Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 27, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:28:21

Media FURIOUS After Woody Harrelson ROASTS Big Pharma And Vax MandatesOn SNL , Scream CONSPIRACY

Media FURIOUS After Woody Harrelson ROASTS Big Pharma And Vax MandatesOn SNL , Scream CONSPIRACY #snl #woodyharrelson #timcast Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACe9hbKVthU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:21:53

Appearances

Clips

anthony fauci

00:19

josh hammer

00:33

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this Saturday, I'm playing poker with the boys, and I'm not really paying attention a whole lot.
		When I get home, pull up my phone and see this story that Woody Harrelson is pushing weird COVID conspiracy theories.
		And I think to myself, oh boy, what's going on here?
		On Saturday Night Live, during the opening monologue, Woody Harrelson made a joke about a movie.
		In which, you know, he says he comes on SNL.
		After he leaves, he's leaning up against a palm tree in New York.
		There's a bunch of weird jokes in there.
		Smoking pot.
		Well, okay.
		And he's reading a movie script about how all the drug cartels in the world get together to buy up all the media and the politicians, lock people in their homes, and force them to do drugs over and over again if they want to leave their house.
		And he said, I threw the script away!
		Who was gonna believe that?
		And like, no one says anything.
		There's like, scattered coughing.
		Nobody gets the joke.
		And then the media comes out and loses their mind.
		All saying that Woody Harrelson is pushing a popular COVID-19 conspiracy theory.
		There's two ways to see this.
		One, There's a breakthrough.
		People like Woody Harrelson understand that Big Pharma buys ads on TV and lobbies Congress.
		That's what it means to buy the media and the politicians.
		And then, those people owe favors.
		You think media companies are going to go against Big Pharma when it's brought to you by Pfizer, brought to you by Pfizer?
		There's another way to look at it, and it shows you how corrupt and unethical the media is.
		He could be making a joke at the expense of conspiracy theorists, saying all of these people believe this crazy thing, and that I threw it away, like, who would believe that?
		And apparently now they do!
		Instead, the media goes with the narrative that on SNL, Woody Harrelson pushes popular COVID-19 conspiracy theory.
		The actor worked in a joke during his monologue that repeated a pandemic plot favored by vaccination opponents.
		Oh boy.
		The other big news coming out of this weekend is that the U.S.
		government is now saying lab leak is the most likely scenario.
		In the origin of COVID-19.
		Now, I know the GOP has said it, and here's how it goes.
		Here's how it goes.
		So first, you get lab leak theory.
		Look, you guys know me.
		Milk Toast Fence Sitter guy.
		I'm not going to come out and immediately just be like, I believe whatever they say.
		However, it seemed to be the case.
		And the way I described it in the earlier days of COVID was, it makes the most sense that COVID-19 came from a lab.
		We have the logic, but there's like a missing link.
		There's like missing direct evidence that we know exactly how it leaked from a lab.
		However, you don't always need direct evidence.
		Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough.
		And we had studies coming out of the University of Beijing, South China or something like that, that they said that people have been bitten or peed on by bats.
		So eventually you get this narrative coming out in the media that it's a big conspiracy theory, that it's not true, that people are crackpots.
		Then you get the GOP coming out and saying, lab leak theory seems to make the most sense.
		COVID-19 was made in a lab and leaked.
		And they said the GOP is a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists.
		Now, the New York Times reports, lab leak most likely caused pandemic, Energy Department says.
		Uh-oh!
		Now we have, I said it was made with low confidence, but I can respect a low confidence opinion.
		Of course!
		Everybody's looking at this being like, it's low confidence, but still the most probable.
		I love how the media repeatedly screamed that it was like, it must have been from bats a thousand miles away.
		I mean, maybe, but that's even less probable.
		So here we are, my friends, with Woody Harrelson pushing a quote-unquote popular COVID-19 conspiracy theory.
		Oh, because he made a joke?
		I love it.
		You know what I think this is?
		This is an indication, in my opinion, of IQs less than 100.
		And then I know that people like to call these journalists midwits.
		Amidwit is someone of, like, slightly above average intelligence, but not smart enough?
		No, I don't think so.
	These people seemingly have no memory.
	It's like they have amnesia.
	They cannot understand the past.
	I was talking to my brother the other day, and he was saying something about they would ask a question, if you did not eat breakfast yesterday morning, how do you think you would have felt?
	And people with under 90 IQs would say something like, but I did eat breakfast.
	And then it's like, no, no, no.
	But if you didn't do that, huh?
	I ate breakfast like they couldn't understand hypotheticals and something else.
	I don't know exactly what that was all about.
	But, you know, it makes sense that journalists seemingly have foggy brains and they can't remember exactly what's happening all around them.
	And they can't take into consideration a few simple facts.
	And that is the media has been wrong about everything, not to mention the experts when it come to covid have been wrong about everything.
	But you know what?
	I do feel like I'm ranting a little bit too much, so let me show you exactly what Woody Harrelson said right here, and then we'll read the news, and I'm gonna go through all of the L's from the media.
unidentified		And start reading.
		Okay, so the movie goes like this.
		The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes.
		And people can only come out if they take the cartels' drugs and keep taking them over and over.
		I threw the script away.
		I mean, who was gonna believe that crazy idea of being forced to do drugs?
		I do that voluntarily all day long.
		Anyway, it's about that time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's okay.
		It wasn't the strongest of jokes.
		And it was weird.
		I see this story.
		I see the Daily Beast writing, they're like, Woody Harrelson's pushing conspiracy theories, and I'm like, well, I better watch the opening monologue now.
		I don't watch SNL.
		And then I did.
		And I watched it, and I'm sitting there for like six minutes like, okay, gotta be honest, kind of boring.
		Woody Harrelson has this kind of stoner humor, and I'm just like, eh.
		I think Woody Harrelson's great.
		And then finally at the end, I hear that, and I'm like, well, okay.
		You know, he could have been a bit more over-the-top with it.
		He's like, uh, forced to do drugs, I do that voluntarily!
		And it's like, so that's the punchline, is like, he wants the vaccine, I guess, is the point?
		So what's funny is, they're claiming he's pushing a conspiracy, when he's literally saying, and you can take it any way you want, he's saying that Nobody would have believed it.
		He could be talking about the conspiracy theorists in a negative way, which I doubt, because I've got another video for you from Bill Maher.
		And he could be saying, like, what do you mean?
		Like, they forced you to do it?
		I went and got it.
		He could be just saying what every Hollywood leftist says.
		We all love the vaccine, right?
		Here's what the Washington Post writes.
		America's stoner uncle, Woody Harrelson.
		Okay, I gotta pause right there.
		Is this a news outlet or are you writing an opinion piece?
		Return to SNL in a monologue, he blah blah blahed. Oh, here we go. The live audience
		offered scattered laughter, but viewers at home had a much more visceral reaction.
		Spitfire says on Twitter, Woody Harrelson nailed it, and I'm having fun watching the media prove
		him right. Variety, Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and Rolling Stone all saying, Woody Harrelson's
		Internet Live monologue makes COVID conspiracy jokes, anti-vaxx conspiracy, anti-vaxx conspiracies,
		rambling SNL monologue, anti-vaxxer conspiracies.
		Hey, they don't include themselves in this because I think the IQ of the journalists must be below 90.
		On SNL, Woody Harrelson pushes popular COVID-19 conspiracy theory, and then they outright reference the fact that they are being mocked for doing exactly what Woody Harrelson was joking about.
		Haha.
		Anti-vaccine proponents, excuse me, were delighted with Harrelson red-pilling the masses and speaking truth to power.
		His joke referenced a pervasive conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical companies control the government and the media and that they're forcing the public to take unnecessary vaccines.
		Okay.
		All right.
		Let's slow down there a minute.
		That's not a conspiracy theory.
		Now, the framing maybe, but let's slow down there a minute.
		All right.
		Big pharmaceutical companies, they buy ads on major networks.
		That's not in dispute at all.
		And these companies are beholden to advertisers.
		You, my friends, are not the customer of a media company.
		You're the product.
		The sponsors are the customers.
		Here's how it works.
		You may notice, I don't like doing live ad reads.
		YouTube has ads that run on these channels, and they're YouTube's customers.
		You guys are my customers.
		Then I'll explain.
		For NBC, for ABC, for CBS, for whoever else, if they get sponsored by Pfizer, they're going to Pfizer and say, we can sell you access to X million people for X million dollars.
		That transaction has nothing to do with you.
		So in Pfizer, the customer says, this is what I expect.
		They say, we're here to deliver for you.
		Now, what if the customer walked in to a bakery and said, I would like a large chocolate cake.
		And the bakery said, we're not here to sell you chocolate cakes.
		We're going to get, we're going to put only pistachio cakes and we're going to, we're going to write you're stupid on the cake.
		You're going to be like, well, I won't buy it then.
		Wait, wait, wait.
		If you don't buy it, I go to business.
		It's like, okay, if I'm buying from you, don't smack talk me, or I mean, I'll put it simply.
	Imagine you went to a bakery to buy a cake, and they put up a big picture of you in the window saying, you sucked, and you were awful, and we hate you.
	You'd probably not want to shop there anymore, okay?
	So why would Pfizer buy ads on a network that disparages them?
	They won't, it's that simple.
	If I say, I want you to promote my brand, and then you have a staff member go on TV and rag on my brand, I'm not buying.
	You, the viewer, are not the customer.
	So here at TimCast.com, it is multifaceted.
	We do have programmatic ads on videos like this.
	That's where I make money on ads that YouTube autoplays or whatever.
	However, the real business model here at TimCast is I make these videos in an effort to convince you to become a member at TimCast.com so that I'm not beholden to advertisers.
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.
		See you on the tour!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know who's advertising on these channels.
		I guess sometimes Coffee Brand Coffee is frequently on these channels.
		Good!
		You know, I don't mind taking money from the quartering, but I don't know who else is on these channels.
		I can say whatever I want.
		And you know what?
		I might lose ad revenue because of it, but I don't care, because you are my customer.
		I want you to have faith in the content I produce, and then you decide I would like to support the work by becoming a member at TimCast.com to get access to behind-the-scenes and uncensored content and help us expand the operation and do more.
		I gotta be honest.
		All the biggest companies in the world, all these big brands, have come to Tim Cass and said, we want to buy you.
		Either sign you personally to our company, or buy out your company.
		But they always include one very important thing in their contracts, and that is, I am required to do, like, three ad reads per show, personally, myself, and I will not do it.
		We have, like, three sponsors on Timcast IRL per month, and they're old.
		They're companies we've had for a very, very long time, and sponsoring a show like this, I think, proves that they're good people.
		And so I accept that.
		But for the most part, we're going to sponsor ourselves, and we're going to get away from that.
		And that's why I'm not doing any of these deals.
		Look, I'll give you an example.
		I like the Daily Wire guys.
		I think they do good work.
		And I think so long as they're getting sponsors, it proves something good about those sponsors.
		But when, in the middle of a show, Ben Shapiro or anybody else is talking about the importance of a new policy, and then he says, well, this policy may pass.
		But before we finish that, head over to Website.com and check out this new product using promo code You know, look, I got no beef if somebody wants to do that.
		That's the traditional business model.
		I ain't gonna do it.
		I'm not doing it.
		So let's talk about what Woody Harrelson was saying.
		They've bought the government and the media.
		That is an indisputable fact.
		Pharmaceutical companies lobby, okay?
		They're not the only lobbyists.
		They're not the only one.
		The joke, I think George Carlin said it, I can't remember.
		The politicians have to wear patches all over their jackets for the corporations that sponsor them, that lobby them, that give them money for their campaigns.
		It's not just one.
		So yes, Big Pharma is a large contributor to super PACs because they want politicians to win.
		Those politicians then double down and say, oh yeah, we're gonna, you know, this product, you should get it.
		It provided a solution to politicians who could say, look, we're doing something.
		And it gave guaranteed contracts in the billions of dollars, what, $100 billion to Pfizer, I think it was?
		So, uh, yeah.
		If your IQ is very low, you may think that's a conspiracy theory.
		And for the media?
		The media, they're getting paid to run ads.
		They're not going to go against this.
		They say, the actor who described himself, and he never said unnecessary vaccines, the funny thing, the actor who described himself as an anarchist, Marxist, ethical hedonist, non-discriminatory empath, epistemological deconstructionist, and Texan, immediately began receiving accolades from people who oppose coronavirus vaccines.
		Others criticized Harrelson and SNL for airing his remarks.
		Isn't it funny?
		Thank you, SNL, for Woody Harrelson's insipid anti-vaxx monologue.
		Who are you going to have guest host next week?
		Scott Baio, Rob Schneider, Kevin Sorbo?
		Maybe invite Kanye back while you're at it.
		All those are famous people.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Harrelson is not the only celebrity to land himself in hot water for seemingly promoting vaccine mistrust.
		Earlier this month, Shazam star Zachary Levi responded to an anti-vax tweet asking, do you agree or not that Pfizer is a real danger to the world?
		With hardcore agree.
		I think it's so hilarious.
		Before the conspiracy theory portion of his monologue, Harrelson promoted unity, saying this country seems so divided.
		Beautiful, ugly, black, white, blue, red.
		I love everybody.
		Maybe because I'm a redneck hippie.
		Look, He may have been making fun of the conspiracy theorists.
		Why didn't they go with that angle?
		Why didn't the media say, Woody Harrelson mocks conspiracy theorists in monologue?
		The joke being, people actually believe that?
		I threw that script away!
		Wow!
		Yeah.
		Well, you got the monologue there.
		You've got Tommy Vector saying, it's not predictable.
		It's a pattern.
		It's a planned response.
		It's not a pattern, or it's no pattern.
		It's a planned response team.
		Can you hear me now?
		We have this from kenicoa.substack.
		Woody Harrelson criticizes, this is from February 26, 4 million views on the tweet, 1.7 million on the video.
		He says Woody Harrelson criticizes the government and the pharmaceutical industry for blocking affordable off-patent antivirals like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to profit from COVID-19 vaccines.
		He says ivermectin got made into a horse tranquilizer, hydroxychloroquine got made ridiculous, and there was only one thing that could work, and that's the vaccine, and ultimately because of that, billions of dollars were made.
		The last people I would trust with my health are Big Pharma and Big Government because neither one of those strike me as caring entities.
		They're all about profit, and it's insane the profit they've made.
		Well, I'll give them this one.
		It's weird how the media immediately came out screaming about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
		It's amazing that YouTube bans you!
		If you claim Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID.
		I will tell you my personal opinion as a non-doctor individual.
		And don't forget to always talk to a doctor about what's right for you.
		I don't believe that Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are going to help you with COVID.
		Another study just came out, and I think there was like a prominent journalist who's very critical of Big Pharma, said another meta-analysis finds no correlation between ivermectin and the abatement of COVID symptoms.
		So look, I don't know.
		I'm not a doctor.
		What I think is the issue.
		Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are normal drugs that doctors prescribe.
		Ivermectin's world famous.
		Won some Nobel Prize for these guys.
		Cures river blindness.
		It's a very, very safe and effective treatment for river blindness, parasites, and worms.
		They give to horses.
		I was watching Yellowstone.
		Ah, I worked that in.
		You heard me.
		And they're squeezing the tube into the horse's mouth or whatever.
		And they're like, they love it.
		It's like candy to them.
		So, what was crazy is the media demonized these things and claimed that Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, and it's like, dude, look, it may not do anything, but what's with this weird anti-ivermectin, like...
		Zombie-like state?
		YouTube?
		What's your problem?
		What's wrong with your brains?
		Your IQs must be lower than 90.
		Yeah, you heard me.
		You can come out and talk.
		This is the crazy thing.
		The Daily Beast said the new poster boy for Ivermectin, Tim Pool.
		And I'm like, I have repeatedly said I don't think it does anything for COVID.
		That's just me.
		I'm not a doctor, go talk to a doctor, I don't know.
	I'm just saying, I've looked at a bunch of studies, and I think people cherry pick data.
	But how crazy is it that they so desperately hate this medication?
	How weird is that?
	And that makes you feel like something weird is going on, right?
	So now we're learning this.
	And I'll probably have to do a longer segment for 1 p.m.
	on lab leak, because this is big news.
	So now the government is saying, yeah, COVID probably leaked from a lab.
	And here's what I see.
	They screamed at the top of their lungs, this is a conspiracy theory, says the media.
	And then finally, the government laments, they come out and they say, well, you know, actually it wasn't a conspiracy theory.
	And the media is forced to walk everything back.
	Mocked!
anthony fauci ▲ ● ▼		Bletheled!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ted Cruz says, four clowns for Glenn.
		Glenn Kessler tweeted in May 1st, 2020, I feared Ted Cruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab.
		Or the many interviews with actual scientists.
		We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.
		Uh-oh!
		Glenn Kessler Editor-in-chief writer for the Washington Post's Fact Checker.
		Whoopsie!
		Oh, well, Glenn, you were very, very wrong about this one.
		Wall Street Journal-exclusive lab leak most likely says agency the New York Times saying the exact same thing.
		Counting the days, counting the days.
		So that's the game, right?
		That's the game.
		The media will say something's a conspiracy, and then two years later come out and be like, actually, it's been almost three years, they'll come out and be like, y'all were right the whole time.
		And it makes me really wonder about what's going on.
		You know, there's people who believe in this depopulation agenda, and maybe, I don't know, I don't believe, but I will say this.
		All of these policies, there are many policies in place that leads in the direction of depopulation.
		That is abortion, that is the sterilization of children, and you know, now medical assistance in dying, birth control, all of these things reduce population.
		Plus you got people like Bill Gates saying, we have to reduce the population of the world because it's growing too quickly.
		And I don't completely disagree.
		I just don't know that culling humans is the right thing to do.
		I think technological expansion and intergalactic colonization is probably the best bet.
		We need cultural reformation so that we can get people off of eating ho-hos and ding-dongs and becoming morbidly obese and start getting people to be responsible and strong and working towards a better future.
		I think that's probably the best way to do it because we need more humans to build more technology.
		Anyway, here's where we're at.
		You can argue that's the case.
		And I have to wonder about what's going on with these low IQ people because they seem to forget very quickly.
		The media comes out and says X is false in a conspiracy theory, and then a year later it turns out X was true the whole time.
		Smart or discerning people who watch the media and say, you know, I don't know for sure.
		I'm going to wait and see.
		Well, they were correct.
		So, what do you think is going to happen in a year or two with the current conspiracy theories?
		I've been hearing a whole lot about how climate change is causing heart attacks.
		Maybe.
		Maybe not.
		Don't look at me.
		I'm not a doctor.
		I can only tell you that I don't trust the media, and I try to do my own research using legitimate sources, and that means a few things.
		It means LabLeak was more likely, even Jon Stewart was saying it.
		It also means that I'm not convinced ivermectin is going to do anything for anybody.
		But it means I also understand that Ivermectin, for the most part, when prescribed by a doctor, is completely safe.
		I was prescribed Ivermectin, said I didn't want it, and they told me just take it, and I did.
		I had no problems.
		Just follow your doctor's instructions and make sure you have a good doctor.
		But I'm not convinced, based on what I've read, that Ivermectin is any kind of treatment.
		I honestly, I just, I don't see it.
		I think it's tri-bullets.
		I think people are cherry-picking data.
		Maybe, maybe not.
		So, You don't want to fall into a position where you're undiscerning.
		And that means I may not be right.
		You're probably right on a lot of things that I'm wrong about.
		You just don't want to be a person that blindly believes whatever it is your tribe says, lest you end up on the wrong side of this one.
		But hey, I'll tell you right now, the government was mostly wrong.
		The conspiracy theorists were mostly right.
		So, unfortunately for most people, especially the corporate press, If I was walking up to a roulette table and I had to choose one, the corporate press or the independent media, and you could put down your bet, come on.
		We all know where that cash is going.
		I would never bet a dollar on the corporate press being right on these issues.
		To be fair, I use the corporate press a whole lot.
		But I try to fact check and break through.
		So while I may use corporate press for most of my sources, I don't use every story they publish.
		I have to navigate through the swamp and try and find the little gold nuggets that are scattered about in the garbage.
		It ain't easy, but it is what it is.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	In breaking news over the weekend, conspiracy theorists were once again proven correct when the US Department of Energy says the COVID pandemic likely was the result of a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China.
	How's your weekend going?
	So can every single corporate press journalist and mainstream personality with low IQs who claimed it was likely not a lab leak Ah, yes.
	Every news outlet that ragged on Tom Cotton because he said, rather succinctly, that a virus emerged across the street from a laboratory that does gain-of-function research.
	And the media said, no, no, no, that's crazy.
	The scientists say it's impossible that a lab leak could have happened.
	You know what I always found funny about the dismissal of the lab leak theory?
	They said it was more likely that bat coronaviruses mutated and jumped to humans than humans who are doing experiments on coronaviruses made it more transmissible among mammals or among humans.
	That is to say, the likelihood that a virus can randomly jump from one species to another is slim to none.
	But it does happen.
	The likelihood that a virus engineered in a lab can is infinitely greater.
	Now, I'm not saying there was evidence.
	That this is what happened.
	I'm saying, it is just mathematically more probable that the bioengineering resulted in a virus infecting humans, as opposed to, all of a sudden and randomly, the bats had a virus and it jumped to humans.
	Granted, both are entirely plausible, and the odds are pretty great on either of them.
	The issue is, we actually had witness testimony and statements indicating the lab leak was, circumstantially, the most likely culprit.
	Ah, yes.
	The New York Times!
	Here's the news.
	Lab leak most likely caused pandemic, Energy Department says.
	Their conclusion, which was made with low confidence, came as America's intelligence agencies remained divided over the origins of the coronavirus.
	They say new intelligence has prompted the Energy Department to conclude that an accidental laboratory leak in China most likely caused the coronavirus pandemic, though U.S.
	spy agencies remain divided.
	The conclusion was a change from the department's earlier position that it was undecided on how the virus emerged.
	Some officials briefed on the intelligence said it was relatively weak, and that the Energy Department's conclusion was made with low confidence, suggesting its level of certainty was not high.
	While the department shared the information with other agencies, none of them changed their conclusions, officials said.
	Some officials briefed on the intelligence.
unidentified		Who?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What officials?
		Who the... Are you talking about New York Times?
		Even when you get a government agency being like, actually, this one's probably, yeah, the lab leak, they go, well, officials.
		Officials of what?
		Soccer officials?
		Is that what you did?
		You went to the local football club and said, I need an official, and the official said, I don't think so, and they wrote it down?
		That's the game they play.
		And don't you forget it.
		You might think it's crazy.
		No, they wouldn't.
		They pull this trick all the time in the corporate press.
		Some officials briefed on the intelligence.
		What does officials mean?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Get out of here with that stuff.
		Officials would not disclose what the intelligence was.
		Now, I'll tell you this.
		Do I trust the Department of Energy?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm just pointing out that... I don't know if I have this tweet pulled up.
		Seamus Coughlin had a really good one.
		Here we go.
		Seamus from Freedom Tune says, Remember when a never-before-seen virus sprang up in a city that had a virus factory, and then the media spent three years telling you that you were an idiot for not thinking the virus came from a bat?
		That's about right.
		Yeah, you're the idiot for not thinking the virus came for a bat because there's a virus factory.
		Because the NIAID provided funding through the, I think it was through the NIH, to EcoHealth Alliance to do gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and then a virus sprang up across the street from that lab, and then went, uh, bat soup.
		Bat soup?
		You had a paper from the University of Beijing that said that the likely cause, or the cause may have been, that bats had bit people and peed on them, and thus the virus jumped.
		Now, that still plays into the idea that the existing virus was jumping from bats to humans, which is seemingly rarer, I suppose, but possible.
		It could have been that they were doing this research, However, how did they do gain-of-function research?
		Well, thanks to the work of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, rest in peace, I guess, to Project Veritas, there was a director who worked at Pfizer who was saying that they basically take the animal and they give it the virus, and then when they see certain outcomes, they remove that and then spread that outcome, something like that.
		I think that's what was said.
		I could be wrong, so forgive me if I get that one incorrect, and I'll just say right now, I believe that's what the reporting was.
		Basically what they'll do is they'll take a bunch of monkeys.
		Give one of the monkeys COVID.
		Then, or bats or something, when it spreads around and you have like 10 specimen, and
		then one starts coughing and the others don't, they take the one that coughs and they put
		it in another space with more monkeys, so it spreads that particular variant, controlling
		effectively the mutation of the virus.
		Very, very creepy.
		Well, I'd like to play this video for you from the Hill.
		November 4th from 21.
		Let me just play it a minute long.
unidentified		Let's play.
		The preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you've
		done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass basically.
		That's what you've done.
		You've changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn't include the risky research that's going on.
		Until you admit that it's risky, we're not gonna get anywhere.
		You have to admit that this research was risky.
		The NIH has now rebuked them.
		Your own agency has rebuked them.
		But the thing is, is you're still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say they became sicker.
		They gained in lethality.
		It's a new virus.
		That's not gain of function?
anthony fauci ▲ ● ▼		According to the definition that is currently operable.
		You know, Senator, let's make it clear for the people who are listening.
		The current definition Blah, blah, blah.
		over a two to three year period by outside bodies including the NSA BB two
unidentified		conferences but blah blah blah I'm not here to listen to this guy lie y'all
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		know he lied We now know... Yeah, look at that, Fauci trending.
		He lied.
		He lied about everything.
		There was a piece of paper Rand Paul had that said, gain-of-function research being done, and they changed the definition.
		That was the game being played by Fauci.
		So let's have a fun little adventure here.
		We got this tweet from Justin Hart, author of the Gone Viral book, and he said, to repeat, they got everything wrong.
		You ready for this?
		Asymptomatic spread, wrong.
		Transmission to the disease, wrong.
		PCR testing, wrong.
		Fatality rate, wrong.
		Lockdowns, wrong.
		Community triggers, wrong.
		Business closures, wrong.
		School closures, wrong.
		Quarantining healthy people, wrong.
		Impact on youth, wrong.
		Hospital overload, wrong.
		Plexiglass barriers, wrong.
		Social distancing, wrong.
		Outdoor spread, wrong.
		Masks, wrong.
		Variant impact, wrong.
		Natural immunity, wrong.
		Vaccine efficacy, wrong.
		Vaccine injury, wrong.
		Did they get a single thing right?
		As I often say whenever it comes to stories like this, I am not here to assert.
		So take the information as you can, and always speak to a doctor about what is right for you.
		Make sure you get a good one.
		But they did.
		They got so much of this wrong.
		I mean, these Democrats put COVID patients in nursing homes, resulting in their deaths.
		So, uh, yeah.
		Either they were intending to kill those people, or they got it wrong.
		Pick one.
		Are they murderers, or was it manslaughter in the tens of thousands?
		Welcome to the modern era.
		Sean Parnell, how it started.
		Vice News.
		Trump's Wuhan lab coronavirus conspiracy theory is bogus, according to, uh, everyone.
		The World Health Organization and Dr. Anthony Fauci have both poured cold water on the conspiracy theory.
		Uh-oh!
		Now the news is that actually it's probably true, and we had this one I highlighted earlier, Glenn Kessler, I fear Ted Cruz missed the scientific animation of the video that shows how it's virtually impossible for the virus to jump from the lab.
		It's just so hilarious.
		I can't believe it's been almost three years since Big Pharma bought up all the media and the corporations, locked everybody in their homes and to force them into taking their drugs over and over again, which is crazy.
		Yeah, that's the Woody Harrelson monologue.
		Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
		says, fact checkers denounced me, denounced me for promoting vaccine misinformation when
		I pointed out Fauci's agency owned Moderna patent, stood to make half a billion dollars
		from jab Fauci developed in his lab, exempted from viable safety testing and liability,
		and then forced on the public with lies, propaganda, and coercion.
		What a business plan.
		The New York Times reports, after long delay, Moderna pays NIH for COVID vaccine technique.
		Hey, that's really weird.
		They made money off this?
		February 23rd, 2023?
unidentified		Huh?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's a story.
		As Moderna racked up tens of billions of dollars in sales of its coronavirus vaccine, the company held off on paying for the rights to a chemical technique that scientists said it had borrowed from government-funded research and used in its wildly successful shot.
		But Moderna and the government have now reached an agreement.
		The company said on Thursday that it had made a $400 million payment for the technique that will be shared by the National Institutes of Health and two American universities where the method was invented.
		Well, that's strange.
		Sounds like Robert F. Kennedy was right about that one, too.
		You know, I'm starting to really wonder about the frogs being gay.
		Because at this rate, with conspiracy theorists being right about too much, maybe the frogs really were gay, eh Alex?
		No, no.
		We already know that Alex Jones was correct in that assessment.
		Or I should say, his actual assessment was pesticides, endocrine disruptors, were changing frogs' sexual organs over his testes, making them hermaphrodites.
		A later study did claim that atrazine did not do these things.
		So, okay, sure.
		But I'm willing to bet we're around the corner from them coming out and being like, uh, well, you know, actually...
		The payment disclosed in Moderna's latest earnings report represented a small victory for the experts and activists who long argued the company had resisted acknowledging its debt to the government and academic researchers.
		If pharmaceutical companies are going to make billions of dollars, it seems reasonable that the scientists who helped generate some of the initial intellectual property in the universities also share some of its gains.
		Said Jason McClellan, a structural biologist who in 2017 led efforts to devise a technique in question as a researcher at the Giselle School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
		A lot of that will now be reinvested for future development and research.
		Moderna is still locked in a separate high-stakes dispute with the NIH over who invented the central component of the vaccine, the genetic sequence that helps recipients produce an immune response.
		It's really, really funny, because now they're saying not only are they getting paid, but they might actually own more.
		So, you know, who was right this whole time?
		I gotta tell you, man.
		The media and the corporate press and quote-unquote the science were wrong about everything.
		Dr. Fauci can come out and say, you don't need to be wearing five masks just two.
		And then the science comes out and says, uh, actually?
		So I have to wonder about memory.
		Ah, memory.
		Memory must not exist for those of exceptionally low IQs.
		From the Washington Post.
		Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed.
		Paulina Firozzi.
		Or however you pronounce Firozzi.
		However you pronounce that name, I love it.
		February 17th, 2020.
		This is right before the worst of the worst when it came to the pandemic.
		Correction, it says, earlier versions of the story and its headline inaccurately characterized comments from Senator Tom Cotton regarding the origins of the coronavirus.
		The term debunked and the post use of conspiracy theory have been removed because then as now, there was no determination on the origins of the virus.
		I love how they do that, don't you?
		How they write a story, then, when a year or so later, new information comes out proving that they were the ones who were wrong, the whole time, they just change the headline and rewrite history.
		Well, let me pull up this, uh, let me pull up this here for you.
		Here's the archive, my friends.
		From the Washington Post, Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.
		Woo!
		That's a doozy, Washington Post!
		That's a doozy, Paulina Ferrazzi!
		You must be dumb as a box of rocks to go back in and change this.
		They rewrite history.
		I saw the story about how they're going to start changing books.
		Wow, man.
		You ready for that culture revolution?
		Because it seems to be coming.
		You're gonna go on and you're gonna find a digital copy and it will be whatever they want it to be.
		The history of books will change.
		You wanna know what the scariest thing about the future when it comes to deepfakes?
		It is not someone making a fake video of Joe Biden being like, you know, I'm gonna raise taxes on everybody.
		No one's gonna believe a deepfake like that.
		We know deepfakes exist.
		I'll tell you what the scariest thing is.
		Donald Trump.
		We'll give a speech.
		And he'll say something like, there were very fine people on both sides, people who wanted to protest that statue coming down, and I'm not talking about the white nationalists or the neo-Nazis because they should be condemned totally.
		Probably getting that quote wrong, but to a certain degree, I'm close.
		We know that Donald Trump did not say Nazis were fine people.
		He said they should be condemned totally.
	The scary thing about how history will be revised is that someone will make a deepfake where Donald Trump will say something like, and I'm not saying, I'm not talking about the Nazis and the white supremacists because some of them should be denounced totally.
	You see what I did there?
	All you need to do is take an existing piece of history and alter, using deepfake technology, a very, very simple thing.
	No one will believe if you change it to have Donald Trump literally just start praising Nazis.
	I mean, some people will probably believe it.
	But you change it from, they should be condemned totally to, some of them should be condemned totally.
	And it's close enough to where the gaslighting would work.
	And your average person is gonna be like, did he say some of them?
	I thought he said they should be.
	Well, I pulled it up and listened to it, and he says some of them.
	I guess he did defend some of those Nazis.
	Oh, weird.
	Because if he's not saying all of them, some of them should be.
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You think some of them shouldn't be?
		My point is this.
		No one will believe the outright deepfakes.
		I mean, some people will.
		But when they can revise history a teeny bit, you'll get six different versions of the story with viral videos, and they'll all claim they're true, and how do you prove which one is or isn't?
		Seriously?
		How are you going to prove it?
		Trump will come out and be like, that's not real, they faked it.
		And they'll be like, it's the video everybody saw.
		And then what's a judge going to say?
		Which one's the real one?
		Good luck.
		I've already heard of judges saying that deepfakes are admissible.
		Because if you can't prove it, what are they supposed to do?
		It's a video.
		So if you have a video of someone doing a thing that you fabricated and presented to a court, well, you're committing perjury, you're lying.
		But unless they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, what's going to happen?
		Where did this video come from?
		Honestly, don't know.
		It was sent to our evidence team and it's very damning and our defendant is innocent.
		You can get all the experts in the world to claim it is or isn't a deepfake.
		Good luck.
		The reason I bring that up in this context, you see how they changed the headline?
		Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed.
		Whereas the original headline was, Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.
		These people are evil and stupid.
		You know, I want to say, what are they?
		Are they stupid or are they evil?
		Why not both?
		People will go back, and they'll look at this, and they will believe this is the original headline.
		Now don't get me wrong, they put a correction in here, but they did not date the correction, and there's no link to the original article so you can understand what they really said.
		It's truly incredible, the world that we live in.
		The New York Times.
		Senator Tom Cotton repeats fringe theory of coronavirus origins.
		Hey, well, how about that?
		February 17th, 2020.
		I'm willing to bet.
		You want to bet that they did something similar with this one?
		Let's see if I can pull up this one as well.
		We'll pull up the original article, and we'll see what the New York Times had to say on the day that it was published.
		They're probably a bit more careful.
		Here it is.
		I think that the title is the same.
		Senator Tom Cotton repeats fringe theory of coronavirus origins.
		They say, this is the current version, scientists have dismissed suggestions that the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it's the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.
		Here's what it used to say.
		In an interview on Fox News, the Arkansas lawmaker raised the unsubstantiated possibility that the new coronavirus originated in a highly high security biochemical lab in China.
		Did the New York Times put at the top a correction or editorial note?
		They did not.
		At the bottom, perhaps, did they include anything?
		Let's see.
		Nope.
		The New York Times never wrote an editorial update that they changed this article and changed its context.
		This is what the corporate press does.
		They change history in real time to support themselves.
		There used to be a website called NewsDiffs.
		It may still exist, but I believe it's fallen into disrepair.
		And it would track the real-time changes of these news outlets.
		But now, we at least have Archive.is and Archive.org.
		So these media companies, to save face, to avoid lawsuits, will rewrite history in real time.
		And your friends and your family, when you go to them and say, you see what the media was saying the whole time?
		They were calling it a conspiracy theory.
		And then they'll pull up the article and be like, they never said that.
		That's not what the article says.
	Look, this Washington Post article that says disputed, this is from February 17, 2020.
	When did they change it?
	I want you to imagine this.
	The year is 2015.
	The media is lying about literally everything related to Donald Trump.
	They say that your body renews itself every seven years.
	That the old cells have died and new cells have replaced them, creating an entirely new person.
	Yeah, it's like the ship of Theseus.
	Very interesting thought problem, or philosophical conundrum.
	So, now, you have people who have spent seven years living under the veil of fake news and media lies.
	Don't get me wrong, there have been lies in the media long before this, but it's particularly bad since Trump got elected.
	And this is where we are today.
	Lab leak, according to the New York Times, most likely, says the Energy Department.
	Nothing can be wrong.
	I don't think the Energy Department are the bastions of truth or anything like that.
	I'm saying it's fascinating that the New York Times, with no official statements, called these conspiracy theories that have already been debunked because the science says.
	Now, government officials are saying, no, actually, Lab League is probably what really happened.
	And here comes the New York Times to march in lockstep.
	I can't tell you what really happened.
	I think lab leak makes the most sense.
	But I also think you should consider this.
	Cassus Belli.
	Cause for war.
	It's entirely possible that we will see a swing now in the corporate press to begin supporting the idea that the virus did come from China because China just threw a spy balloon over our country, they're preparing to invade Taiwan, and war may be on the horizon.
	And lo, China causing a pandemic intentionally would be an excellent Cassus Belli if the U.S.
	needs it.
	For the time being, the U.S.
	is content to be like, we don't know.
	But then when the moment comes, in order to rally support, they will come out on every single news outlet and they will confirm LabLeak.
	Fauci will say, we didn't know!
	And then they'll say, this was an act of war against the United States, and we must do something about it.
	So take it all with a grain of salt.
	I don't know what happened because I never saw it.
	And I'm not going to blindly just believe the New York Times.
	Because I'm showing you here, the New York Times, in one instance, telling you what you want to hear.
	And in another instance, lying and saying the opposite.
	Currently, the New York Times is running two different stories.
	One saying it's a fringe theory.
	One saying the Energy Department, U.S.
	government, says it's most likely what happened.
	So pick one, I guess.
	The left will pick the old one and say, oh, I trust the old one.
	The new one's weird.
	And I don't believe the Energy Department knows what they're talking about.
	I trust the science and Dr. Fauci.
	Many of you might say, they're lying.
	This proves it.
	None of it proves anything.
	I think common sense proves it.
	A virus emerged across the street from the virus factory, like Seamus Coghlan said.
	Where do you think it came from?
	When Jon Stewart went on to Colbert, Colbert was critical, saying, no, now we don't know.
	And I even have friends who have said to me recently, I think it came from a bat.
	Well, there you go.
	Now the New York Times says, the US government says, likely from a lab, who funded the research.
	The implications of this will be profound.
	But if you keep trusting the corporate press, I don't know where you'll end up.
	Supporting war?
	Believing fake news?
	Common sense, I guess.
	I guess the question then remains, why do we believe that the virus even originated in Wuhan in the first place?
	Because we believe the news?
	That's the challenge.
	All the information we get is coming from governments and corporate press.
	So good luck out there.
	It ain't gonna be easy.
	And I'm not saying everything I say is factually 100% true.
	I can only do what I can do.
	Be discerning, my friends, and we'll see where this one goes.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	So, Dilbert's cancelled.
	Scott Adams apparently said on his show that he moved as far away from black people as possible.
	But there's a lot to break down, okay?
	So a bunch of newspapers are shutting down Dilbert.
	They're getting rid of Dilbert.
	Scott Adams said he knew this was happening.
	His income is gone.
	His reputation is destroyed.
	He's never coming back from this.
	I don't know what's going on, but, uh, hey look, if Scott Adams truly feels the way he feels and he's speaking honestly about his feelings, I respect him for doing so.
	Now, in his statements and assessments, I want to point out that I believe he is mostly incorrect.
	Mostly incorrect.
	But there's important things you need to understand.
	So what happened here is, Rasmussen did a poll and found that something like half of black people polled said they did not agree with the phrase, it's okay to be white.
	And he said, if that poll is true, and half of black people feel it's not okay to be white, then you've got a very serious problem.
	And he says, that's a hate group then.
	Okay.
	It's a poll.
	I don't think that's indicative of a whole lot, but he goes on to say then, if the poll is true, he advises people, white people, to move as far away from black people as possible, and then goes on to explain that's what he did.
	Yo, Scott, you're wrong.
	But I understand why you would feel the way you do based off a poll like this, and I do understand why people feel that way, especially in places like Chicago.
	Because you will find that there is a correlation between the racial demographics of a neighborhood and the crime being committed there.
	The problem is, it may be a spurious correlation.
	I get a lot of people that comment and be like, Tim should recognize the race, demographics of a neighbor, and the crime levels, and I'm just like, you know, some of the highest crime in the Chicagoland area is in a wealthy white district, and I'm talking violent crime.
	You know why?
	Because poor people of any race don't go rob other poor people for the most part.
	So, I will say this.
	Having grown up in a racially diverse place like Chicago, but heavily segregated, I did not find race to be the determining factor in whether or not crime was going to be committed against you.
	Because, to be honest, I was only ever mugged by two white guys.
	But I don't think white had anything to do with it.
	They were from the South Side.
	I think poverty had everything to do with it.
	And then you can probably look at history of race and poverty, probably make some correlations there.
	My issue with this is, one, I don't think Dilbert should be cancelled because Dilbert as a product is not the same politics as Scott Adams.
	We're not cancelling Avengers movies because Chris Evans is kind of a dickhead on Twitter or something like that.
	Nah, he's alright.
	He's not so bad.
	I liked it when he went and met with Republicans.
	But you know, you get like Mark Ruffalo and you get these lefties who go on and they spit, you know, this hateful garbage and nobody cares about that.
	But let's break this down, because I think it's important you know exactly what Scott Adams said.
	The media, of course, is lying, cutting the context of what he said out to make it sound substantially worse.
	That being said, I still think what Scott Adams said is pretty bad, and I got some data to back up my argument against what Scott said.
	But okay.
	Here we go.
	First, let me play for you the clip from Scott Adams so you can understand what he said and why people are arguing.
	Okay, is Twitter... Twitter's really giving me the business on this one?
	Come on.
	Twitter videos don't like playing sometimes.
	And now I can't even get... Here we go.
	Twitter, load.
	Do I have to blame Elon Musk for this?
	Here it is.
unidentified		So if nearly half of all blacks are not okay with white people, according to this poll, not according to me, According to this poll, that's a hate group.
		That's a hate group.
		And I don't want to have anything to do with them.
		And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people.
		Just get the fuck away.
		Wherever you have to go, just get away.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say, nah, that's, I'm sorry, I just, no dude, come on.
		This is what I really can't stand about race politics.
		Like, I don't want to start shouting out all of the really awesome black people, like, should I have to do that?
		No, of course not.
		We've had a bunch of people on TimCast IRL, I've got friends, we've got employees.
		Why would I look at a poll that says white liberals hate white people and then be like, better get away from white people?
		It's like, no, just get away from those people who are bad.
		I don't—it really pisses me off and it bums me out when there could be someone of any background—maybe they're gay, maybe they're trans, maybe they're straight, maybe they're, you know, whatever—black, white, Mexican, Asian—I don't care about their identity.
		And they come out and start telling you why the Constitution is so important.
		They start, they're, let's say they're a military veteran who saved a bag of puppies from a burning building and then immediately ran across the street and then saved two small children from a different burning building and then came out and then ran in to save the American flag from the fire and waved it.
		Super ripped, but he's black.
		Like, that's the problem.
		A person's character is not determined by how they look.
		And what happens is people take surface-level correlations, and they're like, well, because I see a large percentage of this group, each individual now must be judged the same, and I'm gonna get away from them.
		So, that's why I don't appreciate what Scott Adams is saying.
		I can respect him speaking his mind and being honest, you know?
unidentified		There's no fixing this.
		This can't be fixed.
		Right, this can't be fixed.
		You just have to escape.
		So that's what I did.
		I went to a neighborhood where, you know, I have a very low black population.
		Because unfortunately, you know, there's a high correlation between the density... And this is according to Don Lemon, by the way.
		And so here I'm just quoting... Okay, okay, hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Don Lemon did come out and say that.
		I covered it.
		Don Lemon had this 2013 diatribe about how black neighborhoods need to stop littering and clean up and go to school and other stuff like that.
unidentified		...quoting Don Lemon.
unidentified		When he notes that when he lived in a mostly black neighborhood, there were a bunch of problems that he didn't see in white neighborhoods.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So this is what I can't stand, man.
		I think it's my perspective, having grown up on the south side of Chicago.
		I grew up in an area that was very Polish, but it had Mexicans, it had a lot of black people.
		Mostly the black community was north of 47th Street.
		But near our park, there was a lot of black families.
		The north of 47th was almost entirely the black community, and so that did create weird racial animosity.
		But I never took that to be like, The reason someone did something wrong was because of their race.
		That just doesn't, that doesn't make sense.
		I just, I'm sorry.
		It don't make sense to me, and I'll show you why.
		This is the neighborhood of Hyde Park in Chicago, okay?
		Hyde Park.
		It's the 41st of the 77 community areas of Chicago.
		It is located on the south side near the shore of Lake Michigan.
		Hyde Park's official boundaries are 51st Street, Hyde Park Boulevard, and the north of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
		You know why Hyde Park is relevant?
		24.4% black.
		That is almost double the ratio in the black population for this neighborhood.
		It is a highly dense black neighborhood.
		It is seen by many people to be a very prominent black neighborhood.
		In fact, I think Obama lived there.
		I'm pretty sure they got a picture of Obama on here somewhere.
		They got Obama here.
unidentified		Look at that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Obama lives there.
		You go down to Hyde Park, and you'll see a lot of well-off families, a lot of black families.
		When you go and search the stats, the safety rating of Hyde Park is above average, and they recommend you live there.
		So, it may be that we see in many areas a correlation between black neighborhoods and crime.
		My opinion has always been more so that poverty plays a role, because the people who live in Hyde Park have a higher income.
		Eh, for the most part.
		I mean, not completely.
		But look at this.
		A two-bedroom's two grand per month.
		And it's, again, about 25% black.
		Whereas other neighborhoods are like 13, and there are some that are like 70 or whatever.
		But my point is, this is a safe neighborhood with twice the ratio of black people.
		It feels kind of stupid to me to have a conversation about this not being black, but I suppose I can say, having grown up on the South Side and experienced this, What I can say is, that was never what I got out of it.
		The gangbangers in my neighborhood were like Latino and white people.
		The Latin Kings was a gang on the South Side, and they're the Latin Kings, they're not black people.
		I don't know.
		That's just me, that's just me.
		I'm sure there's going to be a bunch of people who are far left who agree with segregation and people who are right who think race plays a bigger role.
		But anyway, here's what happens.
		Rasmussen runs this poll.
		It's okay to be white.
		72% of Americans agree, 12% disagree.
		They say black people, black Americans only, 53% agree, 26% disagree.
		So just to clarify, It's only half of black Americans agree that it's okay to be white.
		26% disagreed.
		That's a lot of racist black people.
		Okay.
		I mean, people of any race can be racist.
		But come on, man, look.
		Scott Adams has said some good things.
		He's had some bad things.
		He's been roasted before.
		But to say, I got away from them and you should too?
		It's just... Bro, come on, man.
		That's just no.
		What am I supposed... How do...
		You gotta clarify what you mean by that, because I would tell people this.
		I say get away from cities.
		Get away from high crime areas.
		You go to the south side of Chicago, you go by where I grew up, you'll see higher crime rates, and mostly white people.
		You'll go to other poor neighborhoods that are mostly black people, you might see high crime rates too.
		In fact, in some of these areas, you'll see the worst crime rates.
		But then how do you find the correlation between the crime and the race when it's high here and low here and high there?
		You get my point.
		Some might argue there is a correlation.
		I would argue I think poverty plays a bigger role.
		Poverty and—I don't know.
		I think poverty plays a big role.
		Of course, then when it comes to poverty, you will see there's a correlation between poverty and other factors like perseverance, work ethic, intelligence, cultural traditions, Family.
		And I think more than race, stay away from people who have no dads, right?
		Would that be like a better statement to make?
		Then you can make an argument about how the black community has higher levels of fatherlessness, but that's not race.
		These are cultural things that You know, I'll put it this way.
		Conservatives come out and they're like, Democrats are trying to destroy the family.
		Yes, okay, thank you.
		It's not a race thing.
		White people who grow up in bad families, black people, Asian people, anybody who grows up with a bad family, of course, is going to have a harder life, make less income, have lower intelligence.
		I don't know, man.
		Here we go.
		Look at how CNN reports it.
		Well, okay.
		I mean, that's his opinion based on this.
		Dilbert comic strip has been dropped by the USA Today Network, hundreds of
		newspapers, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, LA Times, Washington Post, and other
	publications, Adams called black Americans a hate group. No, he didn't. He
	said the 26% of black people who don't think it's okay to be white are a hate
	group. Well, okay, I mean that's his opinion based on this.
	I will say, though, he probably went a little too far when he said white people
	should get away from black people. Take a look at this.
	Scott Adams tweeted, it's worse than I thought.
	The Gallup numbers on race relations in the U.S.
	are striking.
	They make a very good case that we are not on the right track with a racial essentialism approach, which is the underlying theme of too many DEI initiatives.
	I agree that we should not be segregating and promoting CRT.
	Would you say relations between white and black people are very good, somewhat good, somewhat bad, or very bad?
	Among both black adults and white adults, it's been dropping precipitously.
	You know, if we go back to 2013, 72% of white people said good, 66% of black people said good.
	You go back to 2002, 70% to 68%.
	You know, there was some unity back then.
	What happened?
	Now it's 33% to 43%.
	White people and black people are feeling the heat.
	I can't stand this trash, man.
	I'm not saying that we're gonna have a world where everybody's holding hands and singing songs under the rainbows, but I'm saying I'm here to judge people based on the content of their character.
	And the one thing that really bothers me, as I stated earlier, if I got a friend who is male-female, who is black-white, who is trans-gay, whatever, and someone judges their morals, their ethics, their principles based on something about their identity, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna say no to that.
	It's their actions.
	Okay, you want to make an argument like Drag Queen Story are.
	Yeah, but what about Drag Queen Story?
	That's an action.
	Gays Against Groomers opposes that.
	You know, I don't care if you're a dude who likes dudes, and you want to go live your life and be happy.
	But when you're giving kids books with graphic material in it, that's an action that I oppose.
	And straight people do it, and gay people do it, and those are bad people.
	Alright?
	I'm saying like a small minority of those people.
	Obviously not every single person's a pedo, but pedos exist and they come in all shapes and sizes.
	So no, that's bad.
	So to come out and be like, oh, you know, all black people...
	Oh, no, no.
	So, apparently they have the quote here, where he said something like, this is it, my career is over.
	Let me see.
	My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed.
	You can't come back from this.
unidentified		Oh.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, look.
		I would ask, why say it then?
		But I think the answer is quite simple.
		Scott Adams is telling you what he really thinks and how he really feels.
		I can respect it.
		I disagree with it.
		But he's being honest with you.
		Adams could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters, but on his YouTube channel he confirmed his comic was being dropped, and said he'd expected that to happen.
		By Monday, I should be mostly cancelled, so most of my income will be gone by next week.
		My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed.
		You can't come back from this.
		Someone responded on Twitter saying, Can't and shouldn't.
		Everyone has a right to an opinion and express it.
		No one has a right to have that opinion exist in a vacuum where private companies can't disavow any association with it.
		I mean, those are interesting questions.
		It's like I was saying, I don't know about canceling Dilbert.
		Maybe if the Dilbert comics, if they had Dilbert come out and he was just like totally racist.
		But this idea that you can't have an opinion and then work in public makes no sense to me.
		We can say, I can say, I don't like Scott Adams' opinion.
		I think he's wrong.
		I think he's missing a lot of context and I think these questions are very difficult to answer.
		And I will say this, too.
		I'm not a nature or nurture guy.
		I'm a both.
		I think nature and nurture play a role in a lot of things.
		I'm not a scientist.
		I'm not going to tell you how much of each, but I imagine you take a white dude from Britain, from central London, as a baby, a white baby, and you raise him in any ghetto, favela or whatever, and they are going to adhere to the culture of that area.
		I do think, however, genetics will play a role in some of the behaviors or some of the things they do, because to act like genetics don't play a role, I think, is stupid.
		But, of course, then you'll get the left being like, race essentialism and biological determinism is completely wrong.
		It's a blank slate.
		No, it's not.
		It's not a blank slate.
		I just think that social conditioning is like the dominant force in that you take any human and you raise them right and they will almost entirely be good people doing the right thing and be smart.
		I think what I'm trying to say is there are racial differences, but they're so minimal compared to proper diet, nutrition, education, and access.
		We can see this across basically every racial demographic, that technological—how much technology a group of people has access to changes the rate at which they have kids.
		So it's like environment has a very, very pronounced impact, and social behaviors too.
		So I don't know, man.
		I always think about this with Hyde Park, because I'm just like, I wish I could live in that place.
		UFC is down there, one of the great colleges or whatever, Obama lived down there, and it's a south side neighborhood.
		Right on the lake, it's beautiful.
		I've had friends, black families that I would hang out with, beautiful houses that were so much better than mine, wealthier.
		And I always thought about how—here's what I think.
		I think Democrat policy was intentionally designed to create racism and destroy the black community and black families.
		If you go back to, like, Black Wall Street, the great success of black Americans, I think many on the left will acknowledge this shows the capabilities and rejects the outright racism that white supremacists would have.
		But the Democrats were the white supremacists, and they destroyed black Wall Street, and they bombed neighborhoods, and they destroyed lives.
		And that's why I understand people like Derrick Bell.
		He says segregation was a good thing because it allowed black people to have their own banks, their own community, their own schools.
		He believes that ending segregation was a bad idea.
		I think he's completely wrong.
		I think the problem is racism, and I think Democrats, for the most part, are racist and pretend they're not racist.
		They implement policies of welfare and other race-based policies, and they did housing covenants that destroyed the black community, specifically targeting them, and now are trying to act like they're the great heroes when they're actually destroying everybody.
		Breaking up the family doesn't just hurt one racial group, it hurts everybody.
		I look at Hyde Park, and I see evidence to the inverse.
		That there are wealthy, successful people of all races.
		Oprah Winfrey and Will Smith are great examples of extremely wealthy black people.
		And that's why I'm just like, yo, racism is only going to make the divisions worse, make poor Americans fight each other, and it's why I hate critical race theory.
		This idea that a homeless white veteran is privileged and Oprah Winfrey is not is stupid.
		The idea that the white gangbangers from Chicago who caused problems for my neighborhood were like somehow better people based on the color of their skin is the stupidest idea ever.
		They were degenerates.
		They were disgusting bad people.
		Not all of the gangbangers, but a lot of them were.
		Some of them were alright, I'll get completely honest.
		I don't even want to generalize the gangbangers.
		But like, they tended to be bad.
	That's why they're in gangs, they're stealing stuff, they're doing stuff.
	There was a...
	One gang, the Popes, they were actually all right.
	They would just chill and smoke pot and like kind of left everybody alone and everybody knew like, just don't screw with them because they're all friends with each other.
	But then there were some other gangs that would, they would steal from people, they'd mug people.
	And in my neighborhood, it was like an eclectic gang.
	It was a diverse, diversity.
	When you're getting mugged, it's like a white dude with blonde hair and a Mexican guy and an Asian guy in the back and you're like, oh, look at that, you know, diversity in the gangs as they're taking your money from you.
	Maybe that's just me.
	And I wonder if because a lot of these Democrats, these liberals, grew up in wealthy white suburbs, hearing this narrative, they believe it?
	And it's like if you actually experienced this, you'd be like, I've had moments where the dude coming to my defense was Mexican or was black and the aggressor was white or the drunk driver was white or sometimes the drunk driver was black.
	You see that in a place like Chicago and you're just like, I don't think it's race.
	I don't think the race of the guy is what caused it.
	Now look, I don't know about Scott Adams.
	He knows his life is destroyed, that's what he's saying, and he decided to say it anyway.
	Alright, well, you know what, look man, I think your opinions are incorrect.
	I do think that there's a discussion to be had about race and genetics, nature versus nurture.
	There's no reason to silence a conversation on...
	How people develop.
	I just think environment plays the biggest role.
	Epigenetics, food, nutrition, things like that.
	You malnourish someone and they're gonna end up, you know, lower intelligence.
	Doesn't matter their race.
	So that's what I want to just say to Scott Adams, because I don't think Scott Adams is a bad guy.
	I think he just gets things wrong, and he's allowed to get things wrong.
	And I think things like this should be a learning opportunity.
	To just come out and be like, we are terrified, so we're severing all of these contracts with you, I think is stupid.
	Dilbert is a comic about a guy who works in an office.
	Dilbert, just because Scott Adams said something one time you don't like, that's stupid.
	It's stupid.
	Whatever, man.
	I'll leave it there.
	I'll leave it there.
	It went a little bit longer, but there's a lot to talk about.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	I keep seeing these clips from this podcast, Whatever Podcast, and I guess they talk about dating and men and women and stuff.
	We got this clip posted by our friends over at Clown World.
	Honestly, I have no idea who Clown World is.
	I keep saying our friends over there, but I don't know them.
	I don't want anyone to think that I know them.
	I just see them on Twitter, and I followed them.
	And they post these videos that are actually pretty funny.
	In this video, at the Whatever Podcast, The host is asking these women, are you a feminist?
	Do you believe in equality of the sexes?
	And they're like, yes, of course, but then the men have to do everything for us.
	Okay, which is not equality.
	So let's break it down, and let me explain to you why this woman is wrong, but I tell you, the problem with this video, and I feel bad for this woman, is that, yo, she has no idea what she's saying, and she lacks the cognitive capabilities to explain her ideas to the rest of us.
	I feel bad for her because she just doesn't come off as understanding anything that she's talking about, and it's kind of mind-numbing, but now you get to listen to it too.
	Here we go, you ready?
unidentified		Would you describe yourself as a feminist?
		Yes.
		Do you believe in gender equality?
		Uh, yeah, of course.
		Okay, so how do you reconcile believing in gender equality, but also holding men to their traditional gender roles of paying for the first date?
		Well, I'm just saying that's my personal view.
		Being a feminist is just doing whatever you want to do, and not being bashed by society for that.
		And obviously, standing up for women's rights and stuff like that.
		I don't know, I just feel like this question's really dense.
		My question is, if you believe in gender equality, don't you think you ought to split the bill on the first date?
		Um, no, because my main concern with gender equality is through, like, yes, in society, like, fixing that, and through, like, the system, but yeah, I don't, oh my gosh.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh no!
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Lady!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let me play that again.
unidentified		Split the bill on the first date.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Isn't too good.
unidentified		Um, no, because my main concern with gender equality is through, like, yes in society, like, fixing that, and through... Yes in society, like, fixing that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Lady, what are you talking about?
		Okay, fine.
		Fair point.
		This may be out of context, and there may be something from the prior conversation or earlier in the conversation we didn't hear.
unidentified		Like, the system, but... The system?
unidentified		Yeah, I don't... Oh my god.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes, okay.
		Now, look, to be fair, I don't think out-of-context clips do anybody justice, but I thought this was a really good launching point to talk about, you know, why exactly we have gender roles and feminism and contradictions.
		And I'll come up by saying that, yo, too many women Just say they're feminists because the TV says they should say they're feminists.
		They grow up in a society where it's like, you believe in women's rights, therefore you're a feminist.
		And yes, sure.
		But there's different waves of feminism.
		So how about we talk about this?
		If you believe in equality between the sexes, the men should not be paying for the first date.
		If you think they should, you do not believe in equality because a man has to work to generate resources to then provide you with something and you're expecting something from them that you will not give in return.
		Literally not equality in balance.
		But I got no problem whatsoever with ladies who want guys to pay on the first date.
		Or, who want to pay on the first date.
		Literally don't care.
		Everybody's different.
		They got different views.
		But this is an opportunity to clarify.
		First, I'm going to give this lady the benefit of the doubt.
		She doesn't seem like a bad person.
		I got no beef with her.
		I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that.
		I think what she's trying to say is her concerns with feminism, and I hope I'm translating this for her, okay?
		Her concerns with feminism, equality, have more to do with can a woman hold a position in office?
		Does she have the freedom to choose?
		Now, when it comes to dating and other things like that, she prefers a guy who takes the traditional approach.
		That's how I'd explain it.
		I think that's what she's trying to say.
		But, you know, you can't take somebody who Not everybody has the ability to articulate their thoughts in a cohesive manner, nor the verbose lexicon to explain their ideas to the finest point.
		I think she's saying, and I respect her opinion, that women should be able to be politicians, CEOs, work in companies, own bank accounts, have credit cards, all of that stuff that feminists have fought for for a long time, and that if they want to, in a dating situation, have the man take the lead, they're allowed to do it.
		I actually find that kind of a good thing, right?
		Have women who choose, get to choose, and then women who want a more traditional man, have a more traditional man.
		I kind of feel like that's what she's saying.
		Ah, but gender roles, why do they exist?
		Because, well, we'll start very simply.
		Because men have more bone density, men have more muscle mass, more collagen in their skin, they have a higher center of gravity, they tend to run faster, they tend to have greater grip strength, et cetera, et cetera.
		And why does that matter?
		This all emerges if you read basic evolutionary biology.
		And I am not an evolutionary biologist, and probably a lot of this is wrong, but I read several academic articles on the matter.
		And the reason you end up with a combination of women not in the workplace and men paying for the first aid is the same thing.
		So it may be nice to be like women should be presidents, but also men should be the ones providing the resources.
		There's a bit of an evolutionary contradiction in that.
		I think it can work out that way.
		I think the issue is individuals have a right to choose.
		It doesn't matter.
		Can you do the job?
		Then you can do the job, right?
		I think that's the most efficient way to do things.
		And the reason why we don't have the most efficient way of doing things, or didn't for a long time, is that, well, imagine you've got a small tribe of humans.
		Fifty of them.
		25 men, 25 women.
		If 24 women die, yeah, you're done.
		Your society ends right there.
		Because in 9 months, you have one baby.
		In 9 or 10 months later, you might have another baby.
		And that one woman is doing a lot of work making more humans.
		So, maybe you can have her crank out babies every nine months, but that's incredibly strenuous, and women, they do die in childbirth.
		It is tough.
		It's difficult.
		So, if 24 of the men die, the women can pick up the slack for the men.
		Not to the same degree, like hunting and things like that, but for the most part, they could, because they're humans, and humans are very capable people.
		This results in gender traditions, where the men don't strike women, protect them.
		Women don't go out and engage in conflict, war, and fighting, because if the women die, your whole civilization collapses.
		Then, as you start entering the urban era, as cities begin expanding, You get to the point where they're like, look, first it was the guy going and he said, I'm gonna go talk with the other tribe and try and figure out this food thing because if you go they might kidnap or kill you or take you because women are extremely important and valuable for a civilization's ability to have children.
		So the men would go.
		The men are then doing all the negotiating and I'm not saying it's a good thing or a right thing, I'm saying that's just what happened.
	You end up in a city and then in the future you have politics, politicians, banking, finance, everything is just men doing it and it's not considered a task for women.
	Of course this creates problems as social society begins changing and bears and wolves and war start leaving our shores and our cities.
	Now you have women who have substantially less to fear And with a massive population explosion, less of a requirement for protecting those women from dangers, though they still exist and they're humans, and now women have guns and can go out and do whatever they want.
	So if they want to go run a bank or get a credit card to live by themselves, they can.
	Thus, the modern era.
	But I gotta tell you, man, not to be mean to this here lady, too many feminists have no idea what they're talking about, and they're saying exactly what they heard on the TV.
	And the TV says girl power, so they say girl power.
	But I have to wonder.
	How many women actually want a strong man to take the lead, to do the work, to guide, etc.? ?
	Because what I talked about with the evolution of gender roles also creates a genetic component in humans.
	Human tendencies and human instinct and drives and desires.
	That's probably why you see, when you look at these documentaries or these scientific studies, men are object-oriented and women are subject-oriented.
	Women are social.
	Women like raising kids more than men on average.
	Granted, men like kids too.
	I'm not saying it's absolute.
	I'm saying it's, you know, it's somewhat bimodal.
	Men like doing backflips.
	Women like taking pictures of themselves doing backflips.
	Not always.
	Not every woman.
	I'm not saying absolutely.
	I'm saying tendencies.
	You'll notice that when a man takes a picture of something, he takes a picture of something.
	A woman puts herself in the picture and takes a selfie along with it.
	Tendency.
	Not always.
	Not every single woman.
	But that, I think, arises from how humans came to be.
	Women care more about people than men do, I think.
	I really do believe it.
	I think men care more about their people, their families and their friends, in the immediate, but about succeeding in some regard.
	Because the success led to the success of your family and your community.
	So, what I mean to say is, women care about the deeply personal when it comes to humans, and men are concerned with the functionality of humans.
	Men, of course, want humans to thrive and survive, and they care about them.
	Women, of course, care about the functioning of humans as well, but I'm saying it's like 51 to 49 and vice versa.
	Women tend to be Hey, who are you?
	What's your name?
	What do you do?
	I want to hear about you.
	And men tend to be, who are you?
	What's your name?
	And what do you do?
	Can your job help the community?
	You get the point?
	I think you get the point.
	So, uh, you know, as for this lady, I don't think she's wrong.
	You know, she's not saying that she wants to have her cake and eat it too.
	Women should be able to hold jobs and be in leadership positions and have finances.
	And then if they want to date a guy and they don't have the guy pay, then, you know, fine.
	So be it.
	They can do that if they want.
	It just depends on whether or not men are willing to bend the knee to the ladies, quite literally, and offer them what the ladies like.
	I don't know, man.
	I do think there is going to be a clash, and we're seeing it now, between how humans evolved and how society is rapidly evolving faster.
	It's almost like if we're in a simulation, the experiment is evolution versus intelligence and what that leads to.
	There's a lot more to talk about there, but I will leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
	Stick around, and I'll see you all shortly.
	Okay, so I have two questions for this segment.
	Why did this New York City middle school teacher think that Mario is gay, or tell people that Mario is gay?
	And the other thing is, why is this news?
	Okay, I think I have an answer to both questions.
	The first is, insane people are taking over, and they're saying insane things to children, and they should probably be fired.
	And the reason it's news is, as much as I don't want it to be, middle school teachers as a dumb thing being a story, this is what is happening in schools, and you need to pay attention to it.
	Teachers are crazy.
	Not all of them, but a lot of them.
	And apparently, this lady claimed that Luigi is a demisexual dude.
	Okay, they're nuts.
	They are insane.
	And this is not the story of a single teacher saying something dumb, which I normally wouldn't care about.
	It is indicative of a pattern that we keep seeing in teachers saying psychotic psychobabble to kids, and their brains are rotting.
	They're gonna grow up and they're gonna be developmentally disabled.
	Well, ladies and gentlemen, here's your story from the Daily Mail.
	Mario came out so long ago, most people forgot.
	Pretty sure Mario's banging Princess Peach, but whatever.
	New York City middle school teacher tells students Yoshi is trans, Peach is a cis lesbian, and she gives Nintendo, as she gives Nintendo characters, sexual gender identities.
	Okay, I think what this really is, is she made a video talking about what she did, and then the internet was like, crazy people be doing crazy things.
	Remy Elliott, who's employed by the New York City Department of Education, made the comments in a presentation to students during a Gay-Straight Alliance after-school club meeting.
	In a video uploaded to her TikTok account, she re-shared the PowerPoint, alleging Princess Daisy is hella bisexual, polyamorous, while Luigi is a demisexual dude.
	Elliot, who has over 81,000 followers and identifies as bisexual, has since deleted the videos and made her profile private.
	Why does this woman have so many followers?
	Maybe it's because TikTok is destroying our children's minds.
	How about that?
	She's certified under the Jeremy William Elliott... Under the name Jeremy William Elliott, huh?
	And currently teaches ninth grade at the DOE, though previously taught younger grades, Fox News reports.
	Year of the Queer, she has on her shirt, and there's Toad.
	Toad is a pre-transition trans girl.
	Already has a whole new wardrobe of thigh highs and skirts for when she comes out.
	What?
	Yo, it's a cult, man!
	It is a cult!
	They tried claiming Samus Aran was trans.
	Because, uh, Samus Aran is the character from Metroid.
	In the original Metroid, the character is just wearing a suit.
	Like a space suit.
	And then you get upgrades, and it's a really fun game.
	And all the Metroid games are really good.
	And then in the end, when you get like the best ending or something like that, Samus takes off the helmet and it's this like low-bit pixelated blonde hair and you're like, it was a woman the whole time!
	You thought it was a dude.
	Progression.
	And so then, you had a bunch of trans activists and leftists being like, Samus Aran is clearly a trans woman because Samus Aran is listed as weighing like a hundred and ninety pounds and being six foot three.
	Sounds more like a male than a female.
	Therefore, if Samus Aran is a woman, it's a trans... Yeah, okay.
	Come on.
	Nice try.
	Now you take a look at Samus Aran in Zero Suit Samus in Smash Bros., and it's like, that's a lady.
	Okay?
	Anyway.
	So the GSA for the school that I teach at decided to do a PowerPoint night, and I decided to combine two of my favorite interests into one.
	This is dubiously assigned genders and sexualities to classic Nintendo characters.
	Yoshi's a trans man.
	He is just living his best life with Birdo.
	And his top surgery turned out amazing.
	No scars whatsoever.
	We love that for him.
unidentified		Oh my god!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Top surgery is the removal of breast tissue in a woman.
		Yoshi's a dinosaur!
		Dinosaurs don't have mammary glands!
		Well, at least we think, okay?
		At least we think.
		Meanwhile, Daisy is described as hella bisexual, polyamorous, and she will ask- she will ask out right in front of you.
		Mario came out so long ago, most people forgot, and he probably marched at Stonewall, and he low-key says some transphobic stuff, but he means well.
		That was kind of funny.
		Next up is Luigi.
		Luigi is totally a demisexual dude.
		But he just calls himself queer because it's like, too confusing.
		He has big bi-wife energy.
		Luigi's just some lanky plumber with a mustache.
		Why?
		And Toad is more likely to be a cordyceps-infected human than anything.
		Trans, and it's probably bisexual, but like, doesn't think about it too much because if you don't think about it, it's not a problem.
		Demisexuality refers to people who only feel sexual attraction to another person if they form a strong emotional bond or connection with them first.
		They're describing most people.
		I guess when you rot the brains of young people, they desperately try to form emotional bonds through sex and it becomes, you know, callous.
		You know, whatever.
		She goes on to call Toad a pre-transitioned trans girl.
		She already has a whole new wardrobe with thigh highs and skirts for when she comes out.
		In other clips, teacher revealed she has spoken to her school's assistant principal blah blah.
		You guys watch The Last of Us?
		Whoever played the game?
		I love this video game theory video where it's like the mushroom people of the mushroom kingdom are cordyceps infected people.
		Cordyceps is the fungus that takes over ants and other bugs and then it makes them into zombies that then go climb up really high and release more spores to infect more bugs.
		What a terrifying thing.
		And then The Last of Us is about cordyceps.
		...evolving to infect humans, and then the humans become zombies because they're fungus-infected, and then they want to bite you and spread the virus or spread the fungus or whatever.
		And so Toad has this big mushroom head, and, you know, there's a funny thing, though, because apparently one time they tried claiming in the Mario cartoon, I think it was, that Toad's mushroom head was actually a hat, and he, like, takes it off for a minute to scratch his head and put it back on, something like that.
		And it's just like, I don't know, I think it's his actual head, because they all have a head like that.
		So, if she came out with a PowerPoint talking about how, you know, Yoshi... Is Yoshi wearing a saddle?
		Is that what the thing is on his back?
		I have no idea.
		Yoshi was a velociraptor escaped from Jurassic Park, and Toad was a cordyceps-infected human?
		That would be fun and funny, I think.
		But, you know, good for her and her weird cult psychosis.
		I have a trans flag, a bi flag, a non-binary flag all on my desk at my work, but there's one thing I'm not open about, and it's being poly.
		I don't know how to handle that conversation because, while I know that the kids are more accepting of things like homosexuality, bisexuality, and all that, polyamory is not in the conversation.
		She didn't like feeling as though she was lying to her students.
		Seamus Coghlan over at Freedom Tunes had a really funny bit about polyamory.
		And it's like, this guy goes, you know how, like, with monogamy you get to be with one beautiful woman for the rest of your life?
		Well, when you're poly, five guys can all share one morbidly obese unattractive woman.
		And that's it.
		That's the bit.
		And it's like, for some reason, whenever we see these polycules and, like, polyamorous relationships, it's this really unattractive woman with, like, six really unattractive guys.
		Hey, man, look.
		Do your thing.
		I don't care.
		It's just, keep it away from the kids.
		That's the problem.
		She said, this is not a conversation that conservatives are having at all.
		They've decided, like, you can't do this at all.
		There's no place for it.
		Dude, you're claiming Mario is gay is some weird crap you made up.
		You're playing make-believe with children and you're twisting their brains in ridiculous ways.
		Sorry.
		And that just shows a lack of thought and care.
		They're not understanding of the people.
		They're children as people and where they're at.
		Huh?
		Their children as people and where they're at?
		That's gotta be a typo or something, huh?
	When contacted about the Nintendo publication, Elliot told Fox News that the slides you mentioned were created in jest for the sake of humor.
	It's also strange to point out that they have genders and sexualities as being a cisgender heterosexual man is in fact a gender non-sexual orientation.
	Yo, Mario wants to save the princess, but I'm pretty sure they've never come out in Mario and been like, Mario is- is- is- I'm trying to keep this on family friendly- is excited at the thought of being with the princess.
	Here's why.
	They just say, Mario is a plumber.
	He's gonna go punch bricks and fight turtles to save a lady.
	That's all they talk about.
	They never come out and be like, and it's because he's heterosexual and wants to have relations with this woman after he rescues her.
	She added, it's also strange to point out they have genders.
	As part of my DOE employment, despite being primarily hired as an English teacher, teaching our established and vetted sex education curriculum was not only something I was hired for, it was something I was trained and qualified in.
	No lady, you are not qualified for this!
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, dude.
		I get it.
		It does seem to be in jest.
		I have no problem with that.
		Daily Mail reached out to Elliot and the New York Department of Education for comment.
		Okay.
		I'm sorry, dude.
		I'm going to say, I get it.
		It does seem to be in jest.
		I have no problem with that.
		I just think it's a little wacky.
		These ideas in general are cult nonsense ideas that are not supported by basic reality.
		You're just making up weird terms that don't describe anything.
		Like, personality is not sexuality, or identity.
		The fact that some people are like, I gotta be emotionally attractive, I wanna hook up, that's like most people!
		Maybe not you because you've got daddy issues or something.
		Hey, but welcome to the modern era, I guess.
		I don't care if she makes a presentation for other co-workers as a joke, but the issue is if she holds these views and she's teaching kids this stuff and flying these flags or whatever, it's inappropriate.
		My opinion.
		I think the conversations can be had when parents decide it can be had.
		Not when a teacher says, I'm gonna tell the kids without the parents knowing.
		And if that's the case, then fine, whatever.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲