MSNBC Host Implies Trump Be EXECUTED Over Nuclear Documents, Democrats Escalating Us To Civil War
MSNBC Host Implies Trump Be EXECUTED Over Nuclear Documents, Democrats Escalating Us To Civil War. An MSNBC Contributor and Former CIA Director shared a post about two people executed for sharing nuclear secrets.
The MSNBC host has been speculating that Trump may have been selling nuclear secrets to our enemies which would be treason. His post has been retweeted over fifteen thousand times.
The rhetoric is escalating and its happening fast. From arrest Trump, to suggesting his execution. Media is blasting insane stories and fake news and Democrats and Republicans are at such odds there seems to be no remedy
#trump
#democrats
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Anti-Trump, prominent individuals, a host at MSNBC, and a former CIA director say Trump could be executed over the story about nuclear documents.
In our next story, we break down what this story is.
The Washington Post says they got two guys who know about two guys who were looking for nuclear documents.
What were the documents about?
It's unclear.
Is this hearsay?
Yes.
But apparently that's responsible reporting.
And now, you've got people saying, what, Trump could be executed?
And then our last story, the rise of lonely single men.
Feminists are mocking lonely men right now, saying their skills are inadequate for real relationships.
But at the same time, they're mocking us for criticizing no-fault divorce and complaining about not finding good men who can make guarantees.
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.
If I were to have approached you six years ago and said, in six years, a former CIA director
and a host for MSNBC would be calling for the execution of former President Donald Trump
after the FBI raided his home.
Would you have believed me?
There's no way you would have.
Because people didn't believe me when I said that the culture war would reach the highest levels of government, and that we very well may reach civil war.
Even right now, it's hard for people to believe.
I mean, there's a question of, did they actually call for Trump's execution?
Well, as Mediaite reports it, they're accused of suggesting Trump should be executed.
Just suggesting he should be executed.
Okay, here's what happened.
A guy from MSNBC tweeted a series of things about how Trump may have had nuclear documents, and then, just in an unrelated and coincidental manner, tweeted out an image of two individuals who were executed for leaking nuclear secrets.
That is to say, I don't want to go over the top and suggest these individuals came out and said legitimately, Trump should be executed.
They suggested, if the story is true, or if the accusations that Trump had nuclear documents, if that is true, then, uh, look at these other people who got executed.
I'm not playing games.
We know why they posted that.
As if to say, you will be executed, others have been, or perhaps should be.
We get the insinuation.
Now, maybe there's gonna come out and be like, no, no, I mean, we just meant, like, it had happened before, just letting people know, like, important context.
OK, but when you come out and you say, hey, Trump did bad thing.
Oh, by the way, here's what happens to people who do bad thing.
I think we get it.
And in my opinion, this is them trying to broach that Trump be executed in the lightest way possible.
But they want it in your mind.
They want it in the mind of their supporters.
I think it's probably more shock media than anything.
I don't think they actually care all that much about the repercussions or Trump.
I think they're just trying to shock and generate traffic or make a statement because anybody who actually understands where we're going with civil war would probably be like, hey, please, like, calm it down, guys.
But this is where we are.
The extent to which we have reached a major conflict.
And I mentioned this in an earlier segment, but I'm gonna show it again because when this story dropped, I just, I didn't believe it.
And then I looked at the tweets, and I said, oh this guy tweeted, he didn't say anything about Trump, he just tweeted a picture of these people who got executed over nuclear documents.
Then you look at the entirety of his Twitter history and you're like, oh, he's been tweeting.
And then Michael Hayden, former CIA director, retweeted it and said something to the effect of, I want to make sure I get the quote right.
He said, sounds about right.
People are implying that Donald Trump may have given secrets to Moscow.
In response to this tweet, one of this man's followers said, they were private Russian flights going to Florida on the 9th, and I thought Trump was fleeing, but now he may have been leaking nuclear documents to Russia.
Yes.
This is Blue Anon.
It's a conspiracy crackpot cult, but they're prominent.
It's MSNBC.
It's a former CIA director.
These people are nuts.
And this is why we are heading in this direction.
Now, we have reporting about Trump, you know, apparently he had nuclear documents, according to two sources, who weren't involved in the rent in his house, but knew of what the agents were doing.
So it's like double hearsay, unverified.
Yeah, great.
Good work, Washington Post.
And shout out to our good friends over at NewsGuard for deeming that responsible.
Well, I will give a shout-out to them legitimately because they called MSNBC fake news.
Okay, fine, I can respect that one because that one's at least right.
When they're targeting their own authoritarian propaganda machine because of the obvious lies and they can't hide anymore, fine, I'll take it.
But I tell you, my friends, this is the kind of thing that precipitates civil war.
You may not think it's all that big of a deal that this guy suggested that you could be executed, that Trump could be executed.
That's kind of his insinuation.
Maybe you think it's just, eh, just rhetoric.
It's online.
But these people who follow him are seeing it, and it's ramping things up repeatedly.
Now, we just had a guy go to an FBI office and try shooting into it.
He posted all over Truth Social.
People on the right think it's a false flag.
Washington Post is reporting that he was a prominent user.
There's a lot going on, and now Russia is saying they believe a civil war is coming.
They said that the U.S.
will fall into civil war following the FBI raid on Donald Trump that was signed off on by Merrick Garland.
Dark days indeed.
That's what Trump said.
He said dark days.
Let's read this story, and I'll show you exactly what the context is, and I'll break down why I think this was.
It was a statement that Trump would be executed pending this story.
I don't want to go over the top with it, but I think the context is clear.
Before we read the story, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support our work and get access to our exclusive TimCast.com shows, such as the TimCast IRL Uncensored After Hours show, Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., as well as Tales from the Inverted World.
Our reporter Shane Cashman went to find the lost Confederate gold.
It's really fun stuff.
You'll want to check this show out.
We've got more shows coming for you.
So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's read this first story from Mediaite.
They say, Former CIA director accused of suggesting Trump should be executed over nuclear docks.
What a terrible headline, guys.
You could at least say, like, former CIA director retweets statement about execution related to these leaking of documents in the context of Donald Trump.
I don't know how you want to phrase it, but I think they're worried about libel and liability.
Okay, well, in my personal opinion, I can break this down for you.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden was accused of suggesting Donald Trump should be executed over a report that the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago property for nuclear weapons-related documents.
Now, that's not what was reported by MSNBC, but you see how information laundering occurs.
On Thursday, Hayden responded to a tweet from MSNBC contributor Michael Beschloss.
Referring to Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg, a couple executed in 1953 after sharing nuclear secrets with Moscow.
Beschloss did not refer to Trump in the tweet.
Yes, but all of his tweets before and after this one were about Trump and the nuclear co— I'll show you, I'll show you.
Sounds about right, Hayden wrote in response.
Why would a guy from MSNBC be tweeting this out right now of all times?
Though Hayden did not mention Trump either.
Some took his tweet to mean he was saying Trump should potentially face a similar fate as the Rosenbergs.
NBD, just a former NSA and CIA director, out here suggesting that Trump should be executed.
Washington examiners Jerry Dunleavy tweeted about Hayden.
The letter he refers to a document signed by intelligence officials dismissing Hunter Biden's infamous laptop as Russian disinformation.
Fake news!
Biden is a retired Air Force general who served under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
and Barack Obama.
The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the FBI's search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago property
was to search for classified documents related to nuclear weapons.
Fake news!
Fake news.
They said that, uh, they, this is amazing.
They said they were nuclear documents, and to what they pertain to, they weren't sure.
And it could have been domestic, it could have been foreign.
You know what?
I'll give them that one.
But it said nuclear documents.
I don't know if it was referring to weapons, or power plants, or otherwise.
Nuclear weapons issue is a hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax.
Two impeachments were a hoax, the Mueller investigation was a hoax, and much more.
Same sleazy people involved, the former president wrote.
Okay.
When I first saw this story, I said, dude didn't suggest anything.
Dude was just pointing out that some people have been executed if they've done this.
Yeah, and then I looked at the guy's tweets.
First, Michael Beschloss.
Here's what he tweeted.
Rosenbergs were convicted for giving U.S.
nuclear secrets to Moscow and were executed June 1953.
This is from yesterday morning at 9 p.m.
at night.
Okay.
Well, that's it.
There's no reference to Trump, right?
Okay, let's take a look at his previous tweets.
Yesterday, he tweeted this out.
Let me show you some of his earlier tweets.
17 hours ago, FBI searched Trump's home to look for nuclear documents and other items, Washington Post is now reporting.
I now hereby repost my tweet from this afternoon.
Michael Beschloss said, What if a classified document on U.S.
handling of nuclear weapons or names of CIA agents was given or sold by or stolen from an ex-president who had stashed it in his basement?
A bold assumption or claim about what Trump may have done.
Then he says, I'm reposting it because now they're reporting on nuclear documents.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Then he tweeted, talking to Ali Velshi this hour about new Washington Post story that FBI was searching in Trump's house for documents containing American nuclear weapons secrets.
Well, that's a bold jump.
Is that what they reported?
First, it was just about nuclear documents.
In the report from the Washington Post, they don't say whether it's American or otherwise.
He then says, if Trump took home classified documents on nuclear secrets, will his National Amen Corner bless that too?
American nuclear secrets handed to the wrong people could wind up killing American infants and children.
Essential now that we see the warrant tomorrow at 3 p.m.
and not one minute later.
General Michael Hayden then tweeted, sounds about right, and Michael Bechloss retweeted it.
The insinuation is clear.
This man is accusing Trump or stating that it's very possible and he wants to dig into whether or not Trump was selling secrets, but don't forget about the people who got executed for doing this.
Insanity.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's calling for Trump to be executed, but suggesting he could be.
Quite simply, true.
This is crazy.
In response to his tweet, one person said, Someone said, yes.
That Russian dude's plane is still on the ground at Palm Beach.
January 9th. I thought back then maybe Trump trying to bolt but now I think it
might be something else. Really? Someone said yes that Russian dude's plane is
still on the ground at Palm Beach hasn't moved since the 6th of January. One
person said he's going to Mar-a-Lago on the 19th.
He's going to bolt while he's still president and can.
He told his followers, it's clear.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
These crazy Blue Anon people, they believe this insane stuff, but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if they're right.
It doesn't matter if they're wrong.
What matters is they exist and they believe it.
Now many people may, on the right, want to say, facts don't care about your feelings.
But feelings don't care about your facts all the same.
These people don't care about what's true.
They care about what they believe, and that's all that matters.
So I'm going to play for you this clip.
Hopefully it plays.
And I played this earlier today, but I'm going to play it again.
The stuff was going through my head when I did the stupid essay in 2017 and at the time it was like even saying that out loud even being like there could be a civil war was like felt insane.
But at least we are most certainly in some sort of a battle of ideas that is so uncharitable and so rigid in its sides and its ideologies that it fucking freaks me out.
I played it in my earlier segment, but I think in the context here, you know, after I saw the story about the tweet about execution, I was just like, I gotta dig into this again.
I normally don't like to do that.
It's like, I talked about this in the morning, but there's a lot more to go through.
Russia is now saying a civil war is coming to the United States, and I really do want to show you this context just because For one, I respect Joe.
He's awesome.
And I went on his show years ago, and I said, I think we're headed towards civil war.
And you saw his response.
He's like, get out of here, man.
You're nuts.
But here we are.
Here's the crazy thing.
When this episode was posted, Joe prerecords his show, okay?
And depending on the individual, sometimes there's a longer gap.
Because, like, if you record, like, on a... I don't know the exact days, but you could record with Joe, and then he waits for the weekend to post on Monday, so days could go by.
I went on his show, we talked about Kyle Rittenhouse, and then he didn't actually publish the episode until after Rittenhouse was already acquitted.
But the point here is, this show was recorded.
Joe has the recording.
In the morning of the day this show was posted, a man went to an FBI office and fired at FBI agents, failed to breach the bulletproof glass, is what I believe is the story, was pursued, and then during a five- I believe it was like a five-hour standoff, ultimately was killed, refusing to surrender.
Joe didn't know about that.
And I know Joe didn't know about that because he pre-records his show.
It's remarkable to me.
I mean, the timing.
They're right.
Like, we always bring this up, like, please, please, please, no civil war.
What can we do to stop?
And I'm like, bro, I don't know.
I certainly, I've seen conflict.
You don't want it.
It's scary, man.
You know, being in Egypt during the revolution is scary days.
Joe said, before the FBI incident happened, we may be heading towards civil war.
It's crazy to me.
You know, the timing on this one.
Because when people mentioned he said this, I was like, hey, wait a minute.
That means Joe didn't know about the guy at the FBI office.
So the same day this comes out, we have that moment.
I wonder what he's going to say next.
When he's like, whoa, dude, a guy went to the FBI with guns?
Yeah, bro.
Civil war.
I don't know what to tell you, man, but the conversation is here.
The conversation is escalating.
Never before in American history, the FBI searches a former president's home.
Never before.
Here we are, from Newsweek.
Russian state TV suggests potential U.S.
civil war as a result of Trump raid.
Dude, I hope not.
I hope I'm wrong.
Look, we are on track for a civil war, but let me make it clear.
Several years ago, as Rogan pointed out, I was talking about the potential.
A train on a track has several options to divert when the track splits.
But without intervention, the train will just keep going forward.
At the end of this track, there is a big red stop sign, and behind it, a cliff.
But no one's got their foot on the brake, and who's gonna pull the lever to divert the train?
I don't know how to do it.
Do you?
I don't know, maybe.
If this train does not stop or divert, it will crash into that barrier and go careening off the cliff.
But maybe, before then, someone will pull the lever and the train will divert.
I can't see the future.
I can only see the track we're on.
And when you've got an MSNBC host and a former CIA director saying, like, hey man, maybe Trump did this, people who do this get executed.
Come on, man.
It's one thing to be like, lock her up over and over again when you accuse someone of committing a crime.
It's another when they're like, penalty is death.
Here's what Russia has to say.
The FBI search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida has sparked outrage among Kremlin propagandists on Russian state TV, who went as far as predicting that the raid might trigger a civil war in the U.S.
Now, when you got Russia and Joe Rogan being like, uh, man.
In a stunning escalation of the investigation into the former president's potentially unlawful removal and destruction of documents, federal investigators executed a search warrant.
The FBI search, which Trump described as assault, we get, we get, we get.
It was widely covered by Russian state media with pro-government TV host Vladimir Solovyov expressing his admiration for Trump and his GOP allies during his show on Monday evening as reported by the Daily Beast journalist Julia Davis.
On the same day, Russian military expert Igor Korotchenko, a guest on Russian TV program 60 Minutes, called the FBI raid a witch hunt, where Trump, as the most popular politician in the United States, was chosen as such a witch.
Trump probably is the most popular, but also the most hated.
I mean, for real.
They won't just be vilifying him, they will be strangling him.
These raids involving dozens of FBI officers and police dogs.
This is worse than McCarthyism, my friends.
This is a symbol of inordinate despotism.
The host of 60 Minutes, Evgeny Rozhkov, described the raid as an event that shook the U.S.
and the world perhaps more than the nuclear threat.
It is not clear whether the raid on Trump's residence was directly related to the alleged disappearance of evidence related to the January 6th riot at the Capitol, but we know that Trump has previously been accused of transferring documents, etc., etc., etc.
He then speculated the raid could trigger conflict in the U.S.
as Trump supporters rise to support their leader.
Could this be the beginning of a civil war, he asked on Tuesday, as quoted by Davis.
This is totally unprecedented.
I don't remember anything like this in American history.
If Trump calls on his supporters to come out, and half the states are led by Trump's allies, they'll be hell to pay.
This is fun for everyone except for Americans.
They don't know what awaits them next.
Let's just say that if the Civil War starts over there, there will be only one big question for Russia, whom to support with weapons.
That's right.
That's right.
And I really do wonder, man.
I do.
I actually believe that China and Russia may actually arm Trump supporters in the event of a civil war.
Now, this is what you need to understand.
In the American Revolution, what happened?
France intervenes and assists the colonists.
Why?
It's simple.
You're at war with somebody.
Somebody else's.
You say, we can get these guys to help us.
They want help.
Let's team up!
Simply put, In the American Civil War, something similar.
Foreign entities were looking at who to supply with weapons and loan.
Who do they think is going to win?
There's bets to be made in war, baby.
Now a lot of people think that the left, China, would support the establishment.
I'm not entirely convinced.
While it may be bad for China in a lot of ways if Trump wins, it may be better.
Donald Trump is staunchly America First.
He wants American borders secured.
He doesn't care about foreign excursions.
China wants to do oil exploration in Africa and South America.
They want to be unimpeded.
Trump would enact America First policy and China would then carry out a lot of that mission without consequence.
Russia?
Same thing.
Trump wants peace in the Middle East?
This could potentially create opportunities for Russia and China.
Dare I say, the threat of China's expansion is probably bad in this regard.
With Donald Trump de-escalating tensions with Russia is probably good because war is just already going nuts.
Yeah, who would they support with weapons?
I don't think Russia would support the Biden administration.
But, or whoever is involved, the Democrats.
But China might.
Because Trump doesn't like them.
And Trump supporters don't like them.
I don't know.
I really don't know, man.
I can only show... You can look at the data in real time.
You can see it happening.
Andrew Yang said, instead of a two party system, more and more of the country is now essentially
a one party system as each party has stopped competing in most of the other parties urban
rural turf. I don't think Andrew Yang understands what he's saying here in the modern context of
what's happening.
Here we can see more and more counties are uncompetitive.
In this map, in 1992, you see very little deep red and very little deep blue, but a decent amount, you know, all over the place.
The darker the splotches on the map, the higher it is in one direction, Republican or Democrat.
In 96, you see more red areas.
In 2000, substantially more red areas.
The dark red, it's uncompetitive.
You're not going to win.
In 2004, it spreads.
In 2008, it spreads.
In 2012, it's spread.
By 2016, the country is split.
Overwhelmingly deep red or deep blue.
Andrew Yang continues.
Up to 70% of local races are now uncontested or uncompetitive.
Yang is wrong about that.
Unfortunately, I don't think his party is going to save anybody.
One or the other has given up on, which is the vast majority of the US.
Yang is wrong about that.
Unfortunately, I don't think his party is going to save anybody.
But what the map shows is the hyperpolarization and the geographic polarization.
How could a civil war start?
Just like this.
These areas are becoming more and more ideologically divided and they're not going to come together.
This map is showing you the escalation of civil conflict in the United States and how it's unfolding in real time.
So, Joe, what I would say when he says, I think he might be right, it's more than that, dude.
I think I'm probably more right than even I want to admit.
You know, I want to hedge my bet and say, maybe it won't happen.
I don't know.
It sounds crazy even to me.
Like, could it really happen?
But then you look at this and you're like, all signs point to it.
What did Joe's guest say?
Play the movie forward.
Yeah.
I also say, play the movie backward.
That's why I say, if you go back in time and ask someone, if you went back six years and said, hey, in six years this is what we're going to see, they wouldn't believe you.
All of this stuff, they'd be like, shut up!
No way!
Frogs in a pot boiling.
You know, we have Ian Crossland on Timcast IRL, and he mentions, we're not in a civil war, one crazy guy doesn't make a civil war, and I'm just like, that's it right there.
I disagree.
It's not one guy.
It's elements of the government.
It's the FBI.
It's the former president.
It's 74 million Trump supporters.
It's all the people who hate Trump.
You have a hard split.
It's Aaron Danielson taking two to the chest.
It's Kyle Rittenhouse fighting for his life and being locked up.
It's the billions of dollars in damage during the Summer of Love.
It's January 6th.
It is not just one guy.
But if you have a myopic view, and if you are not paying attention, surely you're a frog in a pot boiling, not realizing what is emerging around you.
So when I see Michael Hayden and this MSNBC contributor, Saying like, look at these people who got executed.
Also, Trump may have done this too.
We know what the point is.
This is crazy.
From Insider.
FBI search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago reignites conservative calls for a civil war.
It's a lie.
People on the right aren't calling for a civil war.
Nobody wants a civil war.
But people on the right are mentioning that it's happening.
It's just crazy, this idea that there needs to be a single individual to be like, I hereby declare civil war.
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.
What's gonna happen is that one by one, dominoes fall over, and then before you realize it, you are in it.
And you'll ask yourself, when did it become a civil war?
They didn't call World War I, World War I, they called it the Great War.
You know, it's funny, um... I can't remember what I was watching, but like some sci-fi show, someone goes back in time, and they're like, um... They're like, good luck in World War I, and they're like, World War I?! !
It is back then, they didn't know there was going to be a part two.
World War I, the Great War, and World War II.
That's what we called them.
People didn't know.
So right now, what are they calling it?
In 10 years, people are going to be like, oh, the Civil War, huh?
Insider says, an attack on Trump is an attack on true American patriotism.
One Twitter user wrote on Tuesday, civil war will end up being Biden's government versus Americans patriots.
Does that mean they're calling for civil war or pointing out it's coming?
Another supporter wrote, why would FBI raid Trump's home but Biden's and Clinton's they would never touch?
Civil War is coming, folks, and it will not be pretty.
Doesn't sound like they're calling for it.
Carrie Lake threatened to invoke the 10th Amendment of the U.S.
over the FBI search.
It's not the first time Trump supporters or extremist groups have threatened to ignite a civil war.
They're not now.
But this is why I think we'll get one.
Business Insider is making sure that anybody who is not paying attention to the news is believing the lies.
Jamie Raskin did it.
Jamie Raskin included a video of me reading the news and implied that I, personally, was calling for people to come down on January 6th.
They said, pro-Trump YouTuber.
And it was me being like, in Fox News' story, Donald Trump says, Fox News reports, Trump says, it's gonna be wild on January 6th, and he's probably right.
And hey, I was right about that!
Amazing, huh?
I didn't tell anybody to go there.
In fact, I said there'd probably be violence.
I said it's gonna come from the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups.
It's gonna be more organized.
Turns out I was right in my predictions.
This is what they want to do.
They want you in a bubble.
They don't want you to be able to see the truth.
So my reporting of the news and my accurate predictions get turned into support, and then my incorrect predictions are highlighted as I'm just someone who's often wrong.
But here I am, several years on with Joe Rogan being like, I think Tim may be right.
They're reporting now that they've recovered classified documents from Trump.
But I think we knew that Trump had them.
Trump can declassify whatever he wants the moment he says it.
So, what's the argument?
This is what the media is doing.
In the first paragraphs, none of these people threatened civil war.
They just said it was coming.
Because they're kind of seeing it happen.
Now they're saying it's a threat.
The Washington Post reports, FBI attacker was prolific contributor to Trump's truth social website.
Am I right or am I wrong?
I'd like you to go back to 2019 when I appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast with Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gaddai.
Near the end of the episode, I said that if Twitter kept doing this, it will result in some kind of chaos or crisis or civil war or something to that effect.
I can't remember what I exactly said, but I said something about that.
And, you know, I talked to Joe and I said, you ban people from Twitter, eventually they make their own website, they form their own communities, they are segmented and separated away from the others, and then they become more and more at odds with each other.
It's happening, man.
I thought about this.
You know, when I see this guy, you know, Beschloss guy, or whatever, implying the execution or stating Trump could be executed, I wonder about who's fueling this.
And you see this post that I mentioned where the guy says, I thought Trump was fleeing.
And I'm like, what if this is just China?
What if China is running bot accounts and posting things to inflame tensions?
Because that's what's happening.
Maybe.
I don't know.
I don't know for sure, man.
I really, really don't.
Insider reports, Trump allies think there's a traitor in Mar-a-Lago who informed on him to the FBI.
The FBI came to Trump and said, put a padlock on this door.
Giuliani says it was their padlock.
Then the FBI comes and breaks the padlock and takes documents.
That implies to me these are different FBI groups.
You know, I've seen a bunch of movies where, actually, what did I just watch?
The Gray Man.
Don't think it was all that good.
But in it, it's about corrupt government officials, basically.
So, yeah.
It's possible.
Corruption exists.
Could it be that a rogue supervisor at the FBI ordered the raid because he needed to know what Trump had?
Even though he knew other FBI agents were already involved?
It's possible.
It's not a monolith.
And individuals can take individual action to protect themselves, especially if they're engaged in corruption.
These are crazy days, man.
A big development, too, in all this is that Alex Berenson has reported earlier this morning the White House privately demanded Twitter ban him months before the company did so.
The government is intervening to shut down people's speech.
A clear violation of the First Amendment.
No, it is.
People say, like, it's not a violation of the First Amendment if Twitter bans you.
It is when the government demands it.
The government can't use proxies to silence people.
That's still a violation of 1A.
You take a look at what's going on now, what people are saying.
Who gets banned?
Who doesn't?
Who gets approved as legitimate news and who doesn't?
And what's happening now with the, like, look.
The Washington Post can come out and say, we talked to two guys who, uh, claim they know about what happened with the agents, but they weren't actually there.
And they said, here's what happened.
That's reporting?
Doesn't matter.
The information has already been laundered, and now people are suggesting Trump be executed.
So, you can, you know, look, it's an opinion on my part.
I'm sure many people are going to look at that tweet and be like, they legit want Trump executed.
I wouldn't be surprised.
I don't want to go that far.
But I think all of this rhetoric points in one direction.
Civil War.
People think the Civil War will be like the Civil War was in the United States in the 1860s, but they failed to read history about other civil wars and how it went down, like in Spain, when the urban and rural areas were at odds with each other and started fighting.
And then the fascists won and slowly took over.
We don't need a North and a South.
Bill Maher said, the Mason-Dixon line would go through Nana's kitchen.
Right.
But that's a misunderstanding of history and what civil wars really look like.
The American Civil War was on a specific policy issue for the most part.
Slavery.
And among other things.
And so it broke on these lines.
But now we have a culture war.
We do have policy issues at play.
But the divide is urban versus rural, like Spain, not like early America.
So.
How does it come down and when?
Maybe it won't.
Maybe the train will divert.
I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The nuclear codes.
Or something.
Nuclear documents.
Is that what it is?
On Twitter, they're saying that Donald Trump had, like, the nuclear codes and other nuclear information, and so that required the DOJ to intervene to protect this nation.
The Washington Post, citing a couple anonymous sources, says, FBI searched Trump's home to look for nuclear documents and other items, sources say.
And if you believe this, I got a bridge to sell ya.
Now, hold on.
I'm not saying I can definitively state this is false.
I'm just saying, I don't know, wait until the DOJ actually releases, unseals the search warrant before believing what the Washington Post has to say.
Especially because many people on Twitter are going insane trying to claim that it was like, the nuclear launch codes.
Yeah, those are in the nuclear football.
And if anything, if there is some truth to this, it's going to turn out to be something totally innocuous, like a memo about someone saying something like, we should get the nuclear weapons reviewed, or something like that.
There's going to be a memo where it's like, maintenance begins on January 3rd.
And you're like, okay.
And then they're going to be like, in the nuclear documents.
There's a question right now.
Gallup asked, what's driving... I love this article.
It's all related, mind you.
What's driving record low trust in media?
Ah, heavens!
They had to talk to Wesley Lowry about what's causing record low trust in media.
Could it be that the Washington Post has no legitimate standards for how they report news, and all of these big outlets get things wrong over and over again, and they get certified 100 out of 100 by NewsGuard?
Maybe that's why.
Maybe it's because if TimCast.com were to come out and claim that we had two official sources asserting that, you know, Donald Trump did a backflip, they'd be like, clearly it's fake news.
But when the Washington Post does it, they're like, hmm, factual and responsible.
The media is fake news.
You are fake news, as Trump said to these people.
All right, let's read the Washington Post story, and then I want to talk about the fake news.
All right, so the Washington Post says classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former President Donald Trump's Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concerns among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.
I'm already seeing conservatives be like, they're going to claim Trump leaked to Russia nuclear information.
The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Ooh, the people.
To discuss an ongoing investigation.
They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation.
Oh, there you go!
There it is!
Come on.
Fake news.
Not necessarily fake news, but look at the way they framed this.
Trump's home to look for nuclear documents and other items.
Nuclear documents?
That framing implies it is American nuclear documents.
If they said documents pertaining to nuclear weapons in the United States or otherwise, people would have said something totally different.
They say, nor did they say if such documents were recovered as part of the search.
Huh.
A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment.
Sources.
The people who describe some of the material on the condition of anonymity.
So, you know what I love about anonymous sources?
Am I supposed to just believe you, the Washington Post?
Here's how I explain it to people.
We could get a quote from someone close to Nancy Pelosi's office who tells us that, I don't know, she kicks dogs.
And then we could report like, a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office says that she kicks dogs.
And it sounds like we're saying someone who's like working within Congress or something like that, but it could literally be like the homeless guy in the alley behind her office.
He's physically close to her office and he made this claim, therefore it's confirmed by our anonymous source.
Yeah, you see how they play these dirty games?
They say Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that he could not discuss the investigation, but in an unusual public statement at the Justice Department, he announced he had personally authorized the decision to seek court permission for a search warrant.
Yeah, okay, I'm just gonna say revenge.
That's what I said yesterday when the news broke.
Revenge.
Yeah, he was gonna be in the Supreme Court.
He's probably so excited.
And the Republicans blocked him.
So, yeah.
Revenge.
Garland spoke moments after the DOJ lawyers filed a motion seeking to unseal the search warrant in
the case, noting that Trump had publicly revealed the search shortly after it happened. Quote,
the public's clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these
circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing. That said, the former president
should have an opportunity to respond to this motion and lodge objections, including with
regards to any legitimate privacy interests or the potential for other injury if these
materials are made public. Late Thursday night, Trump said on social media that he agreed the
documents should be made public.
In another post early Friday, he called the nuclear weapons issue a hoax and accused the FBI of planting evidence without offering information to indicate such a thing had happened.
I don't believe he accused the FBI.
He said maybe they were doing this.
He said they want to play these games because they always love to do this thing without evidence.
Trump says without evidence.
Yeah, the Washington Post says literally right now, without evidence, that they believe the documents may be nuclear-related or something like that.
They have no evidence.
I love how the media does this.
Trump said agents did not allow his lawyers to be present for the search, which is not unusual in a law enforcement operation, especially if it potentially involves classified items.
Material about nuclear weapons is especially sensitive and usually restricted to a small number of government officials, experts said.
Publicizing details about U.S.
weapons could provide an intelligence roadmap to adversaries seeking to build ways of countering those systems.
And other countries might view exposing their nuclear secrets as a threat, experts said.
Okay, you see?
Let me give you a walkthrough on how they do this.
First, they assert without evidence... Ah, you see how I did it?
They assert without evidence the documents may be nuclear documents.
What that means, we don't know.
Could it be the United States?
Could it be any other country?
Could it be a nuclear document from, I don't know, Uruguay, where they're like, we want to entertain the possibility of nuclear power?
No idea.
Could it be something to do with like a nuclear sub?
Then they go on to say, it could be really dangerous if nuclear weapon information was released.
This is news?
This is what passes off as fact-based news?
Speculation built upon speculation without evidence?
Amazing!
An anonymous source says maybe nuclear.
Could that be weapons?
Maybe.
Could that be American weapons?
Wow, it could be.
That would be really dangerous for America.
Wow, experts say this could create a real threat.
There's no news here!
Absolutely amazing.
Washington Post.
Geez.
One former Justice Department official, who in the past oversaw investigations of leaks of classified information, said the type of top-secret information described by people familiar with the probe would probably cause authorities to try to move as quickly as possible.
What is this?
One DOJ official in the past oversaw investigations said the type of top-secret information described by people familiar with the probe would probably cause authorities... This is incredible!
Why don't people trust the media anymore?
Okay, so check it out.
I know a guy, okay?
He's close to Nancy Pelosi's office, and he says she kicked a dog.
Now, I talked to another guy who said if that was true, then PETA would be really... What?
How is any of this news?
It's like, I asked a guy who... We won't reveal who they are, claiming this may have been nuclear-related.
Now, we don't know if it's the United States or otherwise, but we then went to another expert, who doesn't know these experts, who doesn't know what they said, and asked them, if this was true, and what they said was true, what do you think would happen?
They're writing more about this?
I'm not gonna read this garbage.
This is fake news.
This.
Is.
Outright.
Fake.
News.
Let me just stress what they're doing right- I'm just- I'm flabbergasted.
The people who describe some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss, so they're not even the agents in question.
So a couple people, we don't know who they are, who are not the ones who are actually the agents seeking materials, are telling us this is what it might be, but we're not going to tell you what it's actually related to.
So the Washington Post then speculates, but what if?
Let me give a shout-out to our good friends over at Family Guy.
They did this excellent bit where the news anchor, Tom Tucker, is like, the plane didn't crash, but here's what it would have looked like if the plane did!
And then it shows a plane crash, and like, here's what it would have looked like if a plane crashed into a school full of deaf children!
And then it shows a plane crash into a school, and here's what it would have looked like if a plane crashed into a school full of bunnies!
And then it shows a crash, and then bunnies run out.
I appreciate the joke.
This is what the media does.
This is... I'm sorry, man.
I have often said that when it comes to Alex Jones, he will take a morsel of truth and then stretch it too far.
This is worse than that.
It's like... Man, I just... I'm so fresh with all this garbage.
I know tons of people who work for government.
I know, oh man, the things I could say with my sources.
I've received emails.
Let me put it this way.
An email received by TimCast.com from an anonymous source alleges that the FBI is fractured, split between rogue elements Now, I went and spoke with a national security expert who said that assuming this is all true, it would mean... What?
Yes, I've received emails from people who work in federal law enforcement, or at least claim to.
I don't come out and report on the things they say definitively or as confirmed, because I don't know.
But the Washington Post can be like, some guy who claims to know what the agents were looking for.
Is this a joke?
Not even the agents?
Wonderful.
Why don't people?
What's driving record low trust in news media?
Oh boy, oh geez, I wonder.
We'll throw it to our good friend Scott Adams.
Scott Adams said, If you believe Trump squirreled away some nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago and refused to return them, because you heard the Washington Post say two anonymous sources, that CNN can't confirm, told them it was true, I'll give you some useful context.
And he posts.
How many of these hoaxes do you still believe are true?
The Russian collusion hoax.
We now know that there was fabricated evidence and good reason for the FBI to stop their investigation and they didn't.
The Steele dossier hooker story.
Yet people actually believed Trump hired ladies of the night to urinate on a bed.
Because Obama was gonna sleep in it or something like that?
Russia paying bounties on U.S.
soldiers.
That was debunked.
Trump called neo-Nazis very fine people.
That was fake news, and we always knew it was fake news, but it's not going to stop Joe Biden from lying.
Trump said, and I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis because they should be condemned totally.
Trump suggested drinking and injecting bleach to fight COVID.
Never did.
Never did.
Yeah, Trump was, I think it's fair to point out, Trump was asking a question, not instructing, and we were talking about disinfectants.
I believe it was Birx or some other officials were talking about disinfectants that can be used to stop COVID.
And Trump said, is there something we can do like that a disinfectant that you could maybe inject or something like that?
He never said drink or inject bleach.
And Trump's question was, you know, I roll my eyes and say, look, I can respect someone asking a question if they really don't know.
I'm not going to condemn someone for asking, but there really is UV light therapy where when you have respiratory illnesses, they have experimented with taking a UV light and putting it down your trachea.
So it's like Trump actually asked an interesting question, albeit We kind of roll our eyes at it.
How about this one?
He overfed koi fish in Japan.
He didn't.
He was doing what Shinzo Abe did.
He followed suit.
The media manipulated the video.
Crazy.
Trump cleared protesters with tear gas for a Bible photo op.
That was fake news.
In fact, even NewsGuard says that was fake news.
Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.
Several NewsGuard certified sources say it is verified.
Elections were fair because no court found major fraud.
The lawsuits were blocked based on standing, not merit.
But as per the fraud stuff, I'm still waiting for evidence.
There's some questions, but that, I believe, is entirely a media manipulation across the board.
January 6 was an insurrection to overthrow the government.
Yeah.
January 6, a few hundred people rioted and they should be criminally charged.
Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the beast.
I just love how they make these stories up.
I can't stand the fraud narrative though, regardless of whether or not you don't like the media.
Because, let me put it this way.
Conspiracy theories?
You start from point A and you move forward.
This is my point.
I remember back in the days of the 9-11 truth stuff.
And this is really important in the context of fake news and media literacy.
People would say, what really happened was this!
And I would be like, no dude.
It's fair to say.
The government did not release all relevant information pertaining to 9-11, so we don't have the full true story.
Why would we?
Imagine the government coming out and being like, we'd like to give you a list of all of the security failures that we engaged in that allowed our country to be attacked.
No, of course they won't.
So I don't believe the official narrative 100%.
I just don't know.
When it comes to the fraud narrative stuff, my response to everybody is simply this.
Believe whatever you want to believe.
I personally don't think so.
However, I've seen the accusations from 2,000 Mules and I say that's point A. Stop.
Excellent points being brought up and questions being asked.
Now it's time for the inquiry.
Now it's time for the investigation into accusations and probable cause or circumstantial evidence.
But for the time being, what I can't stand is people definitively stating that there was major fraud and all that stuff, and it's like, dude, y'all need to win first, which means you need to encourage everybody to go vote, and you need to stop... I think the fraud narrative is voter suppression.
I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Several prominent Trump supporters are saying the same thing.
Stop.
Here's my position.
Get everybody to go vote.
Then once you get Marjorie Taylor Greene or Carrie Lakin, whatever, then they can do what they want to do.
I'm in favor of investigations, but I'm not in favor of jumping to conclusions about what you think happened.
Cite the probable cause that makes you ask questions, and then you move forward with that.
Anyway, I digress.
All of these are excellent points.
This is why people don't believe the media.
Because they lie.
And they lie a lot.
They lie, and they lie a lot.
FBI searched Trump's home to look for nuclear documents sources say.
How is this news?
How is it?
It's remarkable.
When NewsGuard rated Tim Kast, and you may have heard me talk about it, they claimed that because we factually quoted the President in a statement he made, we were irresponsible.
This is responsible?
Sources claim something that you can't verify?
And so you're just like, okay, well the news is the sources said it.
Yeah?
Well when we come out and say the news is the President said it, we get dinged?
I won't stand for this stuff.
But you know what, man?
I will give you all the opportunity to take a drink right now by bringing up Civil War.
This is what drives it.
Twofold.
One, the FBI searching Trump's home.
Crossing the Rubicon, according to George Conway.
I'll just cite him and make sure I quote, you know, he was the one who said it.
But also, the media lying about the severity of what this is, or irresponsibly claiming nuclear documents?
What, you want people to go nuts?
Thinking that Trump's giving away nuclear codes and secrets?
Yeah, I'm sorry.
You just watch where this goes.
The other night, Someone mentioned on Timcast IRL that Joe Rogan said he thought Tim Pool was crazy for thinking a civil war could be coming, and then he said maybe he's right.
And so I said, send it to Ian, and we'll pull this up, so I retweeted it.
This is from Joe Rogan's show, and I need to make some very serious points about what's going on, and I'm gonna play this clip.
The stuff was going through my head when I did the stupid essay in 2017, and at the time it was like, even saying that out loud, even being like, there could be a civil war was like, felt insane.
But at least we are most certainly in some sort of a battle of ideas that I heard this, and what was interesting to me is the idea that I might be right, and I might be wrong.
I'm grateful for the shout-out and the reference, because I've been talking about civil war quite a bit.
In 2011, I was told by some prominent journalist professors and news organizations that I had the unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market.
The things that I had been working on were too advanced for the news agencies to adopt.
I was doing mobile live streaming on the ground and I was getting thousands of followers, millions of followers, hundreds of millions of views.
Like, it was really crazy the extent to which this mobile live streaming reached around the world.
And they said, we don't know how to incorporate whatever it is you're doing, it doesn't work with our TV, it doesn't work with our websites, and I'm like, bro, hire a couple guys, give them phones and batteries, send them on the ground.
You pay them, you know, 70k a year or something, they're reporters, and then you are gonna have on your website, on your social media, and they were just like, we don't make money doing that, we don't care to do it.
Today.
Or I should say, years ago.
I was talking about how I think we are on track for a civil war.
Joe Rogan says, come on, you're crazy.
Now he's saying I might be right.
I would just say this.
Joe's not a culture warrior like I am and like many of you are, and so he's not paying attention to the same stuff that we are.
His conversations are more over-the-top, surface-level, with a variety of individuals, whereas Tim Kest's IRL is actually looking at the news of the day, like up-to-date, and even having some breaking news.
Rarely, but, you know, sometimes.
First, I'll say there's a reason people listen to Joe Rogan, because they're real, authentic conversations.
But there's a... Man, I just gotta say, like, when Joe starts saying, like, man, maybe we are heading in this direction, this is where the market is catching up to what I've been saying for some time.
And that's why I point out the Joe saying, Tim might be right.
Might be right.
I didn't say 100% the war will begin this time, you know, or something like that.
I've often—I typically do hedge, and if I haven't, I'm not going to pretend that every single one of my quotes and statements on this has been perfect.
But, no, I am right.
I am right when I said We are on track for a civil war.
It doesn't mean one will occur, but it means you look at the Spanish Civil War, you look at Weimar Germany, you look at the 1860s, or you look at bleeding Kansas, and I am right when I say the things we are seeing now are indicative of an escalating civil conflict and potential civil war, but I'm not trying to be like, I'm so right.
I'm trying to say, There are numerous professors, security experts, who have brought these things up that I've read and then reiterated and added my view after reading, you know, excerpts from history.
So my point is just this, that Joe didn't believe me back then, but now he's thinking I might be right when I said I think we're heading towards civil war.
It's fair to say, simply put, when national divorce is trending, when sitting members of Congress are talking about this, when in the Boston Globe they discussed a war game for 2020 where Democrats said if Trump wins, they would encourage the West Coast to secede from the Union.
How is none of that on track for a civil war?
My point is just this.
Tremendous respect to Joe.
I appreciate, uh, you know, the shout-out, just in the passive conversation.
When Joe says it's some kind of battle of ideas, that's called fifth generational warfare, and that may be the extent to which the Civil War exists.
And then we'll get the weaponization of law enforcement to go and start rounding people up and arresting them.
There's a couple potentialities.
Weimar, Germany.
Not really a civil war, but a conflict between communists and Nazis, and it resulted in Nazis winning.
There wasn't an overt civil war, it was just domination.
The Spanish Civil War went on for some time.
The fascists didn't just take over, they fought a civil war and then eventually won.
It could play out either of these ways.
You could say there's never going to be a civil war because the democratic entrenchment just dominates and they arrest and wipe out their political opponents.
Thus, there wasn't a civil war.
Just the rise of fascism.
Or, it can be more like Spain and fighting breaks out in resistance.
I don't know.
Can't tell you, man.
But I can tell you the media is spitting in your face, lying, and the institutions are just driving a wedge deeper and deeper every single day with fake news stories like what the Washington Post is putting out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The rise of lonely single men, dating apps, and a drastically changing relationship landscape.
I saw this story because it's gone viral among feminists.
They're laughing.
Haha, these men need to address skills deficits to meet healthier relationship expectations.
Okay, well, the reality is men will never be good enough for women because relationships are a competitive market.
So there is always going to be a quest for someone better, and there always is someone better to the average person.
The dating system in this country, relationships, all that, it's imploding.
62% of dating app users are men.
Where are the women?
Why are men lonely and single?
What are women doing?
You see, what's happened is... How do you explain this, right?
Isn't it... It's like 50-50 men and women, right?
It's like, well, 51% women.
So shouldn't there be something even?
No.
When you have a promiscuous society and open dating systems and no-fault divorce, very few men will end up dating and banging all of the women.
Oh, even the ugly ones!
And I don't mean to be mean by saying ugly, but I mean literally, like, women who are on the lower end of attractiveness scale, it's going to be the most attractive and successful men who are getting all of the women, which creates a large swath of men who are lonely and single.
And I don't know exactly what will happen, but we have seen the rise of incels in the news.
So, yeah, this is probably a component.
I'm not here to blame women or men.
I'm here to talk about the circumstances that are creating this situation, and I do want to point to the feminists and give them a bit of a critique in a different regard.
You've got a story from The Week.
Are Republicans coming for no-fault divorce?
It was once very difficult for Americans to get divorced.
Could it be soon?
Again, why get married at all if you want to easily get divorced?
That's called dating, not marriage.
You see, this is what happens.
Marriage is done.
It's been eroded.
Now, there's no real incentive for young men to get married.
What's the point?
Why?
Just to give away your stuff and to lose in court and lose your kids and all that?
No.
You see, marriage was a commitment to each other.
Now, when you look at the comments from the feminist websites, I believe we have Jezebel, you have one woman saying, the problem with dating men is that I can't get a guarantee.
You know, if I say in five years I want to make a million dollars, I know what my goal is.
But with a man, he could leave you at any time.
That was the purpose of marriage.
Two individuals with free will need to make a commitment to each other to accomplish a goal that both are seeking.
And if things aren't working out, counseling, not divorce.
But divorce could happen in some circumstances.
So this is my point.
Let's read about the rise of lonely single men, what that means and why it's happening, and then I want to point out, when you start breaking down the systems of relationships in this country, everyone ends up unhappy.
Psychology Today reports, younger and middle-aged men are the loneliest they've been in generations, and it's probably going to get worse.
This is not my typical rosy view of relationships, but a reality nonetheless.
Over the last 30 years, men have become a larger portion of that growing group of long-term single people.
And while you don't actually need to be in a relationship to be happy, men typically are happier and healthier when partnered.
Here are three broad trends in the relationship landscape that suggest heterosexual men are in for a rough road ahead.
Dating apps.
Whether you're just starting to date or you're recently divorced and dating again, dating apps are a huge driver of new romantic connections in the US.
The only problem is that upwards of 62% of users are men, and many women are overwhelmed With how many options they have, competition in online dating is fierce, and lucky, in-person chance encounters with dreamy partners are rarer than ever.
Let's stop there and address that issue.
How does that make sense?
62% of dating apps users are men?
So wouldn't that imply that there are a bunch of single women that just don't use the apps?
No.
What's happening is, the top 20% of men are dating all of the women.
Okay, not all, but most.
So, with women becoming more promiscuous, and again, not a judgment statement feminists, I'm saying quite literally women are more freer and there's lower standards, they used to be very puritanical, and now women can bang whoever they want.
Okay.
Well, you see, women used to want commitments from men before giving it up because of the risks involved in pregnancy.
Now, they're willing to just give it up.
On Tinder, for instance, you see all these messages where it's like men and women just being like, smash, smash.
Okay, well, if that's the case, women are only going to go for the most attractive men.
They have to have skills, resources, and good looks, which is the higher end of the bell curve.
For men, they're just like, I'll take what I can get, because men aren't driven by wealth and status the same way women tend to be, or at least historically have tended to be.
Thus, there is a small pool of men who are going to go around and just without consequence or commitment bang any woman.
And the women don't care.
They're gonna go and bang the men.
So it's actually working out, I would say, to a certain degree with most women and the top men.
The top men are like, they can get whatever they want, whatever they want.
And women, of course, can choose to get what they want, whatever they want, except...
Things start to change later in life, but we'll get into that in a minute.
For now, this is creating a massive detriment to women.
Of course, the end result will be a massive detriment to society, which I'll get into in a minute, but let's read.
Relationship standards.
They go on.
With so many options, it's not surprising that women are increasingly selective.
I do a live TikTok show and speak with hundreds of audience members every week.
I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45.
They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.
I'm gonna pause right there and just say, dude, spare me.
Humans have been around for long enough to know that the things women claim they want, they don't actually want.
And most men want one thing.
It's really that simple.
And there's why they're tropes.
Men are only interested in one thing.
Yeah, for the most part.
And women come out and say, like, I just want a guy who's, like, emotionally available and sensitive and a good communicator.
And what they really want is some ripped dude who's rich.
Not all women.
Not all men.
You get my point.
Okay, Cupid, pointed out a long time ago that all of these women on the platform were like, if you have a picture of you with your shirt off showing your abs, don't bother messaging me.
And then they found that women were more likely to respond to a message from a guy who was showing off his abs.
You see how that works?
Perhaps because social norms play a bigger role for women.
They don't want to come off as vapid or shallow, but they really just want to be vapid and shallow.
I say embrace it, ladies.
Outright, just say it.
And that's what we're seeing.
Tinder profiles where fat women and ugly women are like, you better be six foot tall, make six figures, and have at least six inches, and it's like, lady.
That was actually a viral post I saw on Reddit.
And they were just like, you are overestimating your value.
And I'm here to tell you guys, no she isn't.
There's a reason they do this and it works for them.
Because these dudes are gonna be on Tinder and they're gonna swipe right on everybody.
And then they're gonna get some woman and they're gonna be like, don't know, don't care, gonna get me some.
Skills deficits.
Now this is important.
For men, this means a relationship skill gap that, if not addressed, will likely lead to fewer dating opportunities, less patience for poor communication skills, and longer periods of being single.
The problem for men is that emotional connection is the lifeblood of healthy long-term love.
Emotional connection requires all the skill that families are still not consistently teaching their young boys.
I'm gonna pause and just say this is actually a remnant of dating apps.
Here's what happens.
You get a 30-year-old guy.
He's making 80k a year.
He's got a car, a nice one that's used, but you know, he's got his own apartment.
And, uh, he goes on Tinder, and he swipes a bunch, and then there is a beautiful young thing.
20 years old.
But she's like, yo, older guy, got a car, gonna pick me up, he's gonna pay for my drinks.
Fun.
Meanwhile, the 20-year-old guy, who's in the same dorm with her, and says, you wanna hang out with me and the boys while we play video games?
Cause we're broke?
She goes, no.
Well, what really happens is she'll swipe right at a bunch of dudes.
She'll get two guys.
They're both attractive.
30-year-old guy says, I'll pick you up in my Mitsubishi.
We'll go down to the lake.
I'll buy you dinner.
She goes, that sounds really fun.
The younger guy says, well, I'm broke.
I work at a deli, but you can come hang out in my dorm.
And she goes, yeah, I want fancy dinner and a lake.
So she just naturally tends toward the dude who has resources.
This means this 20-year-old man will not have the ability to develop relationship skills because the opportunities are not as present.
So, women will increasingly be going after older guys.
Which brings me to this article from 2019, which I covered a long time ago, before we get into the marriage stuff.
The share of Americans not having sex has reached a record high.
Now perhaps you can say, it means they're being abstinent and they're waiting for marriage.
Maybe, but maybe not voluntarily.
Take a look at this.
Among 40 to 49, you can see it goes up a little bit.
30 to 39, it goes way down.
50 to 59, it goes down.
This is fascinating.
Among women, it's gone up a little bit.
Among men, it's up 28%.
It's up to 28%.
28% of men between the ages of 18 and 30 have reported having no sex in the past year.
And a large portion are virgins.
Why is it lower for women?
Because women is banging older dudes!
Duh!
Among the older crowd, 30 to 39, it's gone down.
Percent reporting no sex in the past year.
So when this goes down, there's people saying that they're hooking up.
The point is, if you're a 30-year-old guy, you've got younger women who are available to you.
Which brings me to...
Jezebel.
The number of lonely single men is on the rise thanks to modern dating's higher standards.
Boy, do they really just not get it or not care to get it.
Jezebel comes out with a feminist take, only addressing one small issue, saying, men should be better.
The reason men don't have the relationship skills you need is because women overwhelmingly are dating older guys and younger men aren't getting an opportunity to learn how to be better mates.
That and society in general is drifting in a dark direction as it pertains to relationships.
Now, they go on, they mention, okay, this is actually kind of bad, because what's going to happen is you're going to get a bunch of incels.
They say, the knowledge that single straight men are running out of options unless they acquire the skills to be in a healthier and supportive relationship is validating, but it also comes with its own set of concerns.
Growing numbers of lonely single men sounds like a recipe for more self-victimizing incels.
After all, it's a patriarchal society that just overturned Roe v. Wade.
Ah, yes.
Well, you know, there was a solution to this problem.
Let me read for you the first comment from an individual who posted it just yesterday evening.
I think the frustrating thing about dating for men is the complete lack of guarantees.
If I wanted to set a goal of owning one million dollars in real estate in the next five years, I could create a plan of action with steps one through ten.
And although it may not be easy, I could do it.
Let's say I wanted to improve my physique and physical health and get in best shape of my life again.
I could create a plan of action, perhaps start an intermittent fasting regimen and cut out carbs, make sure I get 15,000 steps a day while coupling that with an hour at the gym.
And after a few months or a year or two years, I would have that physique that was closer to the ideal standard.
Dating offers no such guarantee.
You could have a hundred women write down ten things they are looking for from their ideal partner, compile that data, and create a list of ten or twelve things that women are looking for, become the ideal embodiment of those things, make it your life's work to make sure that you have those ten or twelve characteristics, and you can still end up by yourself.
Every woman can look at you and still say, nah chief, I'm good.
And that's absolutely their prerogative.
It's a sobering feeling, made doubly so by the fact that it's probably the thing that we worry about the most.
And also the thing that people don't really seem to care much about.
I am under no circumstances advocating the rampant misogyny that comes from this inconvenient truth, because I do think way too many men are trafficking in that space because they cannot handle the fact that they may end up alone.
But it does suck to think about, and I wish more healthy conversations could be had as it pertains to relationships and coupling.
But it doesn't seem like either side of the aisle wants to do that.
It's the first part of this that I find to be the most interesting.
That you could set goals.
This individual.
If I want to set a goal, I could do all of that.
But when it comes to women, marriage used to be your guarantee.
There was a guarantee.
It was called marriage.
And now there's no-fault divorce.
This is not going to leave women happier.
It is likely going to leave women unhappier.
But of course, women will resort to marrying the state.
You'll end up seeing the rise of communism.
As women get older and they don't have support structures, they'll just insist that everyone else will fund a welfare system to protect them.
Childless feminist women will be 70 with no children to look after them, so what will they say?
Publicly funded retirement homes.
It is a dangerous direction.
And that's where we'll go.
You see, they're mad that people like me, for instance, criticize no-fault divorce.
This is really funny, The Week.
They're like, what do they say?
What is the history of no-fault divorce?
They go on to mention blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Like, it used to be really hard to get divorced.
And they mention, like in the 1860s or whatever, you had to, where do they mention it?
You had to go to the house and, come on, where is it at?
For most American histories, before the Civil War, Alabama couples looking to dissolve their marriage would need to take their case to the state legislature and obtain a two-thirds majority in both houses.
That's amazing.
And then Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law.
What a mistake.
They say, what are American right-wingers saying about no-fault divorce?
Plenty.
They go to mention, Those featured include Daily Wire's Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and YouTubers Tim Poole and Steven Crowder.
Poole suggested that the policy discourages men from getting married, while Crowder denounced no-fault divorce as a system under which if a woman cheats on you, she leaves, takes half.
Yes!
So, why is this traditional?
Traditional conservatives argue that no-fault divorce has crushed the American family.
I just want to make it very, very clear.
Why would a dude get married if no-fault divorce is on the table and you can just take someone's assets?
There's no reason to do it.
Simply put, if you got rid of no-fault divorce, women could just date men and then break up with them when they were unhappy.
Marriage was supposed to be on a higher standard that you opted into a commitment to each other, a contract giving you guarantees and goals.
And if they weren't being met, then you would go to couples counseling or therapy and you would be ordered to rectify the issue.
Then they said, eh, marriage is just like dating anyway, who cares?
Now you basically have these feminists arguing, I should be able to get married and then take his stuff without consequence.
Well then why would a dude marry you?
I'm not wrong.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying dudes will not, well, my opinion is that it's bad.
But in this context, when I'm saying it discourages men from getting married, yes, duh, what's the problem there?
Why would a man get married?
You hear these stories all the time.
In fact, you have The Simpsons talking about it for 30 years!
I remember watching, you know, Milhouse's dad gets divorced.
And then he's like, I live in a divorcee settlement or whatever.
And then Homer's like, I sleep in a big bed with my wife.
Or he's like, I sleep in a race car.
Do you sleep in a race car?
And Homer's like, I sleep in a big bed with my wife.
See, he gets divorced, he loses everything, his life is miserable.
And then you hear this non-stop from all of these shows like Married with Children, Don't Get Married, Marriage is Miserable.
Okay then, why do it?
Why, if that was the message of our society?
Especially now with the idea of no-fault divorce.
Even before no-fault divorce.
The message from shows like Married with Children is that Al Bundy is unhappy and hates his wife, but he won't divorce her.
Now you have no-fault divorce, she could leave and kick him out of the house.
But I guess, you have to ask questions about, you know, like the honeymooners.
Dude literally talked about beating his wife.
It's like, yeah, those were not good times either.
There are problems that come from everything.
But now where we are at in our society is that the cream of the crop, the best of the best, the top-tier men, the tallest, the deepest voices, the most attractive, the most fit, the smartest, the strongest, they're gonna bang every single woman.
And your average man is going to struggle, become a single, lonely virgin.
And so these women mock the idea of an incel.
But the thing is, if you've ever actually looked at these communities, some of these are average dudes.
There was one guy who was interviewed as an incel, and it's like he's a normal looking guy.
Put a polo and some khakis on him and he could work at any insurance firm or whatever.
And he was like, don't know what to do.
Now, social skills play a role.
And as I mentioned, the skills gap is largely a factor related to dating apps and the internet.
But there are going to be many above-average guys who don't make the cut.
And this is going to create really weird scenarios.
Now, here's what's happening.
Over at Vox, they wrote in 2018, Nearly 70% of millennial women are Democrats.
Isn't that crazy?
Or a leaning Democrat in the midterms.
I don't know if that's changed or where we're at now.
But this is also going to leave a ton of conservative men without ladies.
Because these women claim they want men who share their values.
But their values... I mean, if you're a Democrat voter right now, your values are based on just fake news and lies.
Sorry, that's just the truth.
They may not want to hear it, but that's reality.
Russiagate.
Fake.
Jussie Smollett.
Fake.
Trayvon Martin.
They fabricated Zimmerman's quote.
They edited the audio.
Hands Up, Don't Shoot.
Fake.
Covington Catholic.
Fake.
The list goes on.
You live in a crackpot world of lies.
And do you think there's going to be a guy?
So what guys have to do now is they're going to have to look at the 68% of millennial women.
So guys are going to have to go to the women and be like, yeah, whatever you say.
And if men and women are about 50-50, that means for every two dudes who are reading the news and more likely to be well-informed, there is only one woman for them to date.
For the women, they got their pick of the litter among the, I guess, whiny male feminist demographic.
But I'll tell you one thing I find really fascinating.
I'll tell you something that the feminists really, really are loathe to hear.
Feminists love conservative men.
They really do.
They'll deny it.
They might lie about it.
But there was a viral post where a feminist was talking about how she fantasizes that a MAGA guy, a six-foot-tall, ripped, Chad MAGA-supporting Trump guy would dominate her.
And I'm not saying every single woman.
I'm saying there are many feminists who very much want strong, liberty-minded, conservative guys.
Because whiny male feminists are not particularly attractive, nor charismatic.
And this is where the problems are starting to come in.
I saw a video.
It was an attractive young woman.
She was like in her mid-twenties, and she said that she was an incel.
She didn't say it like that, but she was just like, she's a homebody who doesn't get laid.
And I'm like, it may be because she's not attractive to these whiny loser dudes.
But she also is scared about the social ramifications of going and hanging out with a bunch of Trump supporters and living in a city.
And then, I think most people just don't care about that stuff and the bell curve is right in the middle and people are dating.
It's funny when you see people like Kellyanne Conway and George Conway.
It's like, how does that happen?
The dude is anti-Trump but the wife is working for Trump?
Like... Okay, whatever.
The long story short of this...
The dating system in this country, and probably around the world, is reverting back to a primitive model, where big strong men get all the women, like we're some kind of, I don't know, monkey tribe or whatever, because that's what chimps do.
The one dude, the one male chimp beats all the other ones up and then bangs all the women.
