybe I will see you there if you guys sign up.
Check it out.
Let's get back to the news, but again, festival.minds.com.
Twitter board approves Musk's takeover bid.
Twitter's board of directors has unanimously recommended that shareholders approve the sale of the company to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, according to a recent filing with the SEC.
Stockholders who do not vote in favor of the sale will have the right to seek appraisal of the fair market value of their shares of stock, not including gains due to the announcement of the deal, in lieu of receiving $54.20 per share in cash upon completion of the sale.
Shortly after news of the filing was released, Twitter's stock jumped 3.8%.
You'll love to hear it.
If the deal were to close today, shareholders would profit more than $15 per share, according to the New York Post.
However, the announcement from the social media giant comes as its new prospective owner is casting doubt over the sale.
Musk recently threatened to walk away from the deal after Twitter refused to provide evidence that no more than 5% of its users were bot accounts.
Bot being short for robot, obviously.
An audit conducted in May 2022 found that nearly 20% of the platform's users are likely bot accounts.
The audit also determined that roughly 70% of Musk's followers are likely fake.
Dead internet theory!
It is the only answer.
Okay, not really.
But I love the idea.
So I'd like to point out that before we move on, Elon Musk has brought up some issues with this.
I'd like to point out that Elon tweeted, what is your favorite cheese?
And I know it's not really cheese, but I do like American cheese mixed in with stuff.
It helps it melt better and, you know, if you're doing, like, a grilled cheese and you want to do, like, multiple cheeses, you gotta do, like, Swiss, American, and then cheddar so it melts together.
Thank you, Elon Musk, for using Twitter in a way that is fun and funny.
Elon Musk says three issues need to be resolved before his Twitter buyout can go ahead.
And this is fairly obvious.
Fake accounts.
He wants to know what up.
Twitter has given him access to the firehose.
This is going to be really interesting.
Two, debt financing.
Elon needs to secure another four billion or so dollars in debt financing if he's going to make the deal.
We'll see.
And lastly is shareholder approval.
The board has approved it!
Now the shareholders have to vote.
Let's get to the fun part of this though.
Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't.
It looks like it's moving in the direction of the purchase.
I will be excited because what I really care about is this.
In a story from futurism.com, creepy conspiracy theory claims the internet died years ago.
Not only that, but everything online is generated by bots.
Yo, I think you might agree.
Seriously.
Not only that, everything is by Bazzi, say.
The Dead Internet Theory.
In between the anti-vaccine and flat-earth diatribes, conspiracy theorists occasionally come up with an interesting and provocative idea.
A good example of a recent one is Dead Internet Theory.
This theory states that the internet as we know it actually died sometime between 2016 and 2017, according to The Atlantic.
However, this doesn't mean the internet is gone necessarily.
Rather, most of the people we see online doing things like publishing content, posting social media updates, and commenting are actually bots.
One of the more popular posts explaining the theory comes from online forum Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe.
Let me, uh, actually, let's pull this one up.
Maybe it's better.
In January 2021, a user named Illuminati Pirate created a thread on the website titled, Dead Internet Theory.
Most of the internet is fake.
It goes into how much of the internet is now created and managed by AI and is filled with bots.
I've seen the same threads, the same pics, and the same replies reposted over and over across the years, to the point of me seeing it as unremarkable.
I'd like to tell you where this gets actually much scarier than dead internet theory.
I'm sure you've seen it.
The same comments, the same replies, the same messages over and over again.
Obviously some of this is automated, scripted and things like that.
Let me read a little bit more and then freak you out just a bit more than this theory could.
Behind the death of the internet are corporations working in conjunction with the government to push propaganda and coerce actual users to purchase products.
After all, there needs to be shadowy puppet masters pulling the strings.
I think it's entirely obvious what I'm subtly suggesting here, given the setup.
The US government is engaging in an artificial intelligence-powered gaslighting of the entire world population.
Maybe.
Sounds fun, doesn't it?
Is it true?
Before I read more, let me say this.
There is a scarier reality.
Then the dead internet theory.
Why is it that so much of the internet is repetitive, monotonous, repost, repost, repost, copypasta?
Is it bots?
Or is it that humans themselves are da-da-da bots?
NPC theory.
You ready for this one?
I posit That it is possible that it is not bots on the internet, but human beings themselves.
Non-player characters.
Now, as this theory goes, and it's not something I made up, it's called something else.
The idea is that there is a finite number of souls that exist.
And because there are so many people being born, not every person has a soul.
I've talked with Seamus Coghlan of Freedom Tunes on TimCast IRL about this, and he disagrees.
He says, no, every person has a soul.
And I say, what makes you think that?
Well, his faith.
Alright, fair point.
This theory is that there's maybe 1 billion souls.
And when the population of humanity was less than a billion, there were souls waiting for their turn to inhabit a body.
Now, there are nearly 8 billion bodies, but only 1 billion souls.
And thus, you end up with huge swaths of bot people.
They don't have strong opinions.
They don't have a guiding force or an inner monologue.
They simply regurgitate, repeat, and reuse.
Interesting.
So perhaps what's really happening.
In the early days of the internet, it was those of an inquisitive mind, player characters, who were engaging online.
But over time, the non-player characters, real humans of simple thought, began to use the platform and regurgitate.
Now, seven to one.
Maybe more.
The internet then becomes a swamp of mindless drivel, and people say, it must be bots.
Or, around 2016-2017, is when we saw the cusp, the changeover, from the engaged few to the disengaged many.
Barack Obama famously used Facebook to help win his election.
Younger people were on the internet, but it was mostly those who understood the internet and were... Well, the internet was built by people who were more digitally savvy.
It makes sense that's around the time the shift started to happen where the internet became more dominant than everything else.
So I don't think it's robots.
I think it's that we're now learning people themselves are about as dumb as robots.
I want to say, as with any good conspiracy theory, there are elements of truth peppered throughout this one.
For one, there's no denying the internet of today is widely different from what it was a few years ago.
As algorithms get more sophisticated, the online world becomes more curated and aggregated to the whims of a handful of corporations.
What we see online is often the result of targeted AI and algorithms, ultimately taking users further and further away from organic experiences.
It's lonely and scary.
But users can also take heart in the fact that much of the content they consume online, from memes, TikToks, to aggravating tweets, are still being created by actual people for now.
Are they?
Dead Internet Theory.
Agora, Rhodes, McIntyre.
I have no idea what this is.
We're living in the 90s.
Is that the actual theory?
TLDR.
Large proportions of the supposedly human-produced content on the internet are actually generated by artificial intelligence networks in conjunction with paid secret media influencers in order to manufacture consumers for an increasing range of newly normalized cultural products.
I wish.
I will tell you this.
I covered the story back in 2018.
I talk about it frequently.
Hitler doing weird Tai Chi dancing with the Incredible Hulk and Hitler's got a female body with big tits.
Those things exist.
They were eventually removed from YouTube.
What if that was the experimentation of the bots?
What if that was corporations trying to figure out how to AI generate content?
I would not be surprised.
I suppose the main issue is I'm sitting here in an undisclosed location talking with no script at a camera.
I upload it and you watch it.
But what if no one's really watching it and all of those viewers actually see our bots and everyone commenting our bots and very few people actually watch and they're just trying to trick me into thinking I'm talking but I'm just talking to the wind!
Or to a brick wall.
Well, I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that we get death threats and when I go outside people are like, I know you.
It's fun to believe this stuff.
Right?
But I just don't think it's... reality.
Take a look over at Truth Social.
The engagement there is... it's legit.
Variety reports Trump's truth social is banning users who post about the January 6 hearings according to reports.
Somehow I just don't believe it.
I think it's lies and manipulation.
Maybe that's the reality.
The media is lying to you.
Maybe the reality is the average person is a follower.
So, is the internet dead?
Yes, it is.
That's, in my opinion, a fact.
It's zombified, is a better way to put it, and that's quite sad.
Man, the internet used to be this vibrant space, but it was because there was very few people using it.
I remember back in the wee old 90s, using RealPlayer to stream Dragon Ball Z.
I don't remember when the Frieza Saga came out, but I was watching with my friend on this very tiny box, Goku going Super Saiyan for the first time in Japanese, and we were like, YES!
It was remarkable that we were streaming this, and the real player would like, load a little bit, and then we have to pause it, and then it would like, load a little bit, and we were like, COME ON!
Back then.
Most people didn't use the internet.
Nobody cared.
In fact, in the 90s, on TV, they were like, this internet thing won't catch on.
It's crazy.
People bought websites like pizza.com, because nobody was using it, and then it became prime real estate.
Here's what I think happened.
I think most people, the older generation that was in control of things, wasn't using social media.
Now, the millennial NPC generation is on social media, and so we are surrounded by a whole bunch of nitwits.
Isn't that the more likely situation?
So look, going back to that theory about, you know, NPC theory.
That some people don't have souls.
That's another way to just try to explain that people are dumb.
That's it.
I mean, you think about it this way.
It's easier to believe in some supernatural explanation.
That the reason these people don't listen and pay attention and don't actually know what's going on in the world is because there's no one actually in there.
It's a simple explanation for why people are lazy, vapid, prideful, gluttonous.
I mean, the reality is some people are stupid and some people are, I don't know, selfish people.
So, when you take the majority of people who are very self-interested and don't care for much, followers, and you put them on the internet, and then you ban those who create the memes and share the ideas, what do you think the internet will become?
Which brings me back to the Elon Musk point.
If Elon Musk does buy Twitter, and he opens up the doors again, maybe we will go back to a simpler age.
Or maybe there's something else we can do.
You know, World of Warcraft was a great game.
Was.
The original.
Vanilla, they call it.
Maybe you never played it.
I did.
It was insane.
It was just amazing.
The vast world to explore.
Glitch-hopping.
You could explore areas that were off-limits.
It felt so cool to get into an undeveloped region.
It was just empty.
And then they started expanding the game and developing it, and now it's just overdeveloped and boring.
It's weird how that works.
And so I tried playing it a few years ago, man.
So what happens is people rolled out original servers.
They rolled out private servers with the original game.
And Blizzard, the company behind it, got mad, took them down with legal claims, and then relaunched World of Warcraft Classic.
And I played it for a little bit, a lot of people did.
It still wasn't the same, though.
Maybe people were just trying to capture that bit of nostalgia, but I do think the original game was way better.
What if...
We did the same thing and made an Internet 1.0.
I don't know if it would work.
There's something magical in not knowing.
That's been lost.
Go to TimCast.com and check out the members-only show we did last night, because it was a lot of fun.
We had Angela McArdle of the Libertarian Party, but we also had Mary Morgan of Pop Culture Crisis hanging out.
Mary is 21.
We're all in our mid to late 30s, Ian is early 40s.
And so talking with her was actually, it was kind of funny, I was like, Mary, you will never understand how it was when we were kids.
And you'd wake up, you'd call your friend and he wouldn't answer, nobody would answer at the house.
You'd go to his house, knock on the door, his mom would come out and be like, you know, Jim's not here.
And you'd be like, do you know where he is?
I don't know where he left.
And you'd go, okay, I guess I'll never see him again.
You go do something else.
I remember when I was like 15, I would be like, I'm gonna go skate at the park.
I would call people, they wouldn't answer.
Landline phones.
So I would say, I'll just go to the park and hope they show up.
Some days, you would find out, man, the FOMO, the fear of missing out, when they're like, oh man, we couldn't, we didn't know where you were and we all went to this big skate park and you're like, dude, I missed it.
Nowadays, it doesn't happen.
Because you got a cell phone.
I was like, you'll never understand that not knowing.
And those of us who are in our 30s do.
You know, she was like, I had some of that.
And I'm like, it's not the same.
Like, up until I was 18.
And I'm internet savvy.
I got a cell phone when I was like 17 or 18.
I think I was 18 when I got my first cell phone.
And then not only that, but we didn't have access to the internet on it.
I remember skating one day and I'm like 20 years old at a skate park.
And stuff is going around the world and we don't know about it.
And it wasn't until I got home and then got on the internet was I able to see like what had happened throughout the day.
Now, we got these devices in our pockets that just tell us everything all the time.
It's kind of creepy and sad.
So maybe we can create a version of Internet 1.0 that cannot be accessed through cell phones or something like that.
Probably not possible.
With speeds capping out at 56 kilobits per second.
And then people can make their garbage websites and just bring back this weird space.
What's the point though?
The times they changed.
Maybe the internet really is dead.
Maybe not.
Maybe Elon will expose the conspiracy.
I don't think so.
I just think there's a lot of bots.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
