Democrats Files To Ban Hate Speech, WEF Elites Say US WILL Ban Speech, FBI GLOATS About Infiltration
Democrats Files To Ban Hate Speech, WEF Elites Say US WILL Ban Speech, FBI GLOATS About Infiltration. The ban targets white supremacy but Democrats have been working to alter the meaning for years.
WEF elites have long been seeking to infiltrate big tech to force US culture in their creepy direction. The ban on speech and end of free speech may not come in the form of a law but from davos elites at the world economic forum pushing crackpot cultist wokeness into big tech platforms.
All this with the help of Democrat politicians. But Elon Musk is pushing back calling out the WEF and censorship
#worldeconomicforum
#democrats
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
will ban hate speech, and a Democrat has introduced a bill to do just that under the guise of banning white supremacy.
But it's one big trick.
As a former FBI director gloats about the government and private cooperation, it's possible it comes to this country.
In our next segment, I directly address the Steven Crowder controversy with The Daily Wire and The Daily Wire's response.
And I'm learning more about this every minute of the day.
So it's a really interesting story.
If you've not heard, check this story out.
It's about the inner workings of the media.
We got a bunch more stories.
Alec Baldwin will be criminally charged.
They found a live bullet in his gun belt.
Interesting.
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.
From Breitbart.
United States will soon make hate speech illegal, says EU Commissioner.
You think they're joking?
We do have a rep out of Texas that wants to ban white supremacist coordinating.
But of course, these leftists don't talk about white supremacy in the way that most Americans do.
To them, it means Western culture.
And I wish I was being hyperbolic, but that's basically what it means.
Now, of course, when we talk about white supremacy, we're talking about advocacy that one race is superior to other races.
They don't view it that way.
In this bill, it basically says that if you communicate the idea, which leads another person to read that idea, which then makes that person decide to be violent, you are responsible for conspiracy.
Now, now, of course, it's in the house.
It's not gonna go anywhere.
I don't take that seriously.
thing. It's one crackpot lady, but Mark my words, if we do not push back, it will become
law in this country. They will ban hate speech and they will manipulate you by saying we're
banning white supremacy. But what they're really banning is you wearing a shirt that
says like, I don't know, Jesus saves. There's another story, man in a mall wearing a shirt
that said Jesus saves and Jesus is the way crossing out coexist was confronted by a mall
security guard who told him basically he's got to take the shirt off.
He didn't get kicked out like some people think, but this is the direction it will go.
They will say that advocacy for your beliefs are, it's hate speech!
And denying their advocacy is also hate speech or white supremacy.
Well, right now over at the World Economic Forum, global elites, including many of our US politicians, are meeting to discuss how they're going to change your life without your consent.
They fly in on private jets while complaining about climate change.
They say, you shouldn't be allowed to fly, you shouldn't be allowed to use certain machines or products because of the pollution, and you should own nothing and be happy. Meanwhile, they fly on private jets.
Meanwhile, they eat the finest foods because what they're really saying is that if they want to
enjoy these things, you cannot.
What they're really saying is that they should be in control of the system without any competition
or fear that the people will tell them no. So this is the direction it goes.
Over on the World Economic Forum, they're entirely convinced the U.S.
will ban hate speech, which basically means end free speech.
It's a bold claim, considering we have a First Amendment, but I don't necessarily think they're wrong.
However, we will resist this.
The reason why I don't necessarily think they're wrong, they've got a big hurdle with the Constitution, but more importantly, We can already see executives getting jobs in big tech companies.
We can already see it with the Twitter files.
They will violate the Constitution and the law to suspend you.
And while maybe it won't literally be made illegal, it will be made impossible.
Because you'll get banned from your banking institution.
You'll get kicked off social media.
Your car won't start.
Because you said naughty words.
And it will be because the people running these big tech platforms are cultists who align with the view of these crackpot World Economic Forum elites who want to control the machine.
So what do we do?
Let's call it out and push back.
Matt Gaetz is filing to abolish the ATF.
Now, guns aren't necessarily in the same vein as speech, but they're right next to each other in the Constitution for a reason.
Now, initially, they weren't the first and second amendments, but they became the first and second.
Some people like to say, well, they're number one and number two because they're the most important.
Well, there was other ones.
There was like, I think the salary of Congress and the size of Congress were considered more important because it was functional, but then when it came to the actual rights of the people, the ability to speak freely is only one component of the First Amendment.
You also have the right to a wages of grievances, freedom of religion, and many more.
And then you get into the Second Amendment.
So, of course, as they continue to erode our rights and strip away our ability to make arguments amongst ourselves and to physically defend ourselves, I would not say it's far-fetched that they will try and take away these rights directly, with assistance from international elites working for big tech.
But let's go through this, and I'll tell you exactly what's going on with all of this and how, ultimately, It may be some kind of international conflict.
It may be some kind of civil war.
But I don't see this ending with people just bowing down and accepting this crackpot policy.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member in order to support our work directly.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
Just click join us over at TimCast.com.
I'll tell you what you do.
When you're a member, what you're doing is giving me some sick days.
I have been out.
The morning show hasn't happened for the past couple of days because my throat's been messed up.
It's basically recovered, so I'm really excited for that.
Didn't take any ibuprofen today.
No, this is actually just I'm able to talk, so I'm very happy I can get back to work.
But it is only because you became members that I was able to take the day off.
When we operated solely on sponsorships and ad revenue, I didn't work, zero money comes in, and that's a scary prospect.
Not zero because there's like YouTube views from older videos, but for that day we make no money.
And that's scary.
With memberships, you guys afford me the ability to take some sick time off.
So, it's not just about supporting the website, supporting our cultural endeavors, it's about that as well.
So, just wanted to say thank you to everybody who's a member because I was able to take a couple days off, rest my voice, though I still did Timcast IRL, that really did help.
Smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
Here's the story from Breitbart.
They report, The U.S.
will soon follow Europe in implementing laws against so-called hate speech, a top bureaucrat claimed at the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos.
The Vice President for Values and Transparency for the EU Commission, Vera Gjurova, predicted on Tuesday that hate speech laws will be imposed upon the American public despite long-standing case law at the Supreme Court protecting such speech under the First Amendment.
Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the US.
I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in criminal law, Drova said.
The Czech politician who previously served as the European Commissioner for Justice, Consumer and Gender Equality.
Oh, look at that.
I'm in no mood today, I will tell you this.
World Economic Forum panel hosted by former CNN host Brian Stelter on the clear and present
danger of disinformation.
I'm, uh, in no mood today.
I will tell you this.
Brian Stelter is one of the king purveyors of disinformation, a man that I would describe
as the banality of evil.
Not malevolent evil.
No, just someone who carries along this broken machine that is destroying our system.
Brian Stelter, I think, is a bad person.
I don't know if I would say he's malevolently evil.
Sorry.
The choice of Stelter may perhaps be viewed by some as ironic, given his own relationship with the truth.
I like how they highlight that.
Yeah, his relationship with the truth is pretty bad, to be honest.
The panel also featured New York Times Chairman Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, and Internews CEO Gene Borgal.
Representative Moulton seemingly agreed with a statement from the EU Commission VP telling her, I think it's general the U.S.
has a lot to learn in terms of data regulation, internet regulation, you're way ahead of us in that regard.
However, the Democrat politician later clarified that he did not believe that American politicians were ready to forsake the fundamental aspects of freedom of speech.
The comments from Jarova come amid the backdrop of the ongoing dispute between the European Union and the new Twitter boss, Elon Musk, over his publicly stated commitment to free speech, which has ruffled feathers in Brussels.
Indeed, Jarova herself commented on the matter to EURACTIV on Tuesday, saying that the platform should partner with the EU in combating hate speech and disinformation, saying, we need the platforms to work with the language to identify such cases.
She said that the European Union laws surrounding online speech will be enforced, saying, they apply to Twitter regardless of who owns it.
Musk should not underestimate our efforts to make big platforms responsible.
I say, Elon Musk, you give them the finger.
Flip him the bird.
You know what I would say?
I'd say, good luck banning us.
Ban us.
Do it.
Ban Twitter in Europe.
Do it!
You know what really bugged me?
The Adpocalypse on YouTube.
Do you remember this a few years ago?
It was like five years ago.
A bunch of advertisers got mad because the Wall Street Journal was making, was ragging on PewDiePie.
The advertisers went to YouTube and said, shut this down or else.
YouTube panicked, created a new system, demonetized everybody.
You know what I would do?
If it were me?
I'd say...
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.
Advertiser, do you want to be on the biggest platform for video and second biggest for
search?
Bye.
Because we can arrange your removal!
You want to be banned so that no one can ever watch your videos again?
How about this?
If you threaten me, here's what I'll do.
I will give free ad dollars to Coke.
If Pepsi wants to come and say, Axe, we'll give it to your competitor.
I'm not saying Coke or Pepsi deliberately did anything.
I'm not trying to call them out.
I'm just saying because Coke's one of the biggest advertisers.
What do you think they'd say?
They'd say, no, no, no, please don't.
Don't do that.
Okay.
Don't come and tell me I have to bend my knee to you.
You are privileged to be here.
Instead, YouTube did the opposite.
Please, please don't hurt us.
We subsidized the platform anyway.
Why?
Because YouTube's ideologically aligned with them in the first place.
And they said, thanks for providing the cover we needed to make these changes.
If I was Elon Musk, and you said, ban hate speech or we ban you, I'd say, do it.
Try it.
See what your people do, how they react.
And then you know what we'll do?
We will offer up free platforms in other spaces.
We will guarantee, here's what I'll do.
The first thing anybody sees when they come to our platform is advocacy against you.
Political action committees advocating against you.
How's that?
And that's probably what happened, but just in the other direction.
So this is what people are saying.
Timcast as a company is similar in a sense to these ESG companies.
We're an ideological company.
We are not here because I want to make money for myself.
Sorry, that's just not reality.
I'm here because I want to have a positive impact on the world.
Now, a lot of these ESG companies say the exact same thing.
That they believe in diversity and equity and a better future.
You know, they're lying.
They're crackpot cultists who want to control everything.
I don't want to control everything.
I want individualism, meritocracy, liberty, personal responsibility.
So these ESG companies sacrifice profit for wokeness.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'm doing the same thing.
Sacrificing profit, but for anti-wokeness.
That is to say, obviously we want to make money here, but my point is this.
I believe we will make more money in the long run by investing in cultural endeavors, so there is a profit motive.
If you invest in ESG, at a certain point you will own nothing and you will be happy.
How is that a good business plan?
It's not.
So this is where we are.
Will they ban free speech in the U.S.?
Texas Rep.
Sheila Jackson Lee introduces a bill to combat white supremacy.
And this is how psychopathic evil people seek to seize from you your rights.
Well, everybody agrees white supremacy is bad.
Why would you go against our bill to stop white supremacy?
Remember when we made the Patriot Act?
You're a patriot, right?
Why would you oppose being a patriot?
Anybody who says no to mass surveillance hates patriots.
That's what they did.
They seek to do it now with this white supremacy garbage.
The Texas Democrat introduced the Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023, which aims to prevent and prosecute white supremacy-inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy-inspired hate crime.
The conspiracy addition means people who use hate speech online could face criminal charges under the legislation, even if they don't act on their threats.
That's right.
The bill says, if you post something in support of white supremacy, anyone sees it, and then acts upon it in a way that is terroristic, you, the speaker, are held responsible.
I believe it's possible.
At some point, they get this kind of legislation on the books.
What is white supremacy?
They're not talking about you going on Twitter and making claims about racial superiority.
They're talking about woke white supremacy.
That is to say, if you think showing up on time, working hard, don't take my word for it, I don't think that's white supremacy.
The Smithsonian published that.
These people think that being on time and saving for the future is white supremacy.
So if you go on Twitter, And you say something like, Oh, here's one.
There's a, what were we talking about?
Boston Medical talking about the, the, the roots of racism in, you know, and, and, and medical technology and science and fat phobia.
That was it.
Fat phobia.
If you said people should lose weight, you were racist.
Well, hold on that way.
Wait, what?
Well, yeah.
Being fatphobic is white supremacy.
That's what they said.
And then what you get from these activists are like, well, it's because, you know, white people tend not to be as fat.
It's Middle Eastern people who are, so it's really just rooted in white supremacy.
That's the game they'll play.
You'll go online and you'll say, I think people should lose weight.
Someone will then do something, spray paint up a building, and they'll say, that was terroristic hate speech.
You conspired to make it happen.
You're both going to jail.
They say, that includes a person who publishes material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on replacement theory, or hate speech that vilifies or otherwise directed against any non-white person or group.
The text of the bill specifically lists social media platforms as one area where hate speech could result in criminal consequences if that hate speech motivates another person to go out and commit a racist crime against others.
Replacement theory?
What does that mean?
If you come out and say that Democrats are not enforcing the border, they will call that replacement theory.
They'll just say it's that.
And this is where we're headed.
So when the World Economic Forum so brazenly hosts a panel with Brian Stelter where they say, you will ban this, don't be surprised if they actually try to.
Oh, I'm sorry.
They are trying to.
Don't be surprised if they actually somehow start to pull this off.
Powerful global interests aligned with big tech are doing what they can to make it a reality here in the United States.
Dave Chappelle says.
The second amendment?
It's just there in case the first one doesn't work out.
That's a scary prospect if you ask me, to be completely honest.
Greg Price tweets, Richard Edelman, CEO of the world's largest PR company, tells businesses to, quote, deprive social media platforms that spread disinformation of oxygen.
Stop advertising.
Pull your promotion money.
The Twitter boycott has had a modest impact, but the Facebook one failed.
This is where they're headed.
And, I don't know, as an aside, for some reason, TimCast is trending.
Well, okay, I guess.
But, uh, yeah.
This is the direction they're going.
Take your money away from these companies.
They seek to create a social and economic enforcement of this, and we've already seen it.
We are lucky that Elon Musk bought Twitter and then started calling this out and releasing this information.
But it's far from perfect.
It's not gonna save us.
Michael Knowles coming in with the Twitter thread.
He said, if you thought the Twitter files were as bad as it gets for the trust and safety of big tech merging with government, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Safety by design might be the biggest tech threat you've never heard of.
The World Economic Forum, the Australian government, and a radical bureaucrat named Julie Inman Grant are using it to impose their woke ideology onto the internet for everyone worldwide.
Here's how.
You may remember Julie Grant, the Australian e-safety commissioner, from this viral World Economic Forum clip last year in which she proposed a recalibration of free speech.
I wonder what that means.
After beginning her career in DC, Grant tried to become a safety antagonist, her words, at Microsoft, Adobe, and pre-Elon Twitter.
She left big tech after her push for safety by design fell flat and went where her scheme for control was welcome, the Australian Government and World Economic Forum.
The E-Safety Commissioner operates programs everyone can all get behind, such as removing child abuse imagery.
But the programs don't stop at that line of legality.
The office also seeks to suppress whatever it deems harmful.
Every so often we hear what that means.
In between Grant's apparent desire to have app stores ban more than parlor and her mockery of middle-aged Caucasian men, you might have noticed two key mentions, harm and basic online safety expectations, which fall under safety by design.
So what is safety by design?
It's the notion that the government regulators cannot possibly keep up with innovation, so liberals' regulatory preferences need to be built into the technology itself.
Perhaps.
They will not outright make illegal speech.
They will culturally cut it in half.
That's the fear, I suppose.
In order to operate in Australia and many more countries soon, if World Economic Forum has its way, more on that in a moment, a company would have to abide by these basic online safety expectations and lean into the safety pushed by the E-Safety Commissioner and the World Economic Forum.
Here are just a few screenshots from eSafety's website, Enterprise, training course for tech companies.
It lists hate speech, individual identity attacks, disinformation and misinformation, and conspiracy content as items for the companies to suppress.
Remember, uh, you ever watch V for Vendetta?
There's that scene where, uh, Evie, played by Natalie Portman, is in that, uh, cardinal's room, or I think it was a cardinal or priest or something.
And then there's a truck driving around, listening.
And then they hear the man yell, oh please, I don't want to die.
And they go, oh no.
And they rush in.
This is what we're talking about.
You will say something.
Of your own, in your own privacy, in your own space, and they will be listening.
And then they'll knock on your door.
Now it won't be the same as, you know, that, that, in that instance, they saved a guy's life.
I mean, he was a bad guy, don't get me wrong.
Or they didn't save him.
They were trying to rush to save him.
So there is the notion that they'll try to use this.
They'll say, think about it.
If we can listen in on all of your devices, you know, your little at-home assistants, if someone's threatening you, we'll be there to save you because we can hear it.
Let us eavesdrop.
That was the NSA's argument.
In reality, here's what's really going to happen.
In this story from Pointer, mall security confronted a man wearing a Jesus Saves t-shirt.
Is that protected free speech?
Yes!
Of course it is!
The Supreme Court has weighed in.
Blah blah blah.
Here's the image.
The man was wearing a shirt that says, Jesus saves.
On the back it said, Jesus, I believe it says, is the way, and coexist is crossed out.
They're saying, and look at this, Poynter is actually arguing, that's the real reason for the confrontation.
A week prior, he was soliciting people, and he was kicked out for trespassing.
They're acting like it wasn't that he said Jesus saves, it was that he crossed out coexist, and my attitude is just like, and?
He's allowed to.
That's free speech.
They're not going to come out and protect your right to speak.
They're going to come out and silence your opinions.
They say things like, in reality, you can't have free speech if there's hate speech because hate speech stops minorities and marginalized voices from speaking.
But that's their choice.
No one physically held their mouths shut.
They just said naughty words.
So say it's you that they're naughty.
Take a look at this from Drew Hernandez.
Director of FBI, Christopher Wray, says the level of collaboration between the private
sector and the government, especially the FBI, has made significant strides.
He states the FBI's concern about technology getting into who they determine are the wrong hands.
Well, that's it. The government, the intelligence agencies, they don't care about legislation.
The ATF wants to ban guns.
They want to ban pistol braces, stabilizing braces, but they're not a legislative body.
This is the important point.
I do believe, and not to go off all on guns and everything, but recently the ATF said stabilizing braces make it a short-barreled rifle.
Now they're illegal.
I'm sorry, the ATF isn't a regulatory body.
They're law enforcement.
They don't get to just decide what you're doing is illegal.
But this has been what Joe Biden has been doing, and the executive branch has been doing, and it's been getting worse.
I think about Viva Vendetta.
There will come a time when people like me will be pushed into the underground and you'll be getting this on pirate radio or something.
Because here's what's going to happen.
The ATF just announced.
They're illegal.
Better register them or give them up.
And what happens if you don't?
Well, they'll arrest you.
And then while you're in prison, you'll file your lawsuit.
And then maybe in two years, the Supreme Court will agree with you and say, yeah, only Congress can pass these laws.
You're free to go.
I mean, two years, your life's gone.
You have no money left.
Your family has, you know, been living a life without you.
Joe Biden.
Even Donald Trump said this.
Donald Trump said, you know, take the guns and then go to the courts later.
Determining that what you have is illegal without Congress.
Nobody agreed to that.
It's despotism.
And Trump, they call, what Luke calls him, Bumpstock Donnie.
Well, federal court just ruled that bumpstock ban unconstitutional.
But here's my point.
Maybe you don't care about guns.
Fine.
It's only a matter of time before there is a law enforcement body that says, the DHS, FBI, they will outright say, advocacy of white supremacy is making terroristic threats.
We don't need a new law because we already have a law.
It's interpretation.
And that's how it's always worked.
Think about what this woman is saying with the idea of white supremacy.
She is saying Western culture.
She is not saying advocacy of a superior race.
They've changed the definition.
That's the game they'll play.
Making terroristic threats is illegal.
Right?
The idea there is if you threaten someone with harm against them, or their family, or their possessions, in the demand of a political aim, you are making terroristic threats.
What will happen is, you will say something like, I plain just think, you know, this person is bad.
I just plain don't think children should get sex changes.
They will then say, that is hate speech, inspiring terror, you are making terroristic threats.
And they'll come and arrest you.
Look at the COVID lockdowns.
Everything they did that was unconstitutional and illegal.
We are continually moving in a direction where they are taking actions first and then saying argue later.
And I do believe it will get worse.
Conservatives react to Elon Musk's poll about the World Economic Forum.
There is hope, my friends!
Elon Musk will not save you, but he's certainly stopping that giant boulder from crushing our small city.
He is that giant who stops it and he's like, y'all better get out of the way while you still can or push back.
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 Elon Musk has been ragging on the World Economic Forum, and it's good that he is.
I think Elon Musk is the kind of guy who's like, humans, if there's a lot of them, we can solve our problems through technology.
The Davos Group people are like, we don't care.
Just give us less people.
That's evil.
I think that's evil because less people means less technology.
Let me ask you, do you know how to build a computer?
Now, I'm not talking about making silicon chips or anything like that.
I'm asking you, can you take the parts from the store and put them together?
Now, of course, many of you said, yes, of course, of course I can.
How many of you said no?
I gotta tell you, it's not a particularly complicated thing to plug the RAM in, put in the processor, put the paste on.
But if you don't know how to do it, you run into a bunch of problems connecting the right cables in the right spots.
Not the most complicated thing.
Could take the average person 10 minutes to figure out.
I mean, like watching tutorials.
My point is this, if we eliminate these specialties, you will be thinking about things that are seemingly commonplace.
Look, let me ask you, how does a TV screen work?
Do you genuinely know?
Here's what I know.
Electricity, LED screen, meaning a whole bunch of small light-emitting diodes, how do they emit different colors?
No idea.
How do you line them up?
No idea.
How do you make them so small?
I have no idea.
I would not be able to make you an LED TV if society collapsed and most specialties are wiped out.
Everything reduces down to its basics.
Farming.
Foraging.
Hunting.
And you'll get some smelting.
I'll tell you what I can.
This is what I can say.
There are some things that you and I, as the layman, have been granted access to knowledge.
Like, how do you find iron?
Well, I can tell you this.
I would not be able to make you a cast iron skillet.
But I do know that iron tends to be red, and I've seen iron-rich mud before, I know what iron-rich rock looks like, and I know how to make a fire, and I could probably, over time, figure out how to make some kind of crucible or kiln.
Might take me a couple years to actually figure out how to smelt iron and then forge it.
You break it down, you gotta smelt to make the tools to make the hammers, harder metals.
I think if society collapsed completely.
We'd figure a lot of things out really quickly just on having seen them and understanding them.
Pulleys, levers, etc.
But I'll tell you this, man.
We ain't gonna be building a toaster anytime soon.
Nah.
We'll put the toast over the fire until it toasts and then we'll eat it that way.
Simple.
But toasters are seemingly commonplace devices.
This is my point.
This is why Elon Musk is pushing back.
This is why I think the World Economic Forum is dangerous and why I think Elon is a net positive.
Elon wants to go to Mars and he wants to colonize space.
You need more people to do it.
I can't make a rocket thruster.
I can't build a life support system.
No one person could.
But a million people together in a decentralized network can.
The World Economic Forum talk about climate change, reducing energy consumption, reducing population growth.
The real solution is a realignment of human priorities to convince people to pursue discipline and progress and technology and understanding.
So far, what the World Economic Forum people have pushed is gluttony, self-gratification, because I think these people are the devil in the metaphor of the devil and the angel on your shoulder.
Or you can just say they're the devil, in that sense.
Satanic!
Whatever you want to call it.
I don't literally think, like, they're worshipping Satans, though many of them probably are.
I view it as this.
What Elon Musk, and to a great degree, MAGA, what it represents is the angel on your shoulder saying, Build.
Survive.
Progress.
Save.
Repair.
And the World Economic Forum types the Democrats are on the other side, the devil, saying, burn it down.
And that's why when I look at what Elon Musk is doing, net positive.
But is it just him against the World Economic Forum?
To a certain degree it is.
The World Economic Forum, I'm not going to say they are the cabal or anything like that.
It's just a place where the global elites meet and talk about the awful things they want to do that will be a net negative to humanity.
But they like the idea.
They think the net negative is the way to go.
They think there's too many people.
They think it should be 500 million.
You get to that point, your luxuries are gone, your space travel is gone, your video games are gone.
That's what they want.
Here's what I want.
I think Elon Musk wants something similar.
What we want is the ability to expand, to be good stewards of the Earth, to live better, longer lives, to travel the stars, to learn and understand and progress.
Develop.
To create complex systems.
To take free energy and further create massive systems.
You need more people to do it, not less.
So Elon Musk wants to build a spaceship to go to Mars.
I mean, that's the solution to overpopulation.
Space colonization.
There's challenges.
We don't know everything about the universe.
We don't know how to travel faster than light, or if it's even possible, we assume maybe.
Maybe not.
But maybe we can get close.
But what does that mean for time dilation?
Oh, man.
The questions that linger.
I can tell you this.
You eliminate people and collapse population, you'll never learn.
You'll never know.
I don't know, man.
Maybe the Davos people think, get rid of billions of people and then realign the other billion.
I think the answer is realignment.
But what we're seeing is something just absolutely brutal.
I don't have all the answers.
A lot of this stuff is secret.
Not all these people are evil.
Many of them are just stupid.
I can't pretend to know everything.
And, um, maybe you'd be surprised at the direction this planet and this country goes.
But I don't trust them.
Because they lie.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
Go check it out!
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I'm sure most of you already know about Steven Crowder's website StopBigCon and his call out of what he says is a very bad contract.
Last night during TimCast IRL, The Daily Wire published their response to Steven Crowder confirming it was The Daily Wire who offered up this contract and Jeremy Boring, the co-CEO of The Daily Wire, spent an hour Breaking down finer points in the contract and explaining why he feels Steven Crowder was wrong, and we addressed it last night.
Having actually watched the video now, being able to, because, look, when we're live on Tim Castellaw, I can't watch the thing, because we're live, it's an hour long, I mean, we're not gonna turn the whole show into just, let's have Jeremy air his personal view here.
We looked at a few points in the video where he highlights key contract points to address them.
I've had a chance to actually watch the video now from Jeremy Boring.
I've made some notes.
It's not so easy to directly address a full one-hour video, but I want to talk to you about Steven Crowder's perspective, his complaints, and what's going on with The Daily Wire.
You know, I guess to extend my experience with the Daily Wire and all of this, and I'll tell you right off the bat, I don't think there's any bad guys here.
You know, Stephen Crowder said, stop big con.
It's a big con.
And I'm not a fan of that because he's accusing the Daily Wire of that.
The Daily Wire guys, especially Jeremy Boring, have been the best external company I have ever done business with in any capacity, and we've done no formal, like, transactional business.
What I mean is, I've talked to big companies like Disney and, you know, Fox or whatever, and I'm not a fan of how these big faceless garbage corporations operate.
The Daily Wire and The Blaze.
I've talked to these guys and, you know, some of the times I can roll my eyes and then, you know, I'll come back to my team and I'll be like, yeah, okay.
You know, here's what they say to me.
But it's still been the best.
And Steven Crowder has also been a tremendously good guy to me as well.
And so for my position here, It's very esoteric, I know, but I'll try and give you guys as much as a behind-the-scenes into how this media operates, the culture war, what we're doing, why we're fighting, how we're fighting, my perspective on it, and why I think it's important that these guys don't fight.
Crowder is going to be joining us on TimCast IRL on Monday to give his perspective.
So I think it's fair to say, right off the bat, I commented on Steven Crowder's video.
He's right about everything.
And to provide context in that, I didn't know immediately he was talking about The Daily Wire.
A lot of people thought he was.
But he is completely right about these contracts.
And so I will say this, you know, to Jeremy Boring, who I consider, to a certain degree, a friend.
We don't hang out all the time or anything, but you know, like, we're working on some projects together.
Non-transactional, more just like... I don't want to get into too much detail because I don't want to ruin the fun, but we're planning some fun cultural endeavors.
As you guys know, when I went on Twitter and said, what do I got to do, put up a billboard in Times Square that Taylor Lorenz docs libs of TikTok, Jeremy Boring tweets, I'm game, let's do this!
And the Daily Wire took the charge and helped make all of that possible.
I think the Daily Wire is doing tremendously important things in the culture war, and I do not see anything that's happening here as them as bad guys.
What I want to say is, what I mean when I say Crowder is right, is that going through these contracts, the situation is completely untenable for someone like Crowder.
To receive a contract like this, that, let's slow down for those that aren't familiar, Steven Crowder, of course, for those that aren't familiar, one of the most prominent voices is in independent media, in anti-establishment media, in conservative media, whatever you want to call the space.
There's a variety of things that he receives in this contract that he takes issue with, that I think he is right to take issue with, but I think he also doesn't necessarily understand.
I think Jeremy Boring, the CEO of the Daily Wire, co-CEO, sorry, offered these things up in good faith, But took a corporate business approach to an independent anti-establishment kind of person and then was surprised to see that this guy is like, how dare you say this to me?
So there's a whole lot to break down here.
But what I want to stress is the Daily Wire is doing really, really good stuff.
We're working on some side silly projects, not too dissimilar to what we did in Times Square.
This is, you know, so basically I've talked with, uh, we've had Jeremy Borg on the show twice.
I've talked with the team over at The Daily Wire.
We've had a bunch of their personalities.
In fact, tonight, Candace Owens will be joining us, and I'm a big fan of what they do.
I think they do tremendously good work.
I think they take a very different approach to what we do here at Timcast.
I think we try to be substantially less corporate.
I've had these conversations with Jeremy Boring.
We laugh, cheers our coffee mugs, and then he says, good luck, and I chuckle as I say, all right, we'll see how it goes, you know?
But I like the Daily Wire crew.
I also really, really like Steven Crowder and think he's probably the most important
personality in the anti-establishment space.
But there's a lot of things that I do want to address and I want to talk about my personal
experiences.
So this is not so much to say, like I'm taking issue with either, but I want to address some
points and I think there can be some pushback on Crowder a little bit.
That being said, Crowder's going to come on Tim Kast's IRL and I want to really hear from
him to me what I'm not getting right, because I'm sure I'm not.
Here's what happens.
Crowder puts out a video.
I watched it.
I say, those are really good points.
He's right.
You get these contracts from these big companies and you're like, this makes no sense.
And I'll explain in detail.
And I'm like, he's right.
You can't do a deal like that.
I've done similar things.
I take a different approach.
I'm the milquetoast fencer, right?
I've gone to business meetings with these big companies and they've done this to me where they give me a contract that's utter garbage and I said the exact same thing Crowder did.
Jeremy Boring mentions that Crowder gets on the phone and says, I'm not going to bother redlining this.
This is a terrible offer.
You need to fix it and come back.
Crowder is right.
I don't blame The Daily Wire for this, though.
This is how business works.
But as Ian pointed out on TimCast IRL, the times they are a-changin'.
We cannot operate this way.
This is why there is no transactional relationship between TimCast and The Daily Wire.
They're doing their thing.
It's extremely important.
We're doing our thing.
I hope you agree it's extremely important.
Become a member at TimCast.com if you want to support our mission.
Our mission, similar, different strategy.
I go to The Daily Wire.
We have conversations about what can we do to make ourselves stronger.
We're substantially smaller than them.
Ultimately, I just said, look guys, I think we do things a different way.
I think I'm a bit more brash and aggressive, and I don't think you can offer me what I need.
And Jeremy says, you know, you're right.
We appreciate what you do.
We think there's an opportunity, non-transactional, and fist bump, handshake, and I say I wish you all the best.
I've had business deals where I was given a contract. This literally happened with a big,
big network. And I emailed, I was off. They sent me one of the most egregiously offensive contracts
I've ever received. And I said, you expect me to hire a lawyer and pay money because you
wanted to send me garbage.
I'm not doing it.
Now, what I didn't do is I didn't make a big video and then come out and say, okay guys, here's everything this company did to slight me.
I'll tell you why.
I don't want collateral damage.
Um, I look at some of these big corporations and I, I don't like them at all.
I look at some of these big corporations that are still promoting viewpoints that I think will help this country.
I say, okay, what they did is not a matter of public interest in the larger sense.
I will talk about it to a certain extent to call out the cultural practice, but I don't want to cause collateral damage to a company that I think is a net positive, even if there is a net negative.
That's just me.
You may disagree with me and think I'm wrong.
Please do so.
Comment and tell me.
Because I've had a lot of people say, no, no, no, Tim, you've got to name names, you've got to call them out to make it stop.
And I've thought about that.
Which brings me into this whole thing with Crowder and The Daily Wire, and there's a lot to say.
The Daily Wire pointed out something very important, that if Crowder were to get banned or something, he can still produce for the website, and Crowder does this piss-off YouTube segment.
It's exactly what we do, okay?
So I want to explain, just right off the bat, and then I want to read through some of these notes to make a few points.
It's hard to structure all these thoughts around an hour-long response video, and I will stress again, I may make a point that is not adequately representing Steven Crowder's view, And that's because he hasn't had a chance to rebut what The Daily Wire has said.
But I will say this.
A lot of people get mad at us because they're like, you guys don't talk about big important stories on TimCast IRL or on YouTube.
And I said, my guy.
There are certain stories I would love to talk about.
YouTube will delete our channel outright and cause us massive financial harm.
At this point, because you guys are members, we don't have the risk of the company being destroyed by this.
In 2020, we were averaging like some ridiculous number like 70, 80 million views per month for the year with a peak of like 120 million views and the money was amazing.
It was all ad revenue.
We asked nothing of you other than sometimes ads appear and it's all programmatic.
We don't place the ads.
And that meant we deliver the content for free with ads.
And then I realized something.
If we get a strike, My employees don't get paid.
That money is gone.
And that's a scary thought.
The rent doesn't get paid.
The insurance doesn't get paid.
The gas doesn't get paid.
The airline tickets.
And I was like, we need to have a membership component and we should have done it a long time ago.
We launched this.
I believe we launched at the beginning of 2021 and we were overloaded immediately.
I think we signed up something like 20,000 members in a week.
Give you a general idea of our total membership numbers.
The Daily Wire, they're much more comfortable announcing their total numbers and revenue.
I've been less comfortable doing that.
It's kind of a scary prospect in full honesty.
It's like there is a fear of like, if you reveal too much, can you open up the door to your detractors to try and take you down?
I've been getting a bunch of messages because we mentioned on, uh, I mentioned on the, the, the IRL show when I directly addressed Crowder's video, I mentioned we do around eight figures and all of a sudden I get inundated.
Yo, they're going to come after you now.
And I'm like, yeah, you know, and the challenge is that amount of money we make has to pay the bills on everything we're building, has to pay the bill on the new studio, the new shows we're producing.
It may sound like a lot of money, it is, but it's not like it's a lot of money that I just take and then buy a garage full of Ferraris.
It's, we pay all the employees, which is the bulk of our costs, as always.
We invest in, we've spent a lot of money on documentaries that are currently being produced.
We've thrown money at projects that have been fruitless and have not made us a lot of money.
Back to the point.
We do really well because of you as members, combined with sponsorships.
Memberships makes us the bulk of our revenue.
We dropped ads on the website for the most part, and a big move that we're making now is an effort to control all of our sponsors.
Excuse me, still struggling with my voice.
The idea is, if a sponsor drops you, you're screwed, right?
So we want memberships.
If we do a segment that YouTube deems to violate their guidelines, they shut our business down for a week on YouTube.
We still have the website, we still have podcasts, so we can still generate ad revenue.
You as members give us a guaranteed fortification.
When I lost my voice, still kind of trying to recover, I didn't do the morning show for two days.
That is a terrifying prospect to me.
Because I have obligations.
Just because the money is coming in doesn't mean that... Just because we're making a lot of money doesn't mean I can stop working.
I stop working, it's gone.
Employees get laid off.
Rent doesn't get paid.
Obligations are unfulfilled.
Contracts go bad.
I get sued.
It's scary.
Because you guys are members.
Less scary.
Now I'm like, okay, a lot of people are going to cancel.
And this is a fact.
When I don't produce content, we watch memberships go down.
Most people, however, sign up, let it ride.
That means I know that if I lose my voice, I can take a morning off.
I still refuse to take the nightly show off to my own detriment and risk.
I know a lot of people have also complained about that, saying, Tim, take the day off.
I get it.
Y'all don't want me to lose my ability to do this job, but I want you to understand, as much as I am deeply appreciative of those saying, just take the days off, people do drop us if I take any time off.
People ask me, Tim, how do you become so successful?
For three years, I worked Monday to Sunday, recording two hours every single day.
As it goes, Casey Neistat made an excellent video.
30 seconds long.
Life is like being on a treadmill.
If you stop moving, you go backwards.
If you walk, you stay where you are.
You have to sprint.
It's tough.
It's hard.
Not everybody's cut out for it.
But just know that even when I am sick, injured, or otherwise, I have this fire with me.
I refuse to stop, even to my own risk and detriment.
And the only reason I didn't record the past two days was because I was physically incapable and I was pissed off the whole time.
And I still refused to drop TimCast IRL, because I knew I got Ian, I got Luke, and our guests, they can carry a portion of that conversation, despite the fact that when the Crowder story came out, I kept talking non-stop.
So here's the point.
With TimCast.com, when you're a member, we know that there are things YouTube will ban us for, and will shut the business down.
And there's nothing we can do about it.
So I say, we have the speakeasy set up, okay?
You guys watch on YouTube.
We talk about as much as we can, but I will not sacrifice 99 cultural issues in the culture war, in this conflict, so that I can say one.
And that is a compromise and it's painful.
But I know that if we can build up TimCast.com, much like The Daily Wire is trying to build The Daily Wire, we can inoculate ourselves from the censorship.
We have to do it.
It's the only way.
If we didn't have TimCast.com, if The Daily Wire didn't have their membership platform, we would be locked in a box.
Which brings me to addressing many of these points in this conflict with Crowder and The Daily Wire.
One thing that Jeremy Boring said is that Steven Crowder never ran a company.
And he's right.
Steven Crowder has been contracted by bigger networks.
I don't believe Steven Crowder understands the finer points of what goes on behind the scenes.
That's not to say he's wrong.
I think Steven Crowder is right about these contracts.
Crowder is not the guy who runs a business.
If you want to deal with Crowder, you assume the risks.
That's what I would say to Jeremy and the Daily Wire guys.
They've come out and they've said, well, how can we do it?
If Crowder gets banned or gets a strike, we can't make money.
That's not fair to us.
And I'm like, then don't do a deal with him.
But to Jeremy Boring's point, he literally says that in his video.
He says, we realized this is not a deal we could do with Crowder.
We said, have a nice day.
Crowder got mad about the contract and decided to come out and call it out.
The Daily Wire says, it was months.
They talked about this.
Months went by.
And Jeremy says he thought everything was fine.
Crowder then comes out and says, you're screwing over smaller creators.
I can't accept this.
Crowder is right to a certain extent.
My view is there's a lot of people who are new to the space who are going to do a deal with the Daily Wire that I think it's not the way I would do things.
And that's why I think Crowder is right.
I don't think it's right to say that Jeremy's a bad dude.
I think Jeremy's being like, we're not going to assume the full risks, but we are going to invest in you.
I don't do business that way.
I assume the risks and I often joke to everybody, much to the chagrin of the other team, the managers here and my girlfriend, when we're negotiating with someone, I basically say this.
Unlimited sick time.
Unlimited vacation time.
No term contracts.
We'll pay you a salary.
Do the work.
That means I'm investing in you as a creative person to produce work that I think is important and will change the world and at any point you can leave and I lose all that money.
Why?
Because if you don't want to be here you shouldn't be here.
You need to want to be here and that also means if I can't afford to keep you here I lose all my money.
The way I described it is, I could take all that money and buy a gold bar.
Gold bar ain't going nowhere.
I can put it in the closet.
I come back in a year, open the door, gold bar sitting there, accumulated value.
But I tell you my friends, gold bar ain't changing the world.
I don't care about a gold bar.
So Jeremy Boring is trying to build an empire.
I shouldn't even put it that way.
Let's say he's trying to build a fortification to push back on the likes of Disney, a nigh impossible task maybe he can do.
He decides to run business a way I don't.
I don't think he's wrong to run his business this way because it's his business.
If Crowder didn't like the terms, well then Crowder can say no to them.
Crowder is concerned that if the way Daily Wire does business persists, you end up with another massive monolithic machine like Disney.
That's their opinions.
I had a meeting with the Daily Wire, several meetings, several phone meetings, and we were discussing transactional business opportunities.
I was, as I stated earlier, in all the business dealings that I've done, the best negotiations I've ever had were with the Daily Wire.
I've had business negotiations with other big companies where I just get really pissed off.
I've had negotiations with the likes of, say, Disney, when I worked for Fusion, and the contracts are annoying, but I was in a weakened position.
As someone who needed revenue and didn't have a business, I said okay to terms that I thought were probably bad.
I got locked up.
That's what Crowder takes issue with.
Crowder's not completely, he's not wrong about this.
This is the thing.
I don't know what the Daily Wire could do if they want to run their business a different way, but let me get to the points, the notes that I took.
Crowder's never run a company, and this is why when Crowder put out the video I mentioned, I texted him saying, sometimes I think to myself, there was a period where I was in New Jersey, I'm playing World of Warcraft and my boxers.
I was making 300k a year or whatever with two small YouTube channels.
Maybe that's when I should have stopped.
Maybe that's when I should have just said, this is paradise.
I wake up, I read the news, I complain about it on the internet.
No one really cares about me to complain about me, to do hit pieces against me.
Nobody's posting pictures of my family.
No one's threatening my life.
I'm not gonna be buying any yachts anytime soon, but I own a house, I got a car, I built a van.
Hey, this is great.
Playing World of Warcraft at night.
Wrapping up work around four, having the rest of the day to go skate, to have a barbecue with my friends.
It was paradise.
And then I decided, we got to change the world.
We've got to make this place better.
And I will stop at nothing to do so.
Now I work 16 hour days.
I get death threats all the time.
People are literally trying to kill me.
And despite all of this, there are still people who post every day about how I'm awful, a grifter, even people, libertarians, even people on the right, and that I'm chasing only money and fame.
And I'm just like, man, maybe I should have stayed in paradise.
But nobody said fighting a culture war would be easy.
Nobody said deciding to stand up and scream at the top of your lungs would be easy.
And I knew that.
I don't care about having a nice car, a Ferrari or whatever.
And I try to be as transparent as possible, much like Jeremy Boring is trying to do, and I respect it tremendously.
I got a Tesla Model S. That's right, baby.
One of the most expensive cars.
It's beautiful.
I didn't want to buy it.
I never dreamed of having a car like that.
I like having it.
It's awesome.
I bought it because as the company makes money and we try to invest properly to fortify our defenses, you cannot just have cash sitting in the bank.
And anybody who understands this understands.
The FDIC insures only up to $250,000.
If the bank goes under, the money's gone.
So what do you do?
I say, where can I place money strategically?
Now, it's not the only investment I have.
I'm telling you I have it to make a point.
Some people are going to mock me and insult me, and they have.
They're like, here's Tim, he's so rich, he's got a model S plan.
I'm like, dude.
We've invested in employees and their projects.
That money's gone.
We've invested in properties to make rent, to try and sharp our business, to ensure that we never stop.
We're starting coffee shops and a coffee business so that if they come after us and give us strikes, we still have revenue coming in and we can still have an impact.
It is not just the car.
There is a wide array of things I've invested in so that I'm not sitting on a pile of cash.
But the whole mission, the whole point, is so that we can keep up this culture war.
I hope you trust me when I say, if it really was ever about the money, why would anyone in my position accept the swattings, the bomb threats, the death threats, for this?
I could go back to paradise as I described it, but that's not what it's about.
It's about being on the battlefield.
We're going long on this one.
Fee reduction.
Steven Crowder got mad because in the contract it said that his fee would be reduced, but I want to make a very, very important point.
I hope people understand.
They were offering him $12.5 million guaranteed with a reduction in fee if he got boycotted or got a strike.
The fee reduction On an advertiser boycott, they said if 50% of his ad revenue dries up due to boycott, and they can't recover it in 90 days, he loses 25% for that year.
That's a tremendously good offer the Daily Wire made that I would never make.
I would never give someone that offer.
That's insane.
I was shocked to hear that the Daily Wire said this.
Consider this.
Crowder's going to do membership revenue.
It's nebulous.
We don't know what that number would be.
Maybe $300,000.
And he's going to do ad revenue.
And they said outright, you can lose half of your ad revenue and for 90 days, we'll keep paying you.
Whoa!
I'm paying him full.
Afterwards, we'll dock you 25%.
I gotta be honest, guys, that is a ridiculously good deal for Crowder.
That's insane.
I would never offer that.
I would actually say the deal I would do is no guarantee.
Well, that's not true.
The deals we do are basically like this.
I tell everybody, you get a salary.
Once what you're working on goes black, meaning it starts generating revenue, I'm gonna give you almost all of it.
If the revenue stops, you're not making any money, we go back to your base.
So I am guaranteeing a certain number.
It's nowhere near 50 million.
I could never do a deal with someone like Crowder.
We pay people various salaries and I say your salary is guaranteed forever.
Don't worry about it until you leave or stab me in the back.
That means if you get sick, don't care.
If you stop working, eventually I'll ask you where you went.
But you keep getting paid that base salary, don't worry about it.
But to guarantee someone 12.5 million and then say, we're only gonna knock you down 25% and keep paying you this fee even though we lost half your ad revenue, that's surprising to me.
Seriously.
Jeremy Boring makes this point, he says, if we make a dollar, if two dollars come in from your show, and we make a dollar and you make a dollar, I give you a dollar so you can run your business and pay yourself, we take a dollar so we can run our portion of the business and pay ourselves, if half of that revenue is gone, Why would we just give you the dollar and then lose everything?
And Crowder says, you should lose the money.
It's your responsibility.
My point to Crowder, and I know he'll want to rebut this.
So with all due respect, I look forward to hearing his rebuttal.
I'm not saying this.
My issue is, um, Steven, you're not an employee.
You're a contractor.
Contractors split the risk.
If you're an employee, I would agree with you.
Then it's on Jeremy.
If you work for my company, it's on him.
Hence my point.
The people who work here are guaranteed a salary.
No matter what.
Even when what they do isn't making me money.
Most people who work here, they're all making me money in some capacity, but with all due respect to the crew here, it costs me money for them to be here.
I'm investing in them, I believe in them, I think they're changing the world, and I'm trying to figure out every way possible how to make them bigger and more prominent.
I think Pop Culture Crisis should have a million subscribers.
Brett and Mary are immeasurable talents.
It's costing me money to get them there.
They are making money, however, but I spend more believing in them because I see tremendous talent and hard work and X Factor.
We will get them there.
I'm sure of it.
And that means I'm going to spend money and lose it so that they can live and work and do what they have to do.
When their show reaches the point where they're generating tremendous sums of money, I only ask that our costs are covered and there's like a percentage fee that comes to the company, but the bulk of the revenue needs to go to them to some capacity for them doing the work.
We just want to get paid back.
We want to build talent.
They work for me.
They are my employees.
I have tremendous respect for them.
They can leave whenever they want.
They don't have to be here.
But that also means I assume those risks.
Crowder doing a contract with the Daily Wire, well that's Crowder.
You don't work for the Daily Wire.
You have tremendous freedoms.
Here's the terms they offer you up front.
They say Crowder was already demonetized, and this is where I will ding the Daily Wire a little bit.
Daily Wire, Jeremy says, well, you should have come back and redlined that.
No, absolutely not.
Jeremy, you guys made a mistake on this one.
I don't think you're bad guys.
I just think you made a mistake on this one.
It happens.
You should have known that they were already demonetized.
Your lawyers should have known this, and you should have entered the agreement knowing that.
That's a due diligence mistake.
I don't think Crowder should be angry about it.
I think he should laugh and be like, come on, guys, you screwed this one up.
And the Daily Wire should go, yeah, we did.
How can you enter into an agreement saying if you get demonetized, you get 25% reduction without knowing YouTube already did this?
Come on, guys.
So I understand why Crowder's like, you want me to spend money on that?
I'm not redlining that.
Crowder's right.
You know, I don't think Jeremy's a bad dude.
I think he made a mistake on this one.
I don't like his contract as he's offered it, but I also understand there's no other way to do the deal.
I went to the Daily Wire.
I sat down with Jeremy and a bunch of other guys.
I said, here's what we're doing.
There's no no in business, only terms.
There was a possibility that Tim Cass and the Daily Wire had some more transactional deal.
We explored all the possibilities.
Why?
There's so much I don't know.
And Jeremy's given me a lot of advice because I know they're 20 times bigger than we are.
I'm no fool.
And Jeremy, I think, is a good dude.
I've been on the phone with Jeremy and I'm like, what can we do?
I know that I need help.
And he's like, well, I don't know if we can be the ones who can offer you help.
And I'm like, we run into these walls, run into these obstacles.
And Jeremy's giving me free advice.
I remember when we ran into that obstacle.
When we were at your size with this many employees, here's what we had to do.
And I'm like, thanks man, I really do appreciate that.
That really helps us.
For nothing.
For no reason.
He has no reason to say, Jeremy could have come to me and said, look, You're never going to get past these hurdles.
You're going to keep running into them.
It's going to be miserable.
Your only option is to sign a deal with us.
That's not what he said.
He said...
Look man, you're going to run into a bunch of obstacles that I believe you will be able to overcome, because you're a smart guy and you've come this far.
What I can offer you is, I can clear those obstacles out of your way.
We can do a deal.
It'll make your life easier and more comfortable, but that does mean you'll be under contract to a certain degree with us.
And I said, that's a tempting offer, man.
It really is.
Because I think back to what I described as paradise, right?
How awesome would it be if someone else ran everything?
But I said, Jeremy, I think You know, I'm not just a personality running a show.
There's a lot that I want to do in terms of running a business that I don't think I could do if we ever did have some kind of deal.
And he goes, you're probably right.
And if that's the case, give me a call if you ever need anything.
And I think, you know, we can help each other out and we're going to win this thing.
And I'm like, right on, buddy.
So we have Daily Wire guests come on.
We run the ship differently.
Jeremy offering me a deal that may be a bad deal is me simply laughing and saying, Jeremy, it's a bad deal!
And he goes, I'm sorry you think that.
And I'm like, I just don't think it's possible that we can do a deal.
And then he says, yeah.
And then we move on.
I think they screwed up on the demonetization thing.
Let's read a little bit.
This is an important point.
The fee resets every year.
That means if Crowder got docked 25% at the start of the new year, he goes back to normal.
Assuming, you know, if the fee resets, that means the 90-day thing kicks in.
It may persist, it may not.
This is a really important point.
Around 3756, Jeremy Boring mentions if Crowder's banned from a major platform.
Holy crap, did the Daily Wire do good for Crowder on this one.
Let me bring this one up.
In the video it says, if the Crowder content cannot be released on any of the platforms because of a ban, he gets docked 20% for YouTube, 20% for Apple, 10% for Facebook, 10% for Spotify.
Look guys, I hope you understand what this means.
It means that Crowder is guaranteed $5 million per year, even if he's banned from YouTube, Apple, Facebook, and Spotify.
That's tremendous.
5 million dollars per year guaranteed if you're banned from all these platforms.
I suppose the way Crowder looks at it is, you're taking away 60% of my money if I get banned and that's not within my power.
Fair point.
But it means the Daily Wire is going to lose all of their opportunities to publish the content from Crowder and still give them 5 million bucks.
That's a tremendous guarantee.
Here's my response to Crowder.
He's not wrong to say, you assume the risk.
That's on you.
He's also not an employee.
Running a business is very, very different.
So this is what happens.
This is what the Daily Wire basically says, you know, to me.
Running a business is hard, you know it.
I say, you're right.
The things you're experiencing now will only get worse.
I say, you're absolutely right.
They say, let us deal with those problems and then we'll do a deal with you.
I say, I like the problems.
And they go, okay.
Well, thanks for coming.
Thanks for talking to us.
They never offered me like an employment agreement or anything like that.
We were trying to figure out how that we could do a distribution kind of thing.
And I just said, no, we can't do it.
I never got a contract like this, to be completely honest.
But there's also the membership issue.
That Crowder is expected to bring in 350,000 members.
That's the estimate.
There's no way for the Daily Wire to know that.
There's no way they will know how much will come in, but it's likely.
The response there is Crowder would need to be like, I want 80% of all membership revenue.
And the Daily Wire can be like, that's like everything.
It's like, yeah, you get 20% of my members and then that's free money for you.
And for that fee, you run things.
Here's my view on this one.
Crowder should be hiring someone to do what the Daily Wire does, not signing a deal with the Daily Wire to run his show.
It's a question of whether or not Crowder's up for the game.
It is a nightmare.
It is hard.
People are like, why did Tim lose his voice?
Is he sick?
I ain't sick.
I'm not yelling.
Let me tell you, man, I don't get stressed out by a lot of this.
Sometimes I do.
I got stressed out the other day because of a construction issue.
And it's just like, y'all have no idea what goes into this.
And that's why I said I feel bad for Jeremy.
But I will mention something.
Jeremy Boring is not a personality that does content the way Steven Crowder does.
Steven Crowder is not a CEO that runs a business the way Jeremy Boring does.
I happen to do both.
I'm not nearly as big as either of them.
I'm right in the middle, which is why I'm absolutely ranting on this and just love the whole subject and want to talk about it so much.
I do the content.
I run the business.
It is like being punched in the face every single day.
It's fun.
I don't know if Jeremy would be up for hosting three hours of live content and running a business.
I don't know if Steven Crowder is going to be up for working 10 hour days on top of the show he already does.
It's a nightmare.
I feel like this is true.
Let me tell you something.
You want to know why I talked to the Daily Wire crew?
It is a fact that if I did a deal with The Daily Wire, this show would be 10 times bigger.
Tim Kast IRL would be in a bigger, better studio.
We would be making more money, we would have bigger guests, and I would have more free time.
Jeremy basically identified that and said, he's like, I'm a CEO, man.
I can run a business.
You can do the hosting.
And I said, you're completely right.
But that's not who I am.
I'm a host and a CEO.
And I've got visions and dreams.
And I got my own fleet here.
I got my own ships sailing the high seas.
And so do you.
Steven Crowder is a tremendous tactician in the culture war, but he's not a general.
Yet.
I'm not saying he can't be.
Jeremy Boring is the guy sitting in the room looking at the map with all the boats on it, instructing them.
Steven Crowder is the guy at the helm of the flagship leading the charge and firing the cannons.
Can you be both?
Yes.
It's not easy.
Hence, my show is smaller than Crowder's.
Hence, my business is not as big as The Daily Wire's.
Because I'm split and I can only do so much work.
I don't know, man.
Look, I'm kind of just ranting on this because it's near and dear to my heart, and I think it's really fascinating for everyone to hear this stuff and to learn as much about it as possible.
I also am kind of, like, hurt to see Crowder and The Daily Wire fighting because they're both so important.
But I hope they both, you know, recognize this.
Crowder's too big to do a deal with.
It seems like Jeremy knows that.
Jeremy says at the end of his video, we can't do a deal.
I recognize that.
Crowder is too big to do a deal like this.
Crowder, hire a guy who can do it.
Start your own thing.
It looks like you are.
But I don't think you should be mad at The Daily Wire over this.
I do think, I think it's a net positive all across the board.
Obviously, there's always the PR.
The PR guys are probably laughing on both ends saying, it's great, the drama's great for business.
Nobody wants to be slighted or derided publicly.
But I think it's good that Crowder brought up the conversation.
Because I do think the Daily Wire needs to, uh... I don't know.
They need to reassess how they do their contracts.
Because Jeremy said, we put out a contract, we expect you to come back and negotiate.
And I'm like, yeah, look man, you're not wrong.
That's how business is done in the entertainment industry.
I don't do business that way, and that's just me.
I'm not going to tell Jeremy how to do his business.
I'm not going to tell Steven how to do his business.
I'm just going to tell you my thoughts.
I like both these guys.
I think they're very important.
But that's how I run my business.
I assume a whole lot of risk.
That's just it.
There's a lot of money I've lost on good faith, where I've been screwed over, stabbed in the back, people have been leaking things and lying about me and causing us real pain and harm and suffering.
And I even was brought near to tears when I was doing this video talking about the people who have stabbed me in the back.
And I'm just thinking to myself, why would you do that to me?
I just don't get it.
I try as hard as possible to be as Giving is possible and there are some people that just want to knife you right in the kidneys, right in the back and they laugh and they go online and they gloat and they brag and they say, I deserved it.
And I'm just like, I don't, I don't get it, man.
So Jeremy takes the smart approach.
He approaches in a suit and he stands up and says, you will not knife me in the back.
I will do my best for you, but I will not lower, lower the walls of my fortress and take that risk.
I don't know, man.
He's entitled to that.
I'm not saying he's wrong to do it.
You will get stabbed in the back.
And Jeremy's probably sitting there watching this video saying, your time will come, Tim, where you will learn the lesson that I learned.
And he's probably right.
We're smaller.
And I've been knifed in the back many times.
And that's probably why I did the contract this way.
I don't know how we solve these things.
It may be just that I'm naive, and so I'm thinking the contract's bad and Crowder's right to call it out.
I don't know if he needs to be as, you know, calling them con artists or anything.
But I think the conversation needs to happen around why these things take place.
I think Crowder's gonna learn a hard lesson as well.
I think he's gonna learn a hard lesson when he starts doing deals with people, and he does what I did, and then he gets stabbed in the back.
That doesn't mean you should be the daily wire in terms of contracting.
It doesn't mean the daily wire is wrong to be extremely defensive in this regard.
It just means it is a very, very, very difficult space.
In the end, I think, I'm saying morally wrong.
I think it may be wrong business-wise for The Daily Wire in how they're structuring things.
So as much as I like The Daily Wire, I look at this contract, I'm like, I think you guys needed to come out with a contract that was more giving to Crowder considering he's a massive personality, he's extremely valuable, and you shouldn't expect him to pay the money for the lawyers to redline the contract.
That being said, I think Crowder's going to be in for a very rude awakening when he does launch his business and then gets just everybody knives out, man, knives out.
People stealing your money, people lying about you all day and night.
But we need to hear what Crowder has to say.
So I'll leave it there, otherwise I'll just rant on this for like seven hours.
Crowder's coming on the show on Monday to tell me hard facts and details and break down exactly what happened, and maybe there's some stuff I don't know.
And I'm willing to hear what he has to say, and I'm grateful that he's willing to come on the show, because I'm a big fan.
But there's so much more I can say about this, and there's so much more that I want to reveal about how the industry works, but I couldn't do it in 40 minutes, and it's 9.51.
I'm publishing this in eight minutes, so I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out for this breakdown and this view on this whole issue and everything, and stick around.
1 p.m.
I'll get back to the news, and we'll talk about more stuff.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in rust shooting.
This dangerous man will be taken off the streets and justice will be administered.
Okay, actually, I don't know about justice, but it is fascinating to see he is being charged.
I assume there would be some charge based on the merits, although it's hard to know based on the politics if they'd actually go after him.
And this does sound like it might actually be politics.
Like, they can't let Alec Baldwin just walk, having literally killed a woman.
They're not gonna charge him with the murder that he should be charged with.
Involuntary manslaughter.
Basically, you know, look, it was his responsibility, there was some negligence involved, somebody died because of it.
I question that.
If you know the full story, it actually sounds a bit like, perhaps, Alec Baldwin was having a major dispute with the staff, he particularly had an issue with this woman, and then he pointed a gun at her, and he shot and killed her.
He tried claiming they were friends.
He tried saying they weren't friends.
The story doesn't add up.
But it could be that the prosecutors don't think they can actually get a conviction on murder, so they're going for the charge they think they will actually get him on, and that's involuntary manslaughter.
They're also going after the armorer.
I got some questions about this.
Let's break this down.
Let's talk about this, because there's a lot to go through here as to whether or not these charges are right.
I'm not so convinced the Armorer should be charged.
I think Alec Baldwin should be charged.
But it's complicated, because who is ultimately responsible on the set?
And there were a lot of broken rules, so maybe it should be everybody.
Smash that like button, become a member at TimCast.com, support our work.
Let's share this video, let's read the story.
Vanity Fair reports Alec Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter in rust shooting.
The movie's prop armorer faces the same charges.
The assistant director, responsible for on-set safety, pleads guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon.
Now apparently, they're giving them options, the jury.
There's going to be two different charges they can choose between, but let's read the breaking news here.
Also, I want to point out something weird.
Almost every single outlet tweeted out, Alec Baldwin CHARGED with involuntary manslaughter, and then you click the headline and it says, TO BE CHARGED.
Yeah, there's a big difference between WILL BE CHARGED and IS CHARGED, and maybe they just got the details wrong, but here we go.
Vanity Fair reports, Alec Baldwin and prop armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will both be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the set of the Western drama Rust.
After a more than year-long investigation into the October 21 incident, wait, so it's been like over a year?
Santa Fe County District Attorney Mary Carmack-Aldwyse announced the charges Thursday.
The 42-year-old Hutchins died after a gun Baldwin was holding for a rehearsal fired a live round of ammunition into her chest, passing through her and striking writing director Joel Sousa in the shoulder.
The movie's assistant director, Dave Halls, who was cited in Cher's reports as the person who handed the weapon to Baldwin, ...and announced to the crew it was a cold gun, signed a plea bargain with the DA for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, accepting a suspended sentence and six months of probation.
Slap on the wrist, my friend.
Slap on the wrist.
I don't know who's ultimately responsible.
But, um... Like, I want to say, I can't definitively tell you who put the bullet in the gun.
My personal opinion is that the responsibility starts and ends with Alec Baldwin.
If you hold a real gun, that's your fault.
End of story.
I don't care.
Like, I understand maybe there's charges for other people for handing the gun.
Whatever.
If someone hands you a gun and says, don't worry, it's not loaded, and then you aim it and shoot somebody, your fault!
This is what I don't understand.
Whether a gun is loaded or not doesn't matter.
Let's say someone hands you a sword and they say, here's a sword.
It's not loaded.
And then you whack them with it and they die.
You were handed a weapon, you used the weapon, and you killed someone.
It's this weird thing where they're like, well, because a gun could or couldn't have bullets, therefore it wasn't a weapon.
No, it's a weapon.
Anybody hands you a weapon, a weapon you then use for any reason, your fault.
Now that being said, I understand there's a difference.
Let's say someone hands you a weapon on set.
It's a sword.
And they say, we're now going to do a sword fight.
And you have a choreographer and an accident happens and someone gets injured.
That's actually a different story.
Or someone dies.
It just depends on the circumstances.
I don't think they should be using real swords.
But they wanted to use a real gun.
So I'd actually ask you that question.
Comment below what you think.
If someone handed a katana on a movie set.
Say, here's a katana.
It's an actual blade, sharpened to the finest point.
Could slice through a man clean.
Now swing it at that guy.
And you go, well whatever you say, boss.
I gotta wonder, you know, who's responsible.
Because if we're talking about a sword, and you don't think someone's gonna get hurt, but you're wielding that weapon, I still think it's your responsibility.
You've taken the choice to swing a weapon at someone.
Alec Baldwin took the choice to take a gun, a real gun, point it at someone, pull the hammer, pull the trigger.
Not to mention he was fighting with this woman, so don't give me that.
The DA appointed special prosecutor, Andrea Reeb to oversee the case. Quote,
if any one of these three people, Alec Baldwin, Han, Hannah, goody areas, read, or David halls
had done their job, Helena Hutchins would be alive today.
It's that simple. Here's my problem with this. I think it is high is more probable that Alec
Baldwin placed the bullet in the gun.
Therefore, imagine you're Helena Hutchins.
This is the route they're going.
And maybe I'm just wrong.
I could be wrong.
A lot of people are saying I'm exaggerating or I'm being too harsh on Alec Baldwin.
Let me tell you the details.
Imagine you're an armorer on set.
You take a gun, you check it.
You take the blanks, you put them in, you check it.
You take them out, you check them again, you put them back in, you're like, okay, here's your gun.
Then homeboy pops it open and slides in a live round and then aims it thinking, now's my chance.
This guy can blame the armorer and say, they gave me the gun.
Now why did the gun go from the armorer to the assistant director to Baldwin?
You see, these are the questions I have.
And that's why I don't know if this actually makes sense.
Because I'll tell you a reasonable doubt.
The gun passed through three hands.
The only person with a motive was Alec Baldwin.
So why are you charging the other people?
Maybe the assistant director had a motive.
I don't see why the armorer would have a motive.
I don't see why we would assume the one person who is the expert on set is the person who screwed up.
But anyway.
The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the Rust film set.
Now, fair point.
They were apparently taking the gun, loading it with live ammo, and shooting it, like, out back or whatever.
Yeah, you shouldn't use real guns, man.
But they like it, they like to use it, and they like to actually load it so it looks good on camera, but they don't put... they're not supposed to put live rounds in it.
They say in New Mexico, there is no room for film sets that don't take our state's commitment to gun safety and public safety seriously.
No charges will be filed for the wounding of Sosa.
District Attorney Spokesperson Heather Brewer explained that there is no statute in New Mexico for unintentional battery, unless the shooting leads to death.
Interesting.
Vanity Fair reached out to the lawyers for both Baldwin and Gutierrez for comment.
Baldwin has previously said he trusted that the crew members responsible for the props would not hand him a weapon loaded with a live round of ammunition.
And Gutierrez-Reed's attorney has said she was working under distracting and stressful conditions while preparing the gun.
That's kind of crazy to me, because if I was Gutierrez's legal team, I would be like, just tell him you did your job right.
The gun passed through multiple hands.
Okay, you want reasonable debt, here's your legal defense.
I checked no live rounds.
I did my job.
I don't know what else I could do.
I checked no live rounds, passed the gun off to the guys doing the shoot as I'm instructed to do.
Anyway, let's read.
In addition to the bullet that killed Hutchins, investigators found five additional live rounds of ammunition mingled among the movie's props and costumes.
Whoa!
Two loose .45 caliber bullets were discovered on top of a prop cart.
A third was in a bandolier worn by actor Jensen Ackles.
A fourth was in a gun belt worn by Baldwin.
And a fifth was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez-Reed's fingerprints on it.
Okay.
They say dummy rounds are fake bullets that look real, but are completely inert and have no gunpowder.
But I think dummy rounds, they have bullets, but they have no powder, but they have primer.
So I think what happened with Brandon Lee in The Crow was that they put one of those in.
When they fired it, it pushed, the cap pushed the bullet into the barrel, but didn't fire it.
Then when they put the blank in and fired it, it shoved the slug into his face.
Crazy story, man.
Can I just read that?
Probably the most important revelation.
A live round was found in Alec Baldwin's gun belt!
Come on, man.
Finding it in a box of dummy ammunition that Gutierrez-Reed had her fingerprints on?
Come on.
What does that mean?
Who else had their fingerprints on it?
Doesn't mean she did it.
But you mean to tell me that somehow a live bullet got in a real gun A guy pulled the hammer back, pointed it at the woman, pulled the trigger, killing her, and he had live bullets in his belt?
Come on, man.
This was my theory.
Let's go back in time.
The story was that Alec Baldwin was angry with this woman.
They were having problems on set.
The crew were complaining about conditions and wages.
Alec Baldwin had a meeting with this woman.
And they make it seem like, oh, they were friends, they went to dinner together.
And I'm like, did they?
Or did Alec Baldwin have negotiations over dinner with this woman, over the problems on set?
Did Alec Baldwin, who we know is a hothead, who got in trouble for shoving a guy, they claim he punched him, but he like shoved a guy in the street of her parking space, who's got that angry phone call with his daughter, a hothead, shoots and kills a woman, He's got motive, he's got opportunity, and he had live bullets in his gun belt?
And you're charging him with involuntary manslaughter?
Get outta here, dude.
You know, that is a fact unknown to me and you when we covered this story.
Homeboy had a bullet in his gun belt.
Come on.
Okay, look, look.
It's entirely possible he did not intend to kill this woman.
It's entirely possible that he was actually just rehearsing and doing the shot.
Someone accidentally put the bullet in there.
If they found live bullets on top of a prop, in a box, in his belt, it may just be that somebody brought live rounds.
They were doing target practice for fun.
Someone then saw the bullets and mixed them all up.
That's possible.
That's possible.
So what do you think?
Do you think that's all it was?
I'm not so convinced.
I'm really not.
Because, possible.
But then you have to just say that the fighting on set, the arguments Alec Baldwin had, his temper, the fact that he had the bullet on his gun belt, all a coincidence, all immaterial.
So I'll put it this way.
Imagine you got a bunch of grains of sand making a heap.
At what point, as the saying goes, I bring it up all the time, at what point does a pile of sand become a heap?
You drop a grain of sand on the table, you don't got a heap, you got a grain of sand.
You drop a grain of sand, no you just got two grains.
At what point do you have a heap of sand?
How do you determine that?
I look at this, and I'd be like, in order for this to be true, that Alec Baldwin accidentally shot her, you would have to go into that heap of sand and start dividing things out and being like, just ignore those things.
Okay, ignore those, and then there's your accident.
How do you disregard these other facts?
Motive, opportunity, and the possession of live bullets.
Come on, okay?
Imagine!
Alec Baldwin literally shot a woman and had live bullets on him.
And we're wondering how the bullet got in the gun.
He had them!
It's just crazy to me that people are crawling over themselves to entertain the possibility of some grand, circuitous mistake like Final Destination.
Like, just think about this for two seconds.
Alec Baldwin, there's an armorer who's got a gun, and she's like, checking the fake bullets, and she's like, all right, these are all good.
Loads them up, and then someone yells over, oh, hey, Hannah, lunch is here.
She puts the gun down, and she holds it down, and she goes, oh, is my roast beef?
And as she's talking, a live bullet, a gust of wind knocks it off a shelf.
It bounces, b-ding, b-ding, and then goes, falls right into the cylinder.
And then, and then she's like, and she looks down, she goes, oh, we're all good.
And then walks over and hands it to a guy.
And then he pops it open and he's checking it.
And then right as he's about to get to the live bullet to check it, someone goes, yo, yo, sandwiches are here.
And he's like, oh yeah, yeah, give me a second.
Then he looks down and, and wind blows and it spins.
And he's like, eh, it looks fine to me.
Like all of these weird mistakes must've just happened for Alec Baldwin to have shot someone he was mad at while carrying live bullets and holding a gun that he pointed at the person and shot.
Come on, dude.
Two competing charges, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed, will each face two charges of involuntary manslaughter because the jury will be asked to choose between the two counts.
According to the DA, the first charge can be referred to simply as involuntary manslaughter.
For this charge to be proved, there must be underlying negligence.
Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony and is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
This charge also includes the misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a firearm, which would merge as a matter of law.
The other charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act.
This charge requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death.
This is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.
This charge includes a firearm enhancement or added mandatory penalty because a firearm was involved.
The firearm enhancement makes the crime punishable by a mandatory five years in jail.
Five years!
He ain't gonna get it.
I'd be surprised.
I gotta be honest with you guys, if I was on the jury, I'd probably say not guilty based on everything I've seen.
While I can be, I'm the one who's outright just being like, yo, listen up, this guy probably wanted to do this.
I'm not willing to send Alec Baldwin to prison on what I think is probable.
That's how my principles function.
Do I think Baldwin did it?
If I went to Vegas and they had a board and it said, did Baldwin intend to do it?
Did he not intend to do it?
I'd put my money on he intended to do it.
But that's just a bet on cash.
If you came to me and said, the bet comes with putting the man in prison for five years or letting him go, I'd be like, nah, nah, nah, I'm not willing.
I'll put it this way.
If it's 49 to 51, I'm looking to make some money on a dice roll or something, I'll go for it.
If it's a 1% chance that Alec Baldwin goes to prison for 5 years, I ain't taking that bet.
I'm not about to put somebody in jail unless I know, unless I watched him do it, or he confesses.
As much as I don't trust the guy, and I'd never want to be around him with a gun, or get on his bad side for that matter.
I'm not willing to put people in prison without knowing definitively and for sure.
That being said, I am of the opinion that it is insane.
They did not charge him with murder because the dude had motive and opportunity.
What was his motive?
He was fighting with the crew.
What was his opportunity?
He hit, they found live bullets in his gun belt.
He had the gun in his hand.
Somehow a bullet got in it and then he shot this woman and he lied about it.
I didn't pull the trigger.
It's a single-action revolver.
You have to pull the hammer back and then pull the trigger.
He didn't actually like hold it, it just went off like... He had to pull the hammer back and then release the trigger.
There's a very clear process for pursuing justice in this case, Carmack-Altwise said in a statement.
We are committed to upholding the integrity of that process to ensure equal justice under the law.
Charges will be formally filed with New Mexico's first judicial district court before the end of the month, according to Carmack-Altwise.
The defendants will be sent a summons and required to make a first appearance, a procedure that is often referred to in other jurisdictions as an arraignment.
From there, a preliminary hearing will be held, most likely in the next two months, in which the prosecution presents the case to a judge, who will then rule on whether a trial should move forward.
Last April, New Mexico's Workplace Safety Division fined the producers the maximum fine for unsafe handling of firearms.
In October, Baldwin announced that he and other producers of Russ had reached a settlement agreement with the Hutchins family, with their husband Matt joining the unfinished project as an executive producer.
yet happened. I don't like sending people to prison at all.
I don't think the system is going to work. I don't trust Alec Baldwin. I think he's
a bad guy. I don't think he's an evil guy. I think he's a bad guy. I think Adam Schiff is
evil. I think Alec Baldwin is just bad.
Adam Schiff does what I view to be what is evil versus what is bad.
Bad for Alec Baldwin is he's a hothead, he yells at people, he shoved a guy.
These are bad things.
But is he evil?
He's just bad.
He's like a nasty dude.
He gets angry and loses his cool.
Evil, in my opinion, requires a high degree of intent.
So like Adam Schiff releasing private citizens' phone records and other members of Congress' phone records, lying to the American public for political power, is intentional acts to gain power.
Evil.
Alec Baldwin, I think, got mad at a lady and then just lost it.
I think it's more likely to have been a passion murder.
And passion murder, in my opinion, is bad, but not evil.
Premeditated murder is evil.
Passion murder, not so much.
But he's close.
Because this very well may have been premeditated.
Meaning he put the bullets in his belt, he got ready, he went for it.
So I think he may be close.
But I don't know.
Look, I thought Alec Baldwin was wonderful in 30 Rock.
Jack Donaghy is an amazing character.
It was amazingly well done.
I think Alec Baldwin is a great actor.
I think he's done a lot of great work.
I love Beetlejuice.
Hey, how about that?
But this dude's got a history of temper.
This dude clearly had a dispute with the staff, with the crew working on the movie.
This guy was standing in front of her, pulled out a gun, that somehow got a live bullet in it, he pulled the hammer back, he pulled the trigger, he shot through her, what is it, he shot her in the heart?
Like a direct shot?
And then they found a live bullet in his gun belt.
And they're like, must've been an accident.
Must've just been negligence.
Yo, that is insane to me.
I think you pursue that investigation.
You let a jury decide.
To be fair, maybe it's just they didn't think they would get the conviction.
Alec Baldwin's a high-profile dude.
Fine, fine, fine.
But I don't know.
Do you agree or disagree?
Because I gotta say, now that we're learning he had the bullet in his belt, come on.
For real?
But hey, who knows?
Maybe he was framed.
Someone's trying to take him down.
Many people were commenting, like, you don't know how movie sets work, Tim.
You're wrong.
I know how guns work.
And I don't care where you are and for whatever reason.
You got a gun.
Your responsibility.
Period.
Malik Baldwin made an interesting point.
He said, if I were to open that gun up and check around, they'd take it from me.
And they'd be like, no, no, no, no, because we're responsible.
It's a fair point.
I mean, think about it.
Alec Baldwin's not the expert.
If he opened the gun to check the bullets, then closed it, they'd be like, what did you just do?
Now we gotta check it again to make sure you didn't put a live bullet in it.
It is a fair point.
It is.
But I don't trust the guy.
Sorry, man.
I just don't.
I suppose we'll see if he makes it through this one.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
This is a shocking and sad story that I wish I didn't have to do a segment on, but I think it's important people know about it.
Alberta transgender wants medical assistance in dying after sexual reassignment surgery goes sour.
This is from the Western Standard, NewsGuard certified, of course.
We only use those certified, fact-based outlets.
And this is the terrifying reality for many people.
The reason why leftists, why Jack Dorsey and Vijay Gadde over at Twitter previously, argued in favor of these policies protecting trans people, as they called it, was because they wanted to prevent suicide.
Twitter said that if we allow hate speech against trans people, they will take their own lives.
I thought that argument was patently absurd because there are many groups of people who take their own lives in large numbers relative to other groups of people.
I said there's also other dysmorphic disorders.
Anorexia is a dysmorphic disorder that leads people to killing themselves inadvertently.
And so why don't we ban for those?
Their argument made literally no sense.
We've now seen the rise of what's called MAID in Canada, Medical Assistance in Dying, or Medical Assistance in Death.
Basically, that if you want to, for basically any reason, you can just go die.
The government will do it for you.
Now, of course, of course, here in Canada, in Canada, I shouldn't say here, we're in America, they have specific criteria as to what would qualify you for being killed by the government voluntarily.
This individual, trans, got surgery and it went wrong, as it often does.
And now because of the pain, they want to die.
I don't want you to die.
I don't want anybody to die.
I want to make sure we can protect people and help them live.
But what the leftists are doing isn't that.
The creation of maid?
They want people to die.
These botched surgeries?
Yeah, they're making people miserable.
It's terrifying.
Here's the story.
Duchess Lois made the announcement in a January 17th tweet, already viewed more than 45,000 times.
Quote, I'm accessing Maid as a sterilized First Nations person of Treaty 6 who is also a post-op transsexual woman of 14 years.
I qualify for it as someone who is sterilized and who has undergone vaginoplasty, two things that cannot be reversed or relieved.
Lois posted a screenshot of the eligible conditions for medical assistance in dying.
I am applying.
I have the application, but I need one witness.
But there is also a process if there is no witness, so I might just inquire about that option.
As soon as I submit, then the official process begins of assessments.
In her profile, Lois of Alberta said she knew reassignment surgery was a mistake.
In 2009, I was rushed into having sexual reassignment surgery before I was ready, resulting in immediate regret and sterilization.
Lois' thread announcing her decision to pursue MAID explained more of her story.
The last couple of years were very intense medically for me.
When I experienced depth loss in June 2021, I had to add a second dilation to my weekly routine to help myself.
The doctor wasn't concerned, as she put it.
We, as females, experience vaginal atrophy.
I want to explain something and be warned, I guess.
There is one purpose for what is called Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty.
One.
It is to create a cavity in the body that a man can have intercourse with.
That's it.
I suppose you can argue that, on the left will, it is to create a cavity in the body to affirm the gender of the individual, but affirming, you know, you don't need to give someone surgery to affirm them.
Affirmation is a social construct.
Whether you choose to affirm someone or not is not material.
They might argue that it is to align the body more with the spirit so that the individual is less likely to self-harm.
But again, What you're doing in this regard is causing physical damage to a body to create a cavity that tries to heal itself and close.
And that's what they're referring to.
Dilation is the process of sticking an object in to pry open the wound.
I am not saying that to be mean.
It is quite literally a wound.
Hence, it tries to close.
Lois was experiencing pain, but a request to see a specialist was unheeded by the doctor, who instead referred her to a gender clinic in Edmonton.
In December of 2021, she had a phone appointment.
We spoke about my hormones, another issue.
Then the pain and dilating.
A referral was made to a specialist, finally.
2022 came.
I was referred to the Lois Hole Hospital, for women, about my hole.
It was a phone consultation, nothing more.
I was relabeled from homosexual to asexual by that doctor.
Interesting.
So this person who is biologically male and transitions and is given penile inversion vaginoplasty is called a homosexual.
Lois' problems continued.
Then came June 2022.
I experienced a rare event of a confusional migraine that lasted 22 days, and during that time I had forgot which genitalia I had, and it caused so much stress that I was in and out of the hospital and tried to raise this concern with several doctors.
It was brushed off.
I was so confused as to why I didn't have a penis anymore.
That was the tipping point for me.
It's what changed my life and mind that I can no longer trust this medical system that is captured by gender identity ideologies.
It has killed the Indian.
In the next tweet in the thread, Lois said, So yes, I qualify as a sterilized Indian who had a vaginoplasty.
Then typed the national anthem along with an icon of the Canadian flag.
A tweeter named Liam Danger Park tried to intervene.
Your story can save lives.
Hold on.
To this Duchess, Lois replied, I am using my story and experience to ensure this never happens to anybody else.
After others made subsequent pleas that Lois would live, she wrote, I'm still here fighting.
We need all levels of government to see this and see what is happening within our country.
Another tweeter named LBUBU offered Lois something to think about.
Have you considered that the MAID program is a bit similar to the transition process, in that it is activist-driven and offering some solution, just an opinion, but from here it feels similar.
Lois was not persuaded.
I get to be free.
I'm not scared.
I'm just tired of suffering.
Another tweeter said, things will get better.
The world needs you and you have a purpose in this world in some shape or form.
You have a purpose.
Lois replied, maybe this is my purpose.
Albeit a timed purpose, but still a purpose nonetheless.
I hope they end medical assistance in dying.
I hope this person lives.
But it's a scary thought.
An individual who is suffering tremendously with a surgical wound.
That is causing them serious pain and suffering.
I think there's so much evil going on right now.
And I don't know what to do about it.
I can speak out about it.
We can vote against it.
And maybe that's the best we can do because we have to shift the culture.
The culture that allowed this to happen needs to be stopped and we need to build a new culture.
That's why I'm so hell-bent on, you know, the coffee shop, the skate shop, things like that, because we just need to create spaces people want to be a part of so we can shut down these bad ideas, these insane medical practices.
The thread already captured the attention of U.S.
psychologist Karlyn Borisenko, who wrote about it on her substack, Actively Unwoke.
She said she hoped Lois could find peace, but believed others shared some responsibility.
Yes, the far left and the radical gender industry are to blame for not stopping this before it got to surgery, that's true.
But the media and mainstream journalists should have been on this years ago.
It should have been wall-to-wall coverage warning people what was happening.
They have the biggest reach into the land of the normies, and they have responsibility to use it.
It was discovered mostly by independent journalists.
This is where we're going.
This is why we speak out against MAID.
But you know what I see in all of this?
The end result is going to be a reduction in population.
Abortion, sterilization, medical assistance, and dying.
They are basically screaming to end your bloodline.
To sterilize your kids, to abort your kids, or to end your own life.
You know, believe whatever you want.
There are conspiracy theories, whatever you want to call it.
That's what the media says.
The idea that powerful global elites want less people is a conspiracy theory.
You are the carbon they are trying to reduce, as the saying goes.
You're not going to convince me and I don't care what you think.
I'm not saying it's conspiracy, but I'm saying when you have prominent individuals like Bill Gates get up on stage at a TED Talk and say, we need to reduce the population growth, get it down, When you have all of these global elites talking about Malthusianism or whatever, or the population bomb, and then they begin advocating for abortion and sterilization and medical assistance in dying, and lockdowns for that matter, and you're like, hey, all of those things lead to death and a reduction in human life.
I would not be surprised if the real intent was a culling of humans.
But let's be real people.
I'm not going to play games.
What happens when there's too many deer?
You know, late at night, I get twelve deer on my lawn, or fifteen.
And at first, the one or two deer, it was funny, look at the little deer, look at they're eating the leaves, oh they're hilarious.
Then it was seven.
We were like, wow, now there's seven of them.
Now there's fifteen.
And there's massive deer crap everywhere.
It's too much.
Wolves are supposed to be eating them or something, but they're not because we're here.
That's why we hunt the deer.
We have to keep their populations down within a reasonable level.
Do humans think that they're exempt from this?
Well, I'll tell you my thoughts.
I don't think humans are.
But the difference between a human and a deer is that we invent things.
And we can solve our problems with technology.
That is to say, I got a solution to the deer crap.
We can put up a fence.
We can do a lot of things.
We can cull the deer.
Or we can just get rid of the crap.
In terms of there being too many humans.
The difference is deer can't go to outer space.
Humans can.
And that's what I think these people don't understand.
We are not animals needing to be culled.
There may be many of us.
That's true.
What we need is a realignment of our intellectual prowess to develop technology to make the system more robust.
Something a deer can't do.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
And I quote, not all students who menstruate are female.
Libs of TikTok tweets, Minnesota House Rep Sandra Feist while campaigning to put menstrual products in the boys' bathrooms in schools.
Ah, a shout out to our good friend Bill Maher, who mocked Dennis Brager for pointing this out years ago.
Ah, Bill Maher, Bill Maher.
Look where we are now.
Let me start this segment off by saying there is not a single biological male who is menstruating.
Every single person who menstruates is female.
Now, of course, they may want to make arguments about gender, man, woman, or otherwise, but we are talking about the biological terms male and female.
Let me play for you this clip, and then we'll talk about where we are in the culture war today.
unidentified
...who menstruate are female. We need to make sure that all students have access to these products. There are... Let me
start it over. ...no on this amendment for a few reasons.
Practical, financial, social, emotional. First, there are a lot of schools that are moving towards gender-neutral
bathrooms, and if we add female, we might become obsolete very quickly. So,
Second, not all students who menstruate are female.
We need to make sure that all students have access to these products.
There are obviously less non-female menstruating students and therefore their usage will be much lower and that was actually calculated into the cost of this and how much we decided to fund it.
And so Social emotional?
that the non-female menstruating students will use these products as much as the students
using female bathrooms, but it's important to have them there.
And that brings me to the, just the social emotional reasons for that.
These students who are not female who menstruate face a greater stigma and barrier to asking
They first started saying man and woman are social constructs.
Male and female are not.
Biological sex is different from social gender.
And we went, okay, I understand that.
Like, you know, women here traditionally wore dresses and skirts and things like that.
Men wore suits.
But in some places, men wore kilts and we look at those like skirts.
So that whole, you know, how people dress is a social construct.
Okay, fine.
Then they started saying, like, having a beard was a social construct.
And it's just like, well, hold on there a minute.
They started saying, like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you could be a man and your beard makes you a man.
And I'm like, well, some men don't have beards.
Then they argued that, well, some men don't have, okay, okay, what?
So you can be a man without a beard.
I'm like, yes, that means a woman can be a man.
And you're like, well, hold on.
Is a man a social construct?
Is a woman a social construct?
Or do they refer to biological functions of a person?
Now we're at the point, and they've been doing this for a while actually, where they're trying to argue that male and female are also social constructs.
Granted, they've tried using this line of thought for years, and now it is in politics.
This is a psychotic cult.
And I'll tell you why.
If you want to argue that there should be tampons in the men's room because biological females who are transitioning to men, not males because you can't, need them, I say, okay I guess, like whatever man, it's like not my bathroom, you can put whatever you want in your bathroom.
Yo, no joke, I went to a bathroom and you know those vending machines where it's like you got condoms in it and like perfume?
It had candy in it!
No, I'm not kidding.
It had like some kind of sour gummy candy in it.
And I was like, that is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.
You can put whatever you want in your bathroom, man.
I really don't care.
This is where we come to.
They're now outright saying in government, this is Minnesota's, I believe this is state house rep, Minnesota's state house rep, saying that there are males who menstruate, or no, I'm sorry, she puts it, non-female.
Sorry, man, if you're menstruating, you're female.
No, no, no, hold on, hold on.
Or intersex.
I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not blind to the science.
I understand there's a small percentage of individuals who are intersex, may present outwardly as male, but have female parts, or present outwardly as female, but actually have testicles.
There's a condition that's called, I forget what it's called, but it's like testosterone immunity or something like that.
Insensitivity.
Meaning that someone is born biologically male, but their body does not respond in any way to testosterone.
So their body starts developing in a rather androgynous way, and they look female.
Then they find out, they're like, hey, how come this 13, 14 year old is not going through puberty?
They're like, oh, whoa, you actually are a girl!
You're actually male!
But, you know, you look female because your body did not develop, the testosterone did not have the impact on you as a baby when you were growing.
Those things happen too.
That person won't menstruate, though.
So, there's no circumstance where a male does.
There's some weird stories, but I want to bring it now to our good friend Bill Maher.
This is a clip that Dave Rubin actually pulled, so this is from Dave Rubin's YouTube channel, where Bill Maher talks about whether or not he's conservative from back in April.
You know, when we talk about this genderqueer book, the response I get from every single
person is, oh, it was in probably one school.
It's in thousands.
Or more.
And I'm like, OK, I'll take your word for it.
It's in one school.
So you're saying we shouldn't be concerned about it?
Well, I mean, it just it's not that big of a deal to you, maybe.
Then go ignore it.
And we'll keep talking about it because it causes, in our in our in our view, problems for young people.
Just listen to this from Bill, OK?
And then Bill goes on back in April, almost a year ago, on Rogan.
And he's like, nobody was talking about men menstruating or pregnant men.
Bro, on your own show, I think this was three years ago.
Let me pull it up and see what the date was.
Three years ago.
Three years ago.
Okay, not five.
Fine.
Three years ago.
And at the time, Bill Maher said that about a year ago.
It was two years before.
Nobody was talking about it.
My friend, you need only, when you realize what's going on, Google and take a look at just how far back this goes.
The lies, the deceit, the manipulation, and the insanity.
I mean, look at the Epstein stuff.
This one I love the most, because it's like, it is considered fact now that the Epstein stuff happened.
Go back in time, ten years ago, and listen to Alex Jones talk about it, and you'll go, wow, that guy was ahead of the curve.
But then there are people who are going to be like, we had no idea this was going on.
Yeah, you did.
Bill, Prager went on your show and told you this, and you mocked him for it.
Maybe he should apologize.
I mean, apparently the clip from Rubin is just that Bill Maher now recognizes blah blah blah.
I don't know if that's literally what Bill Maher is doing.
But it's going to keep happening unless we push back culturally.
And until people like Bill Maher recognize it's been going on a lot longer than he thinks.
To say that to Rogan.
Man, five years ago nobody... It's because you weren't paying attention.
What we said five years ago, mistakenly.
Was that these young people in college are in for a rude awakening.
They're going to get out to the real world and the real world is going to chew them up.
What we did not anticipate is that these people are violent psychopaths.
So when they got out of college, they didn't go to their boss and say, oh no, I'm not getting the world I want.
What do I do?
They went to their boss and said, if you don't give me what I want, I will destroy you.
And the boss went, yikes, look, I don't want to fight.
It's the reality of the business.
They didn't want a brick thrown through their window, so they said, please, please, just leave me alone.
Whiny, psychopathic, entitled people.
That's what this world is turning into.
It's funny because there's this idea that we're going to be a transhumanist utopia.
That anybody can be anything, you can go and do whatever you want.
I'll tell you what we're going to be.
We're going to be a mutant future of entitlement and demands, where everyone has to live in the fantasies of everybody else.
I want to tell you something about this book, Genderqueer.
In the book, the author writes that her main, you know, predilection is something called autoandrophilia.
That means she is sexually aroused at the thought of being a man.
So, when this individual tells you you have to recognize them not as a woman or use their special pronouns, That sexually gratifies them.
It sexually excites them.
To me, I just think that's wrong.
But that's where we're going.
We're not going in the direction of respecting someone's pronouns.
We're going in the direction of a large group of people who are excited, physically, by certain things.
And they're going to force you to participate in that.
Yeah, whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I'll see you all shortly.
I have a feeling YouTube's gonna get mad at me already just for showing the thumbnail of the woman in this story.
In the story from the New York Post titled, I have M cup breasts.
Americans treat me like a piece of meat.
I'm just going to, I'm not going to bury the lead here.
This lady got fake boobs that are massive and now she is mad that people don't treat her like a normal person or whatever.
I'll say right away.
Look, I don't care if you want to get big ol' fake titties or whatever.
I'm not going to be mean to you because of how you look, if you're anorexic, if you're overweight.
I will do this.
If you're anorexic, I will encourage you to eat.
I will say, hey man, Far be it from me to tell you how to live your life, but I think you should have some food.
If you're overweight, I'll say the same thing, like, maybe you don't care, that's fine, I think you should cut the sugars.
And if you're a woman who feels like your dream body, as she describes it, is gigantic fake boobs, I will say to you, you know, ma'am, with all due respect, she's a very attractive lady already, you don't need to have these big massive fake boobs.
Here's the difference.
In this story, it is body dysmorphia.
It is a woman who thinks her body should be massive bazoongas.
And it's going to cause her problems.
Many women get breast reductions.
It's causing her social problems.
It's crazy to me that she chooses to live this way and then gets mad that people treat her a certain way based on what she did.
It's like, I want to have a body and you have to live in my world.
My attitude is kind of like, nah man, people are going to treat you a lot of ways.
The thing with this is you made a choice to do this.
Now that's... We get into the whole transhumanist thing.
Transgender or otherwise.
People are choosing to not eat to eat.
People are choosing to get surgeries.
I view this very similarly to any other kind of body modification surgery for body dysmorphia.
This woman did not feel right without gigantic fake boobs for some reason.
Got it.
And now people are treating her different and she's mad about it.
Well, look.
People can treat you how they feel like they should treat you.
I think people should be nicer.
But you can't control the world.
Everybody's different.
New York Post says, the big-breasted influencer doesn't have a whole lot of support.
Ha ha ha.
Excellent, New York Post.
A model with size M-cup boobs is opening up how people treat her differently all around the world, calling out Americans in particular.
Jasmine Day claims people stare at her and harass her over her large breasts.
I mean, look what you're wearing!
It is not normal.
Like, the way she looks.
The 29-year-old from Wales told News.com.au that people in the U.S.
very openly react to her appearance and are very forward about it.
They will laugh and point and stop and stare.
They won't make an effort to hide what they are doing.
The model said the only time people in the States aren't so upfront is when they're trying to sneak a picture.
Interesting.
She says people in the UK are just as judgmental.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean to this lady, really, but her boobs don't look real.
It looks like she took two big plastic balls and duct taped them to her chest.
Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but this doesn't look real.
She recognizes people treat her like crap, but she says, well, you don't live for them, do you?
Hey man, you know what?
I respect that message.
I think they look gigantic and fake.
I don't know why she thinks she needs that.
I think what she needs is psychological therapy and help and not surgery.
Again, I'm not saying it to be mean.
I'm saying quite literally she needs to sit down with a medical professional who can talk to her about what's making her feel like she needs surgery to have large fake breasts.
I understand women get big fake titties, okay?
But this is something different.
This is size M. These are abnormally large.
Personally, I think fake breasts in general, just bad.
Just absolutely not a fan.
Not a fan of makeup either.
I don't like any of this stuff.
I think women should be themselves, but women are trying to attract mates.
So it makes you think about a few things.
Lipstick.
Rouge.
Perfume.
You know?
The idea with lipstick is to make the lips brighter red to simulate fertility.
When women are fertile, again, this is like a science, their lips become flush and more attractive.
Thus, women started putting on lipstick to simulate it to be more attractive.
Then there's also perfume.
Perfume I never quite understood.
You know, smelling like flowers makes you more attractive to guys?
Maybe it was to mask body odor or something that was considered unattractive.
I don't know.
Most people stank.
I don't know if they actually did.
I just didn't shower all that much.
I don't know.
The point is, people do things.
Women do things to be more attractive.
For this woman, she has opted for size M breasts.
That's the world we're living in.
Take a look at this.
Andrew at Don't Walk Run posted this video.
He says this girl is delusional and thinks she can pull a man who makes seven figures.
Reality, she'll be a single mom the next three years with two kids from two different fathers.
Take a look at this.
Let me play this clip for you.
unidentified
How much do you expect your guy to make a year?
At least seven figures.
Seven figures at least.
Do you know how difficult it is to make seven figures?
The point is, this lady on the left, she's a bigger woman.
If you look at her face, her face is actually pretty nice.
She takes care of herself, but she's got a big old belly.
I think that's the point that Andrew is trying to make.
She's delusional.
She thinks she's going to get somewhere with seven figures.
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I'm not here to rag on the lady for being chunky or anything like that.
I weighed a bit more over a year ago, like a year and a few months ago.
I started losing weight, taking care of myself.
I think she should too.
I think she'd be better off.
But whether or not a guy wants to give a woman money has nothing to do with this.
I mean, it has a lot to do with it.
But some guys like that.
Some dude who's rich is gonna look at her and be like, oh yeah.
And that's a thing.
Like, this is my point about the woman with the big fake tits.
As much as we might want to be like, this lady's not attractive enough to get someone worth seven figures, yo, that's just not true.
Now, there are more attractive, more successful women that'll probably do a better job at attracting a guy who makes seven figures for sure.
But like, this is what I said, you know, Jordan Peterson tweeted a long time ago about that, you know, fat woman on the cover of a magazine or whatever, and he was like, we'll never accept this or something like that.
And I'm like, you know, look, man, some people like fat chicks.
You know, let them have their day.
Personally, I get it.
People should be fit, they should exercise, they should cut the sugars, cut the garbage food, and I guess seed oils is a big thing right now.
But I'm telling you, that lady with the big fake boobs, she didn't need them.
I wonder what she needed them for.
What is the psychological drive that makes her say she wants to have these gigantic fake boobs?
And I'll tell you this.
I'll say this.
It's a weird world we live in, where you have women who complain about being catcalled, and then women who beg to look in such a way that they will be.
Then you have women who make themselves look as attractive as possible and then get mad when men call them out.
You got a lady.
She gets catcalled.
She dresses up even more, gets catcalled more.
You gotta understand, maybe put on a frumpy hoodie and walk awkwardly if you don't want guys hitting on you.
Women should be free to walk around without men, you know, bothering them all the time.
But this is life.
Men want to attract women.
Women want to attract men.
Men are the ones who initiate.
Women aren't.
A lot of guys would be happy if women initiated and came up to them and hit on them, but they don't.
So here's my point.
We live in this strange society where you have a woman who desperately wants big fake boobs, but for what reason?
And then complains about how people treat her badly because of her big fake boobs.
Admittedly, I can respect her position in the end where she's like, you don't live for these people, so I'm gonna ignore it.
Yeah, fair point.
Fair point.
But how can we have this society where women are trying as hard as possible to be sexually attractive, but then being mad about it?
You could do the opposite.
This is what they say.
Because I know the answer.
They say they want to feel confident and feel good.
But what's the correlation between being sexually attractive and being confident?
Is it because you want men to actually look at you and give you attention?
Do you want women to look at you and give you attention?
Can't you feel confident wearing a suit?
Men will hit on you less.
I'm just saying.
This lady's right.
You need to live for yourself.
And that means if you want to dress a certain way and act a certain way, guys are going to be hitting on you and they're going to be bothering you.
It's just reality.
You can't change the world.
Well, you can change the world, but you can't force people to stop being people.
Guy comes up to you and is hitting on you, you can just be like, hey, I appreciate it, no thank you.
Carry a gun if you're worried about violence.
But I don't want to have to carry a gun.
Yeah, well, bears exist too, man.
Like, we're not gonna change the fundamental nature of reality because you're having issues.
We all do.
Look, lady.
You were born with big boobs.
Size D. You didn't need to make them size M. But you know what?
