All Episodes
April 11, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:36:19
Budweiser Is SCARED, Rural Reps PANIC As Boycott GETS WORSE, PR Firm Says Boycotters Are TOO STUPID

Budweiser Is SCARED, Rural Reps PANIC As Boycott GETS WORSE, PR Firm Says Boycotters Are TOO STUPID 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=lCT38GCu-fA&t=15s Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:34:03
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:31
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
This may be the most significant culture war story in a long time because it presents us with a real opportunity for victory.
I didn't know exactly where the inflection point would be, but I'm not surprised to find that it's in people's beer.
Because as the saying goes, when times are good, people drink.
When times are bad, people drink.
People like drinking.
You know, for a while, I thought the culture war would reach an apex, an inflection point, when it hit major league sports.
But, uh, no.
Apparently, we're learning now it's beer.
We have a bunch of stories and major updates, and we're getting new insights into actually, into what actually went down with Bud Light and how this happened.
And I gotta tell ya, It seems like either they're trying to cover up their failed play or Dylan Mulvaney's narcissistic personality disorder resulted in major blowback to Bud Light.
To put it simply, their stock is down over the past week about two and a half points.
This is obviously causing problems for a lot of people.
They're upset about it.
The media is trying to cover it up.
They're smearing me and many others who are bringing it up.
And I think it's because We're over target.
I don't know if this is true, but according to this story from Fox News, it would seem that what actually happened is that Dylan Mulvaney received a generic media kit that a bunch of different people get, and then being the narcissist that Dylan Mulvaney is, made a video being like, woo, Bud Light, and look at this can and all of that stuff.
Resulting in an inference that Bud Light was actually trying to get Dylan Mulvaney to promote and sponsor their brand.
Now that may be a lie.
It may be, in reality, that Dylan Mulvaney was hired and the woman who did it is reeling because their brand is now breaking.
Let me tell you why this is the most important story and why I'm not going to let this one go.
And I'll be completely, completely blunt.
When the story first came out, I didn't care too much.
Ah, okay, so Bud Light's sponsoring Dylan Mulvaney.
You know, I don't give a crap about a lot of these culture war issues when it comes to how a person wants to privately live their life, but when it comes to someone like Dylan Mulvaney, who I believe is a narcissistic sociopath who is trying to be famous and is not really trans, this matters.
So I make a video about it after Kid Rock's response, Lo, I receive 1.5 million views.
And I had to think about that for a second.
I was like, that's a lot of views for a video that's 10 minutes long.
It wasn't one of my longer segments.
And I said, well, for one, I think this matters to people.
But more importantly, it presents an opportunity.
If you all do really care about this, and it is something you're willing to rally behind, the opportunity is here for a tremendous victory in the culture war, and that is, we must see an apology from Anheuser-Busch.
I've said it before, but I want to stress this again.
The moment a major multinational corporation apologizes for being woke, that's the inflection point.
And considering the wave of interest, I mean, I'm thinking of it like, you know, a whole bunch of people rose up and said, not our beer.
And I said, OK, OK, this is what gets people active to try and win the culture war?
I will take it.
I'm not a beer drinker, but let me tell you this.
If Anheuser-Busch apologizes, I will go out and buy 10 cases.
I will buy 10 cases per employee.
I will buy hundreds of cases of Bud Light if they apologize saying we did not intend to sponsor Dylan Mulvaney.
It was a mistake or something like that.
No, no.
They should actually say we're sorry for sponsoring Dylan Mulvaney.
We did not understand our customer base because what that means is they fear Regular working-class people more than they fear far-left reprisal.
For the longest time in the culture war, the issue has been that these major corporations are more terrified of far-left extremists than they are of their own customers.
And so they keep saying, I'd rather just adhere to what the lunatics are saying, so they leave us alone.
Let's make sure, by voting with our dollars, Bud Light understands.
Anheuser-Busch understands.
They have to apologize.
Take a look at this story.
It goes from bad to worse for Anheuser-Busch.
I think we're winning this one, and I'm not going to let go.
Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney controversy hits rural distributors as branding guru thinks consumers are confused.
Quote, Now this is really interesting.
within the industry of why Anheuser-Busch would wade into the culture wars," Harry Schumacher
said.
Now, this is really interesting.
This is a guy who covers beer.
Beer Business Daily says Anheuser-Busch distributors in rural areas are spooked over widespread backlash to Bud Light celebrating trans activist Dylan Mulvaney's quote 365 days of girlhood with a polarizing promotion according to trade publication Beer Business Daily.
This is probably the biggest controversy we've seen in a long time.
Beer Business Daily editor and publisher Harry Schumacher told Fox News Digital, I like to hear it.
a tempest in a teapot. Could be temporary, but it's enough that distributors have rung the bell.
I like to hear it. And they should continue. Last night we had Peter Boghossian on
Timcast IRL and he said, you have to keep this up.
It has to be sustained.
Let me boost the volume a little bit for you guys.
He says, you have to keep this up.
It has to be sustained.
He is completely correct.
We need to make sure that everyone remembers, and it is not temporary.
We're not asking for the world.
I don't want anybody to go out and protest.
I don't want any violence or anything like that.
I don't want any phone calls.
I don't want any emails.
We don't need to do any of that.
I mean, if you want to send an email to Anheuser-Busch saying, I find your ad campaigns distasteful, by all means go ahead and do it.
What I'm saying is, simply don't buy their beer, because they're feeling it.
And it's actually quite incredible how many people have said, I won't buy Bud Light because of this.
But check this out.
We know about how this started.
They say the announcement was met with significant criticism.
This we know.
Beer Business Daily, which targets alcohol industry executives, retailers, distributors, and other key figures, didn't cover the story when it first caused outrage.
Shoemaker… Schumacher, I represent, didn't think it was newsworthy at first, noting there is always chit-chat about various brands circulating online.
But once the stories remained firmly in the zeitgeist as Passover and Easter weekend approached, and beer distributors throughout the nation expressed concern, he knew Beer Business Daily readers had an interest.
And that's exactly what I was saying.
I did not think that Bud Light was going to be the catalyst for a major pushback in the culture war, but I gotta tell ya, if y'all really care about your Bud Light that much and you're this pissed about it, well, tremendous.
Let's take the opportunity and get that apology.
There was a bit of, a little bit of worry, especially in the South and the Midwest, and especially in rural areas where retailers were reporting the, you know, the customers weren't happy with Bud Light, and some retailers themselves weren't happy with Bud Light.
As the week went on, there were questions within the industry of why Anheuser-Busch would wade into the culture wars with their largest brand.
The simple answer is that I don't think they intended to.
Here, this is interesting.
Schumacher said, The beard juggernaut sent out a media kit to Mulvaney
similar to other social media influencers quietly receive on a regular basis. There you go.
But Mulvaney, who has a plethora of sponsorship deals and was given the opportunity to interview President Biden about LGBTQ issues, isn't a typical social media influencer.
She posted it on her Instagram account, and then it took off from there.
I think it was TikTok, to be honest.
So when it started affecting consumer demand is when we decided to jump in and report on it, Schumacher said, adding that he doesn't have any skin in the game and simply wanted to view the situation purely from a marketing and sales perspective.
Schumacher penned an entry for his publication that indicated distributors in rural areas of America are spooked by possible ramifications.
Those distributors also tend to be smaller and more reliant on the Anheuser-Busch brands to pay their bills.
And so, yeah, there is some concern about it.
The controversy extended through the holiday weekend, which is a problem for Anheuser-Busch.
They thought they could sit on this one and it would go away.
Let me tell you, my friends, PR 101.
They're trying.
I'm not going to let go.
PR 101 is, when faced with a controversy, ignore it.
Say nothing.
Do nothing.
Let it pass.
Not this time.
I'm not going to.
I'm going to keep making videos and I'll tell you exactly why.
Here's the first easy and obvious one.
You want to play a game of market politics, Anheuser-Busch?
I get a lot of views when I make videos about Anheuser-Busch.
Works for me.
I can keep this up all day.
Because apparently the people who watch these videos and the people who like drinking beer are really, really invested in this story, which makes it an easy business decision for me.
Just goes to show that so long as the money's good, I got no reason to let go.
But let's be real.
You know what really excites me?
I could make a video about Donald Trump and get a ton of views as well.
I don't need to talk about beer.
I'm just excited that people are finally standing up and care about something enough to have an impact.
And it's the easiest ask in the world.
What I see on this front, and again, like I said, I'll be totally honest.
First and foremost, what I care about most, it's not the money.
Yeah, the videos get a lot of views.
What I care about is what is going to have an effect on our generation and what's going to win us the culture war.
And you know what I see here?
I see tremendous opportunity.
I don't need to make three videos to make money off the views, but hey, you want to talk business, Anheuser-Busch, it's there too.
You want to talk about what I see?
I see a million and a half people, hundreds of thousands of people who will watch a video about this and say, I am now ready, willing, and able to do what I can to have an impact in the culture war.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
See you on the tour!
tim pool
And that is to say, they want to know why you did this.
They want an apology.
And so I'll absolutely keep this up as long as it takes.
And even to the extent that people start losing interest, I will do whatever I can to reignite that interest.
Because if people can boycott Bud Light this effectively for this long, and we can keep it up for another week or two, and they're forced to apologize?
I want you to understand what that means in the culture war.
It means that for the first time, Well, one of the first times, and one of the biggest, a major multinational corporation will need to publicly denounce wokeness.
They will have to publicly denounce it.
So here's what you do.
You got friends who don't care about this stuff?
Perfect.
Just don't buy the beer.
Here's what you do.
You're hanging out with your buddies.
Maybe it's a game night.
Maybe it's poker night.
Whatever it is you guys do, you say, hey guys, I'll bring the beer this time.
Don't worry about it.
Maybe your friends are like, I don't care about that stuff, dude.
I just want a Bud Light.
You say, okay, well here's what I'll do.
I'm gonna go out and pick up the beer.
And then, you know what you do?
Buy a micro-brew.
Buy a different brand.
Miller Coors is not like the easy way out because they do a lot of this corporate woke stuff too.
But just find an import or micro-brew.
Find a brand of beer that works for everybody.
And then when you show it, they'll be like, oh, you weren't gonna get Bud Light?
Be like, nah, this is better.
I really doubt they'll care.
They'll be like, I don't know, whatever.
Beer's beer.
I wonder if Old Style or PBR is on board this stuff.
I don't know.
I don't know enough about who owns which beer brands.
The point is, just find a brand and be the one to buy it.
And then, you don't even have to go to your friends and be like, guys, you really gotta not buy this beer.
They're gonna be like, dude, I don't care about that stuff.
All you gotta do is be the one to go buy it.
And make sure they're not buying Bud Light.
Plain and simple.
Now, I think there's a possibility.
We've seen all these videos where at the grocery store, there's tons of Bud Light and nothing else.
Sooner or later, someone's going to be like, yo, I just want beer and I'm going to buy what I can get.
And that's why I'm saying, first and foremost, just don't buy their products.
You go to the bar, don't buy their products.
Go to your local liquor store, tell them you don't want to see any of their products in here.
If they apologize, buy twice as many.
Now, someone super chatted us yesterday on Timcast IRL and said, no, no, the company should fail.
Well, I'll tell you why I don't completely agree, but I understand.
If Anheuser-Busch does not apologize, it is imperative that we sustain this as long as possible until we just outright say, never buy their beer again.
I think it's possible that they'll, you know, after a few months, people will stop caring, and that's what worries me.
Right now, I see an opportunity with people who really care to take advantage and say, we need that apology.
I think in the long term, the weight is against us.
The pressure is against us.
So now is the opportunity for maximum pressure.
Let's read more of this story.
I got a lot more to show you, too.
I just, there's so much here.
He says, Schumacher believes that it's dangerous for any major company to only market toward existing customers who might be aging out, and Bud Light is smart for targeting Gen Z with its advertising, but must be willing to accept pain points along the way.
You do have to pivot to the values of a younger generation, and those values don't always align, as we're seeing here with older folks.
Now, this guy is completely wrong.
He makes a decent point, but he's wrong.
The issue here is Dylan Mulvaney does not represent the interests of Gen Z. Dylan Mulvaney represents algorithmic manipulation and cultural decay.
And while there may be Gen Zers who like Dylan Mulvaney, the viewership on this stuff, it's wide-ranging.
They're trying to make Dylan Mulvaney a thing because TikTok made Dylan Mulvaney a thing, but that doesn't reach regular people.
Go out to any bar, any bar, and if you go to, say, Brooklyn, they don't even know about this.
Some might, and they probably don't care.
Go out to rural areas, suburban areas, and you're gonna find people are just like, what is this?
And therein lies the point.
If they wanted to target Gen Z, then they should have hired Billie Eilish, not Dylan Mulvaney.
That's my point.
You have people who, among Gen Z, are, you know, totally fine.
I mean, is anybody really complaining about Taylor Swift?
I mean, maybe sometimes here or there.
But get Taylor Swift to do it!
There you go, congratulations, young people not drinking your beer.
Instead, they went for one of the most divisive characters.
Expanding Bud Light's potential consumers was a necessary move for the long term, but Schumacher feels beer makers need to be strategic.
I'm not sure if this particular promotion was the best one.
A group that is very happy about it is obviously Anheuser-Busch's competitor, so Miller and Coors and distributors are doing great.
And they are.
I looked up their stock.
Seems to be going fine.
Ultimately, Schumacher has seen that product boycotts tend to be short-lived, which is something Ace of Spades agency founder JJ echoed.
Jay, whose digital PR agency works with a variety of major brands and content creators, doesn't think the negative publicity will ultimately harm Bud Light's bottom line.
They won't be hurt.
They'll push through it.
A company at that size, a company being around that long, they have enough people, part of their board and their team, to know what they're doing and why they're doing it.
They've thought about this.
They know the repercussions of what's going to happen.
I think in another three months, there'll be another problem with another company that everyone will be getting angry about.
I think they just may be pushing the noise right now, and they are getting attention and getting awareness, and I think they're going to ride the wave.
I will stress that.
The PR experts are saying you're stupid!
You're a moron wasting your time and they know that no matter what happens, you will come crawling back like a spineless jellyfish to say, please can I have a beer?
You have to be angry about it.
And you have to say no.
And we need to just be very simply never gonna buy your products again.
Now I'll tell you, he's not completely wrong.
This is it.
Time is against us.
You and I may care about this.
You and I may see a political victory.
But so long as, look, Kid Rock did a video and everyone came out and said, you know, like this really lit people up.
Travis Tritt came out and then John Rich as well.
That created a massive pulse which is rippling through the internet and our culture right now.
But will the pulse stop?
This is why it must be sustained.
Three months and there will be another problem.
The PR experts are saying, who cares about you?
You don't matter.
Whether you buy the product or not, you'll eventually forget because you're stupid.
Okay.
Well, I reject that.
And I am going to push this and not give up, and I will dedicate as much of my time and energy as possible to make sure we all remember why we don't buy Anheuser-Busch products UNLESS they apologize.
Make them feel it.
And they are.
Oh, I love this one.
Anheuser-Busch in Bev stock is down 2.36% over the past five days.
Now I know, it's not a lot.
It's not like you and I have the most influence in the universe.
I don't have any stock here, and I'm not going to tell anybody what to do with their stock, but I would be very happy if BUD dropped by 20 points.
Yeah, that's a tremendous ask, because like I said, on average, people just do not care about this stuff.
And that's the problem.
The young people don't care about Dylan Mulvaney, and so these companies just say, whatever's on the internet.
But that does craft culture for a younger generation, because it gives money and resources, time and promotion to bad people, like Dylan Mulvaney.
In the past five days, they've dropped by 2.36.
Now, here's the best part.
Take a look at this.
Newsweek.
Anheuser-Busch stock drops amid Bud Light Dylan Mulvaney controversy, re-hosted by MSN.
I thought it was funny that at 4.56 p.m.
yesterday, they had that story, and then yesterday at noon, they had Anheuser-Busch stock charges to new highs.
Is that a joke?
You see what they're trying to do here?
And I want to stress this point for all of you.
I said this yesterday on TimCast IRL.
I have made numerous Twitter posts about the benefits to sterilizing children and aborting children because it'll stop climate change and overpopulation.
And even though I've tweeted things about that and stated these things like dozens of times, I've never once had a leftist write a hit piece against me for talking about how they're sterilizing their kids.
Not once!
Isn't that weird?
Don't you think saying something like they're erasing their genetic lineage would have an impact?
Saying something like they will cease to exist?
They don't care.
No complaints, no problem.
But I make one little old video about Anheuser-Busch and why you should buy a different beer and then everyone loses their minds!
And all of a sudden they're writing stories about me calling me a fascist.
Yes, because this one hurt them.
Losing money, losing access, losing resources scares them.
Uh-oh.
This is the biggest we've seen in a long time.
So here's what I want to see.
I want to see Kid Rock Donald Trump.
I want to see Jorge Masvidal.
That was an amazing video with the UFC fight.
Joe Rogan, which I really doubt he'd be involved, but each and every one of these major influencers just saying, this is your daily reminder, do not buy Anheuser-Busch products.
Kid Rock shooting those cans was a major moment.
And they mocked him for it.
unidentified
They said, so he bought Bud Light to shoot her, but he paid for it.
tim pool
And it was worth it.
And I'm glad Bud Light got the extra 30, 40 bucks for those cans.
Because now, thanks to Kid Rock buying that 30 or 40 dollars worth of beer, they probably lost millions.
But millions ain't that much to a company like this, and it's only been a week.
We keep this up, we pursue this controversy, we make this story long-standing, and we get an apology.
And that's all I'm asking for.
For them to say, we're sorry for sponsoring Dylan Mulvaney.
We didn't realize how divisive it would be and how damaging it would be to our brand and to your experience.
So for that we apologize and we will not pursue this kind of brand advertising in the future.
That's what needs to be said because right now they are telling you, the PR companies are telling you that you're too stupid and you will forget.
And eventually you will give up.
More importantly, that's what they're saying.
They're saying you have no conviction, you have no spine, and you will give in in only a few months.
You won't care anymore.
Well, I don't think that's true.
I think people are getting angry, and that's why the Daily Wire is exploding.
That's why Jeremy's chocolate sold hundreds of thousands of bars.
That's why Jeremy's razors sold... I don't even know how many subscriptions they sold, but it was tremendous.
The Daily Wire recognizes that you do want alternatives, and that you are willing to buy them.
And that's a lesson these people need to learn.
Jay believes it all boils down to long-time Bud Light consumers being a tad baffled by the partnership.
It's confusing to a lot of people, and for a lot of people that feel like Bud Light is part of their own family, when something new comes into the space, it doesn't make sense for them.
Of course they're going to be outraged.
It's just confusing.
I think the issue is that we know Dylan Mulvaney is a narcissistic sociopath.
That's it.
I don't care about people who are trans who want to live their lives and do that.
In fact, as I pointed out before, we had Tom Fitton on the show who said he argued against transgender surgery for everyone, and I said, if you're an adult, it's fine.
I don't care.
Live your life.
Now there are certain questions about where the lines are and what a doctor can or cannot do to a person, but my point is, Dylan Mulvaney can do whatever they want.
I just think Dylan Mulvaney is not trans.
You watch any of the content, and I've broken this down, it's algorithmic manipulation.
And Bud Light is dumping money into a destructive and narcissistic trend.
We should not allow that.
So for whatever reason you're outraged by this, please continue to be outraged.
And now they're telling you you're stupid.
So you should be doubly offended.
The marketing experts are saying, the people complaining about this?
Bunch of morons.
Too stupid to do anything.
They don't know what they want.
They're just a little confused.
No.
We're not confused.
We know exactly what's going on.
We know exactly why we're angered by this, and we don't want to see more of it.
Simply put, if Bud Light just stayed out of politics, nobody would care!
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 of 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
But they decided that they sacrifice you and they'll make more money.
Prove them wrong.
Here we go.
Take a look at this.
Jay compared the bold strategy to that of GoDaddy, a web hosting company is primarily by the tech community that became a household name.
It hurt GoDaddy's business at the beginning, but then they pushed through and they attracted a new audience.
So for me, I'm curious as a branding guy, but also as a consumer, as someone who also drinks Bud Light, what's the bigger play here?
Who are they trying to attract?
And I will tell you this.
They hired a woke VP who said, you don't matter anymore.
Bud Light's Under Fire VP launched Inclusivity Revolution at Beer Giant and is behind a string of ads including one featuring Miles Teller as she faces Dylan Mulvaney fallout.
That's right, Girl Boss!
She's talking about how the fret boy image has gotta go.
She's talking about how they gotta change that image and attract a new audience.
So here's the commercial.
Miles Teller and his wife dancing as she's waiting on customer service, and... I really don't care about the commercial.
I mean...
Talk about a screenshot, Daily Mail!
So, Miles Teller, the actor, his wife is on hold, and then it says, Bud Light.
Bud Light Hold, they call it.
And he cracks open two Bud Lights, and he walks over, and they dance and moonwalk as they listen to waiting music.
And I'm just like, oh, that's really cringe, I guess.
My favorite meme was, they said, Bud Light is the beer for people who don't want to drink beer, but they want to drink a lot of it.
And I thought that was actually really funny.
And then they have this commercial, where a woman has to carry five beers, and of course they need to give you a scene that is emasculating.
So as this woman carries all five beers, the bartender's like, whoa!
And then she walks past this guy, this one's really funny, and he's got a tray, this is just so cringe, and he's like, look at this, look at this, he's holding a tray with four beers on it, and then she spins and he looks at her and he's like, what am I doing with my life?
unidentified
What is this?
tim pool
He looks down like, I'm holding a tray.
They have consistently been insulting people who drink their beer.
Look.
I'm going to make a segment out of this later because I went and saw the Super Mario Bros.
movie, but anybody saying that movie is anti-woke, I don't get it.
I'm not going to call it a woke fest, but I'll call it a feminist cringe fest.
Here's the issue I had with that movie, and I'll go into greater detail with it, but it plays into what's going on with this marketing.
I saw Mario Brothers, and Princess Peach is a superhero who never screws up and actually trains Mario.
Mario doesn't rescue Princess Peach, she trains him.
Mario is going, whoa, and failing the entire time.
Whoops!
And he only succeeds in the end because Princess Peach gives him an invincibility star.
That's right, he's losing and he wants to give up.
The story's supposed to be about Mario saving the day, which it kind of is.
But I'll go into greater detail with that.
My point here is, a consistent trope with feminism and modern wokeness is that men should be looked at as weak, goofy morons.
You know what this commercial should have been?
Bud Light Carry?
It should have been the woman grabbing all five beers and carrying them, and it really is a stupid thing, I don't care too much about it, but they have to show a guy going like, oh, I can't carry my beer.
It should have been a guy carrying the beers, looking at her, and then smiling, and then it would have been like, Bud Light, everybody's drinking.
It's like, that would've been great.
Instead, they show the man being too weak, and he can't carry beers.
And that's the big issue.
Not that this is like the biggest- I'll tell you this though, they're gonna write stories about it and be like, Tim Poole is so, so, uh, triggered.
The issue here is, this one hurts them.
It doesn't hurt them when I call out sterilization of kids.
They don't care.
They probably like it.
But when I say something like, they want to make these subtle emasculating gestures, then they freak out and say, haha, what a crybaby snowflake.
Grains of sand in a heap, snowflakes in an avalanche.
Here's what you do, Bud Light, if you really wanted to make a commercial, like I said.
The woman is carrying all five beers, she spins around, she makes it to the table, and then she looks over and there's a guy doing the same thing.
And he looks at her and he, like, nods, like, right on.
And then it's like, Bud Light.
And then it's just like, we're all friends, we're all in this, we're just like each other.
But these people have a chip on their shoulder, on their shoulder.
I think this woman has, she's been told she's a victim, she's been told she's oppressed, and so it's not really about promoting women, it's about getting revenge!
And so that's why they make these commercials and they make these products that are intentionally divisive and hurtful.
But I'll wrap it up there because I can't, you know, I'm not going to go on for 27 years on this one, but I do want to say one thing.
Dylan Mulvaney was also sponsored by Nike, but hey, guess what?
Nike's doing fine.
In the past day, they're up 1.41%.
They did see a similar drop-off, but they're recovering.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
Because I don't think anybody really cares.
Nike sponsored Dylan Mulvaney and we complained about it, but Nike's base is not a bunch of beer-drinking bros.
And that's the issue.
They're hoping, as they've stated, that they can get rid of you as a customer, Bud Light, and attract people like Dylan Mulvaney.
They want them drinking beer.
Young people.
They are saying it and screaming it.
So, it's this simple.
Abandon them.
You know, a woman said the other day in a viral video the Left is sharing, she was like, it's not so much that you're boycotting them, but that they're disregarding you and they don't care.
Okay.
I accept those terms.
Outright.
And I think you should, too.
I'm sorry, my friends.
You're not boycotting Bud Light.
When Bud Light sponsored Dylan Mulvaney, they boycotted you.
And they said, we don't care about you.
We don't want your money.
We don't want your business.
You're a stupid bigot.
Okay, so stop buying it.
But I tell you this, my friends, the moment they feel that pain, the moment the economic damage to their business exceeds their fear of the far left, they will apologize.
And that will be an inflection point in the culture war where major corporations will say, oh crap, we better be careful when we sponsor psychopaths like Dylan Mulvaney.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Super Mario Bros.
movie has smashed a global record.
And I'm seeing all of these people on the right saying, the movie did it because it was anti-woke.
Which is really strange to me because the narrative for the longest time was that the movie was woke, girlboss feminism garbage.
Ahoy, my friends!
There be spoilers ahead, because I went and saw the movie, and, uh, I'm just gonna come right out and say it.
What?
When I saw this tweet from Steven Crowder, he says the anti-woke Super Mario Bros.
movie just set a global record, I thought to myself, I don't believe Steven Crowder has actually seen the movie.
And when I saw this tweet, I thought to myself, well, the first thing I thought was, is it really anti-woke?
Well, it's weird, because all I've heard about it is that it is woke.
Right?
Perhaps the issue is, conservatives don't want to admit that a woke film made a bunch of money, especially broke a record, when the narrative tends to be get woke, go broke.
Well, as I often say, get woke, go broke is not a law, but it's more of a tendency.
And when you're dealing with one of the most popular pieces of intellectual property in human history, Mario Brothers, it's bound to make a bunch of money.
Sure as I did.
I went to go see the movie because I think it is particularly culturally relevant.
Now, to be honest, I didn't really want to see the movie a little bit.
I like Mario.
I grew up playing Mario.
I'm interested in seeing how they could do this movie considering back in the 90s they made some weird...
Weird movie.
So, warning, spoilers.
But I'll just say it right now.
After going and watching the movie, I would say on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of how woke the movie is, I'd give it a 6.
I'd give it a 6.
Meaning, uh, it's fairly woke.
Right?
It is in line with what you'd expect from feminist leftist perspectives in movie writing.
That is to say, and I'll give you, I'm going to go into an in-depth review of the movie, but I'll show you the news first and the context of this in terms of the culture war.
The film is basically, yeah, girl boss, Mario's stupid, Luigi's in a cage the whole time, Mario's completely incompetent, and it's only because of Peach's great leadership that anything actually happens.
In fact, there's a point in the movie where Peach literally says Mario is nobody and they cheer.
Like, simply put, Mario breaks into the palace, then Princess Peach is like, you're a human, but you're so small!
And I'm like, well, that's like, what would you call it, little person-phobic?
But anyway, I digress.
Then, when she says we're gonna fight Bowser, which is a totally unrelated story to Mario, and I'll go through this in depth after I read this.
Everyone's like, who's that guy?
And she goes, nobody!
And they go, yay!
And it's like... Hold on.
Wait, what?
Like, even with Luke Skywalker, his story matters.
The hero's journey matters.
In this movie, Mario doesn't matter at all.
The story is about Princess Peach.
I think she gets half of the screen time about.
And Mario's story in this is ancillary to the main plot, which follows Princess Peach.
Now first, let's talk about the Culture War and why the story matters, and then I'll talk to you in depth about the movie.
Huffington Post writes, Some right-wingers claim Super Mario Bros.
movie's success is because it's anti-woke.
The movie had the biggest box office opening of 2023, and some conservatives think they know why.
They go to mention that it made a bunch of money, John Leguizamo is pissed off because they cast white actors to play white characters.
Okay, he said they didn't include any Latin character.
Oh, bro, we get it.
You want to be Luigi.
Well, here's Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk says Mario Bros.
just grossed $377 million, a new record for animated features, despite John Leguizamo, I think it's Leguizamo, boycotting the film because it messed up the inclusion, casting two white men, Chris Pratt and Charlie Day, as the Italian-American leads.
Nintendo refused to let Mario Bros.
go woke.
Incorrect.
Just outright incorrect.
I don't think Charlie saw the movie.
And again, when I saw this, I was like, I didn't believe it.
But I didn't see the movie, so I was like, well, I'm not gonna comment.
And then I went and saw the movie, and now I'm like, okay, these people are all wrong.
Jack Basobic, Charlie Crowder, all wrong.
Others piled on.
Jack Basobic says, the original creator of Mario, Miyamoto, was heavily involved with the production of the animated film, and insisted that it have as little plot as possible, and just feel like one of the games.
It has no woke narratives, and all the characters are exactly like the original games.
unidentified
Not true at all!
tim pool
Literally at all.
Now, you can make the argument they adapted it to the best of their abilities to be in line with, considering the video games have limited narrative as it is, you could argue it makes sense, but I'm gonna argue it doesn't, and I'll explain after I show you more.
TheLizVariant, I'm not familiar, says, Now look, I'm not saying the movie was bad.
Not by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, I laughed quite a bit.
I did roll my eyes at the woke stuff that was in it, and I'll put it this way.
I have seen movies described as woke that were substantially less woke than this.
But I'll explain.
There's Crowder, I already mentioned his tweet.
The stir left some people confused, and this is why I think this segment matters in the context of the culture war.
One person said, wait, stop, hold on, now Super Mario Bros.
isn't woke?
Weren't these chuds marching up and down declaring it was woke trash because Princess Peach was shown to be competent?
Competent is an understatement as to what that movie did.
Princess Peach was invincible, a kung fu master with superpowers, who trains Mario, and Mario fails every step of the way.
And after Mario fails, she says, you were close enough, I guess.
No kidding!
Mario fails!
And then she's like, well, I couldn't train you, sorry, but I guess we'll bring you anyway.
And then when people are like, who's this guy with you?
She goes, he's nobody.
No joke, literal plot point.
But let's read more.
I only take a look at the stock price, which is an objective metric showing it's going down.
There's probably a correlation between the controversy considering other beer brands are going up.
Even though crybabies like Kid Rock and Travis Tritt are boycotting them.
The funny thing is, they will lie or they'll live in their bubble world.
I only take a look at the stock price, which is an objective metric showing it's going
down.
There's probably a correlation between the controversy considering other beer brands
are going up.
And then I take a look at statements from individuals who run liquor stores who are
saying they're getting rid of it.
John Rich, who said that he stopped moving product and they're gonna replace it at his Honky Tonk in downtown Nashville, which is like a music bar-restaurant.
We gotta get back out to Nashville.
I gotta head back out there.
I'm really excited about, you know, hanging out at John Rich's place.
Great guy.
But, uh, these people are outright saying, this thing happened.
And so I can take a look at that and say, those are biased metrics, when someone like John Rich says nobody's buying Budweiser, maybe sales are down, probably.
But I take a look at the stock price, it is.
These people will just lie and say it's not.
In this instance, I think a bunch of conservative personalities want to maintain the get woke, go broke narrative, and there is a popular, it's a popular right-wing thing to say, that Mario Brothers was not woke, therefore, that proves its success.
Incorrect.
Absolutely.
What was anti-woke about it, one person asks.
One person says that it wasn't woke.
You're either with or against the woke mob, blah blah blah.
Let's go back in time.
We have this from Sportskeeda.
Not super familiar with this website, but from November 30th, 2022.
Quote, giving us a girl boss and a pathetic meow meow man.
New Super Mario Brothers movie trailer sparks meme fest online.
And this, I read this and I'm like, that's, that was the movie I saw.
I don't know if anybody else saw a different movie, but this is the movie that I saw and I'm gonna give you a big breakdown.
I'm kind of dragging out talking about the movie stuff because I want people to understand the cultural context before I introduce the massive spoilers.
But in this story, they say a new trailer for Meyer Brothers, uh, giving a glimpse of the movie, the trailer was released, blah blah blah, Seth Rogen's Donkey Kong, the trailer features more of the film's plot, and the universe it's set in, it elaborates on the story, blah blah blah, the colorful trailer has spread a ton of reactions, with people saying that, uh, it portrays Luigi as a damsel in distress.
That is true and correct.
So let's just jump right in.
The movie starts with the fake Italian accent of the Mario Brothers.
That's right, they're not actually Italian!
They're Italian-American, and the accent is fake.
It was for a commercial, because they've left Wrecking Crew.
Awesome video game reference, by the way.
Wrecking Crew was fun.
Mario goes around smashing lockers and brick walls.
And, uh, they've started their own company.
Their own company is Super Mario Bros.
Plumbing, and they have no customers.
They've risked their entire life savings on this, and, unfortunately for them, they screw it up.
They're first client, they fail because a dog gets mad and destroys everything, and, uh, they look really bad.
They go home and Mario told that he's a failure who's dragging his own brother down.
In fact, the funny thing is, they mention the costumes they're wearing were uniforms they made for a trademark of their new business, and they get made fun of for having white gloves and wearing goofy outfits.
And Mario says, you gotta have a trademark.
And yes, Chris Pratt does not have an Italian accent.
He's just a young dude who lives with his parents.
Must be in his 20s, I guess?
Because he lives at home and he plays Nintendo.
He's playing video games.
It was cool to see a Kid Icarus reference.
I like that.
And so I'm watching this, and I'm like, okay, they're going through an origin story.
It is, you know, Mario's struggling, and then what ends up happening is there's a major water main break, and he thinks, this is my opportunity to prove that, you know, we're good plumbers.
Which is like, okay, something to be.
You want to, like, save the city because you're a plumber.
Totally get it if you could.
And they accidentally get sucked down into a sewer where they discover a great green pipe that sends them into the Mushroom World, whatever universe Mario lives in.
Unfortunately, Luigi and Mario, holding hands, get broken apart, and Luigi flies into the Dark Lands, ruled by Bowser.
And Mario lands in the Mushroom Kingdom, where he meets Toad.
The movie moves rather quickly, and that's fine, because it's only an hour and a half long, and it is a kid's movie, so I have no issue with that.
Luigi, in the Dark Lands, is captured, and basically put in a cage, and he's a damsel in distress the whole time.
Now that I kind of took issue with, because Luigi is portrayed throughout various movies as being goofy, silly, and scared, but still, Player 2.
Instead, in this movie, he's an ancillary character who doesn't really do anything until the very end, and I'm like, well that's a bummer, because he's Player 2!
When you play the Mario Brothers, it's like, you get Mario, you get Luigi.
It was really cool how they show the power-ups.
Mario eats a mushroom and grows.
He touches a fire flower and then his clothes change.
I think that was really cool.
Princess Peach does as well.
Here's where the movie is totally woke.
Mario breaks into the palace to meet Princess Peach because he needs help rescuing his brother from Bowser.
Princess Peach is an excellent commander and leader and, for some reason, a princess when there's no queen.
I guess they haven't explained that.
And everyone's like, Princess, what should we do?
When Mario meets her, she immediately insults him for being so small.
Are you really a human?
And it's like, okay, kind of insulting to little people, but sure, I guess that was the one anti-inverse woke thing, I guess, being somewhat offensive in that regard.
But anyway, Princess Peach says, we're gonna go fight Bowser because Bowser got the Super Star, which makes him invincible, and he's heading this way.
She thinks Bowser wants to destroy the Mushroom Kingdom.
In fact, Bowser just wants to marry her.
Very limited plot there.
Here's the issue.
When Princess Peach says, OK, Mario, I'll consider bringing you along on my journey.
Not, OK, this is literally it.
Mario says, my brother is in the Dark Lands.
What do I do?
She says, well, Bowser's coming to fight us, and I have to go to the Jungle Kingdom to get the help of the Kongs.
I guess if you can pass the training course, I'll let you come on my journey.
It's an adventure of Princess Peach, not Mario.
Mario's there by accident, and he's scared.
He's worried about his brother.
That's fine, I guess.
Princess Peach brings Mario to the training course, where it looks like Mario won.
A bunch of platforms where he runs, and there's... They're not fireballs, they're spongeballs or something that are spinning around.
And so, Princess Peach says, I'll show you how it's done.
She then runs the whole course, which looks like an advanced Mario Bros.
level for, you know, players who, they do these speedrun videos where it's like impossible to get through and it's crazy looking.
She jumps on a bunch of bullet bills, she makes it to the end with no power-ups, grabs the flag, spins down, and then, you know, fanfare plays.
And she goes, it's that easy.
And then he's like, well, let me try.
Again, Mario has no Italian accent.
He then says, how is it possible for me to do any of this?
And she goes, with power-ups.
She then gives him a mushroom, he eats it, he goes, and he grows.
And then he fails, over and over and over again.
Finally, after a montage, he's running through the course, he's jumping, he's punching bricks, and you're like, there we go, this is Mario.
And then, he fails again.
And you're like, okay, and the music's playing, like I need a hero or whatever.
And then she's like, well, are you ready to go?
And Mario's like, but I'm a failure and I couldn't do it!
And she goes, well, you're right, but I guess we have no choice.
And I'm just like, huh?
Like, it should be Mario... Here's what the story should have been in my opinion.
Mario coming into his abilities.
In the beginning of the movie, we see Mario running and jumping and vaulting over fences and sliding down poles.
And you're like, wow, he's actually really good.
They're making a point in the beginning of the movie that Mario is actually good at running and jumping and climbing.
But as soon as he gets into the Mushroom Kingdom, all of that goes away, he's incompetent, and Princess Peach is actually the one on the adventure, not him.
So what happens?
Well, they go to Donkey Kong's kingdom, the Jungle Country or Jungle Kingdom or whatever.
And then Cranky Kong says, we're not giving you an army to help fight Bowser, we don't care.
And then Mario says, we're not leaving without an army, and he goes, if you can defeat my son Donkey, then I'll, you know, I'll give you my army.
Mario gets pummeled and mercilessly beaten by Donkey Kong, who says, I won't use power-ups because I don't need them.
Mario, on the verge of losing, is punched super hard into the air, and then gets a catsuit.
And then using the catsuit defeats Donkey Kong.
The issue I have with this is that the entire movie, Mario is incapable of doing anything.
He's weak, he can't fight, and it's only when given power-ups does he stand a chance.
Princess Peach, not so much.
She's a kung fu master, she actually fights Bowser and keeps him on his toes, and then... Well, let's get into that.
Mario defeats Donkey Kong, who then says, I let you win.
They team up, they become friends, and then say, let's take a shortcut to the Mushroom Kingdom using the Rainbow Road.
They all get in go-karts.
They're riding, and then Bowser says, they want to ambush me, I'll ambush them!
And then Bowser ambushes them, blows up a part of the Rainbow Road using a blue shell.
A blue shell guy yells blue shell and then blows it up.
Mario and Donkey Kong are then, unfortunately, washed away into the ocean where they're eaten by a giant eel.
Princess Peach, however, escapes rescuing Toad and says, let's get back to the kingdom.
Princess Peach then gets to the kingdom and says we have to evacuate because Bowser's on his way here.
They do.
She then, wearing a motorcycle suit, takes up a spear, as you see in the trailer, flips it and catches it, walks outside, and then Bowser lands and says, you know, he has Magikoopa torture Toad, and then is like, if you don't surrender and marry me, I'll kill you, I'll hurt your friends.
He goes, no, fine, I surrender.
And there's a scene where Princess Peach is standing on the balcony as Bowser's floating castle emerges, and she's standing there defiantly, and I was like, that's supposed to be Mario.
Mario is supposed to be the one who stares down Bowser.
It's not.
It's Princess Peach.
She then says, fine, I'll marry you if you don't hurt my toads.
And he says, fine.
And she gets in, and she leaves willingly with Bowser.
Mario, of course, is in the gut of a giant monster, and then they find wreckage from one of the go-karts, and him and Donkey Kong blast out of there and ride a rocket ship off into the sunset or something like that.
It then cuts back to Princess Peach about to marry Bowser.
And then Peach says, did you really think I'd marry you?
Toad then gives her an ice flower, where she then jumps in the air, ninja kicks Bowser in the face, freezes him with a bunch of ice balls, freezes the chains, where Luigi's being lowered in the lava, saving the day for the most part.
Donkey Kong and Mario then arrive, and using power-ups, it is a pretty cool scene when Donkey Kong grabs the fire flower and then starts throwing fireballs.
It's cool to see.
Mario eats a mushroom, gets big, then they, you know, fight their way through.
And then Princess Peach, who is basically holding off Bowser with her ice powers, and blows up King Bob-omb, and basically saves the day.
The ice cracks on the chain, and Luigi's about to die quite literally a few feet from lava, and then Donkey Kong reverses it, Mario saves Luigi.
But really, I think this is Princess Peach's story, because she's the one who is invincible, And never actually fails at any point of the movie, and Mario and Luigi are only there because an accident happened.
That's it.
So in the end, people have said, yes, but Mario and Luigi saved the day.
Sort of.
What happens in the end is Bowser, angry that Princess Peach freezes him and disrupts the wedding, says, fire the bullet bill and destroy the Mushroom Kingdom.
Mario then whacks the bullet bill in the eye, causing it to get angry and chase after him instead, which he leads into the pipe back to Brooklyn, which causes a massive explosion and sucks everyone into Brooklyn.
And then Bowser beats the living crap out of Mario, and Mario is hiding inside a building, thinking, you know, I'm gonna give up.
I can't do anything.
I'm powerless.
He couldn't punch.
He couldn't jump.
He couldn't do anything.
Then he sees his commercial of him and his brother as superheroes wearing capes and he walks outside and he goes, let's go for some reason saying let's go and then What ends up happening is Princess Peach kicks, she grabs a turtle shell and hits the superstar over to Mario, and Bowser goes, no, that's mine!
And then Mario jumps for it, and then Bowser breathes fire, but then all of a sudden, Luigi blocks it with a sewer lid and says, as long as we're together, nothing can hurt us.
And then Mario and Luigi both jump and grab the star, becoming invincible, and then they defeat Bowser.
And so, I hear this argument, you know, we're all talking about this afterwards, and I've seen the people writing online, that in the end, Mario and Luigi saved the day!
And I'm like, well, first and foremost, Princess Peach was the one who was fighting Bowser the whole time, who was leading the people, Mario was a nobody, who was incapable of doing anything, he was the goofy sidekick who kept going, WHOA, and failing.
Look at the trailer.
The scene, which stood out to me, is when they're on the Mario karts, and they lose.
Mario loses, and then falls into the ocean, and he goes, and it's like, okay, I guess Mario just can't do anything right.
Luigi wasn't even here.
He was in a cage the whole time.
Princess Peach, however, could do no wrong.
She's the noble leader who sacrifices herself to save her people.
She then quickly turns on Bowser, jumps in the air, ninja kicks his face, throws an ice ball at him, freezing him, and then stopping the chains from dropping Luigi to his death.
And I was just like, okay, we get it.
She has superpowers the whole time.
She tries to train Mario, but Mario fails.
She says he's a nobody.
Mario can't do anything right, and only in the end does he succeed because Peach gives him invincibility.
So, I didn't see Mario in this as the titular hero.
I saw him as an ancillary sidekick who, sure, the movie starts with him, but quickly diverts away into Princess Peach's story.
Now, what a lot of people have said is, no, no, no, no, it's anti-woke because... Princess Peach has always been a hero?
Luigi's always been a damsel in distress?
This is not true.
First, let's start with the origins of Mario.
Princess Peach is quite literally the trope of a damsel in distress.
She's captured by Bowser.
Mario then has to go and search all these different castles until he can find her.
That's Mario 1.
In fact, the story, I believe, was that Bowser kidnapped Princess Peach and turned the mushroom people into bricks.
No joke!
And that Mario is punching bricks because they carry items to help him.
I'm not kidding, I think that's what the story was.
But it doesn't need to be that way.
Because starting with Super Mario Bros.
2, which was originally called, I think, Doki Doki Island Panic, you were able to... So here's what happened, long story short.
This game, I think it was called Doki Doki Island Panic, was going to be released in Japan.
I think it was released in Japan.
And the actual Super Mario Bros.
2 was just like the first game, but it was very difficult.
And it was considered punishing by the American game developers and distributors.
By the distributors, I'm sorry.
And so they said, well, we need to release a second Mario title.
So they took this game called Doki Doki Island Panic, which introduced Shy Guys and Birdo, And they changed the characters to be Mario, Luigi, Princess, and Toad, because there were four characters you could choose from that have different strengths.
Luigi moved kind of slowly, but could jump really high.
Mario was basically average, run-jump, you pull weeds and stuff and throw radishes.
Princess Peach was fairly weak, took her a long time to lift things, but she could glide.
And Toad couldn't jump that high, but could pull things really quickly.
These characters were all playable.
This created the idea that ever since Mario 2, Princess Peach was not just a damsel in distress, she was also a valiant character in her own right.
However, she's still very much wearing a dress, and she still very much is a damsel in distress, because it turns out that game was all a dream.
In Mario 3, once again, Princess Peach is captured and says, help me.
In Super Mario World, once again, Princess Peach is captured and says, help me.
Now, of course, in Mario RPG and these other games, you could start to play Princess Peach, and she was available.
I don't think Luigi was in Mario RPG, though.
Pretty sure he wasn't, which is kind of weird.
But you can play Princess Peach, and she's actually a pretty good character, but a healer.
And then you can get the, um...
What is the, uh, what is the shell you get?
The lazy shell, which makes her, like, basically invincible.
So anyway, here's the point.
Princess Peach has never been a ninja warrior who was more capable than Mario.
She was capable and fierce in her own right, and defiant.
Yes, she would get kidnapped by Bowser, but she wasn't completely helpless.
She would stand on her own to varying degrees, but yes, she was the damsel in distress.
That's the story of Mario.
The movie that they made shows Mario and Luigi to both be, to varying degrees, incompetent.
Mario's considered a failure by his father, who's dragging his brother down.
He tries to stop a flood in Brooklyn, but gets sucked in the Mushroom Kingdom, where he's separated from his brother.
He fails once again.
Couldn't get the job done.
He then tries to train and jump.
Can't do that either.
Fails.
He gets a mushroom and gets a power-up.
Still fails.
He only defeats Donkey Kong in battle because he gets a catsuit.
Okay, fine, I guess.
That's my point.
I do not see this movie as anti-woke.
I see it as actually fairly woke.
You want to make a movie where Princess Peach is not a damsel in distress?
I got no problem with that.
None whatsoever.
You want to make a movie that follows maybe a teammate storyline with Donkey Kong, Toad, Mario, Luigi?
I'm, like, totally fine with this.
But why make Mario goofy and incompetent?
Why make Luigi completely incompetent as well?
Luigi, if you want to go back, and this is what people are claiming, they're like, you could play Princess Peach in Mario 2.
It's like, yeah, you could play Luigi as well!
And Luigi was a competent character in his own strengths.
Luigi was equal to Mario in the first one.
Well, in Smash Bros.
you can play Luigi as well, and I think in Melee, Luigi was one of the best characters.
They made him silly, they made him goofy, they make him his own character in his own right.
He's a little bit taller than Mario, he's a little bit scared, he has his own video games, he does his own thing.
But in this movie, I was really disappointed to see that he was just locked in a cage the whole time.
And so here's what you get.
Mario and Luigi are accidentally in the Mushroom Kingdom.
Princess Peach is trying to fight a war against the evil Bowser, who really just wants to marry her.
She sacrifices herself to save the kingdom, but then defies Bowser with an ice flower and fights back, almost saving the day.
And technically, she probably could have.
Mario then causes the problems in the first place by having the Bullet Bill chase him into a pipe to blow up Brooklyn.
He shouldn't have done that.
Whoops, that's Mario's fault.
So this is what I'll say.
I don't think the movie was overtly the wokest thing I've ever seen.
But the idea from all these people that I'm seeing that it was somehow anti-woke just makes literally no sense to me.
It's basically like Star Wars.
It's like The Last Jedi.
Princess Peach, no harm ever comes to her.
She never loses a fight.
That's the crazy thing.
Someone even pointed out online that in the end when she does get captured, first of all, she doesn't lose the fight.
She willfully surrenders on the balcony saying, don't hurt my people and I will surrender.
I will marry you.
And it's like, okay, so Toad is tortured.
And this follows the woke feminist tropes, that she is naturally talented, she's a strong, capable fighter, she's noble and honorable, no harm comes to her, and she never loses.
She chooses to go with Bowser.
He doesn't kidnap her.
I mean, technically you could say he did, but she chooses it for the betterment of her people.
And then when she's supposed to marry Bowser, she defies him and wins, freezing him, incapacitating him, and then stopping the chains from dropping, which Donkey Kong then eventually reverses.
So I just saw that like, okay, I get it.
It's the Peach movie.
It's a movie about Peach, not Mario.
It's not an origin story for two fighters who are there to save the day and stop Bowser over and over and over again.
It's about two guys who are there by accident, who kind of suck at everything, and only through the power of magic are they able to actually get anything done.
Luke Skywalker is aided by magic, but the idea was that it was something within him.
Iron Man.
He builds a suit to make him strong, but it was within him.
Captain America is given super soldier serum!
unidentified
Hoorah!
tim pool
But it was only because he had a noble spirit.
Which was embiggened by the Super Soldier Serum.
unidentified
Mario sucks.
tim pool
He sucks.
He fails.
And he only finally beats Bowser because Bowser loses his Super Star, Mario becomes invincible, and then stops Bowser.
That is to say, in the end, there is nothing inherently strong about Super Mario.
He was weak and failed the whole time, and every step of the way got mercilessly beaten, or fell into the water and was eaten by an eel.
It is only because other people gave him tools was he able to actually get anything done, which is to say, the power-ups are a bigger component than Mario is.
The real hero was the Super Star.
In the end, we learned that Mario was irrelevant to the story, because any person who grabbed that star could have defeated Bowser.
It could have been Princess Peach, which is actually kind of funny.
It makes no sense.
When she gets captured, she grabs a turtle shell and hits the star, which flies over to Mario.
She could have just grabbed the star, and then she'd be invincible.
She's already a Kung Fu master who aced the obstacle course that Mario never did.
So that's it.
That's the end story.
And what I hear is like, well, but it was a team thing, a team thing.
I'm like, dude, come on.
If the story is about how Mario becomes the grand hero of his franchise, this was not it.
In every Mario game, let's talk about Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy or whatever, Mario doesn't accomplish things through power-ups.
In Super Mario 64, Mario can punch and kick and jump and butt-stomp without power-ups.
In the movie, he can't do anything.
He tries hitting Bowser and Donkey Kong, nothing happens.
It's only when he's given a power-up is he capable.
Princess Peach, however, jumps and ninja kicks Bowser in the face, stalling him out for a second, effectively causing him damage.
Anyway, I'm not going to rant on this because it's already been a half an hour, but this is my point.
My point in all of this is not to do a step-by-step review of the movie, but to point out that I'm just sick of the, like, look, man, I like Charlie Kirk, I like Jack, I like Crowder, of course, I think they're good dudes, but they didn't watch the movie.
And all I see is them jumping on this narrative because it became the narrative for some reason?
I don't understand why it is that these individuals decided this movie was not woke, and then came out and said, this proves it.
No.
I'm gonna say it like this.
The movie was decently woke, I wouldn't call it the wokest thing in the world, but it was, you know, fairly feminist.
And if anybody is accepting those narratives, they're basically accepting the incompetent male and Mary Sue female storyline once again, just like The Last Jedi.
I thought the movie was moderately entertaining, a lot of good jokes.
I relatively enjoyed it, but... I dunno, D-?
unidentified
C-ish?
tim pool
I was kind of... And the reviews are between 46% and 56%.
So there are people coming out and saying it was anti-woke and it was great because it made money.
I'm not playing that game.
It made money because the Mario Brothers brand is powerful and it's a kids movie.
It was given an early release, a five-day weekend, so of course it made a lot of money.
It had a great opportunity.
It was a holiday weekend as well.
And I believe a bunch of kids were on Easter break.
So yeah, perfect opportunity to release a kid's movie to make money, but if that's the message they want to send to kids, I'm saying we're losing because that ain't it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
It'll probably be a bit more serious.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
When Donald Trump was indicted, my argument was that he should not have surrendered.
He should have simply said, look, file the paperwork.
Contact me in Florida.
Let me know what's moving forward.
I'm not saying that Trump should have stood up and said, I will never answer this subpoena, Mark.
He should have said, I don't know anything about it.
They can file the paperwork.
They can send it to Florida.
Florida can get in touch with me.
But I don't know what New York is doing or why they're doing it.
This would have resulted in a standoff that I think Trump would have won.
Instead, Trump said, no, no, I'm gonna surrender.
I'm gonna come back down now.
I guess it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and that they did reach out to Secret Service and said, we're indicting Donald Trump.
We want him to come in for arraignment.
And he said, sure, fine, okay.
My attitude is still, he should have said, file the paperwork with Florida for extradition.
I'm not answering a political subpoena.
Now, we have breaking news.
Trump set for quick New York return to give deposition in lawsuit brought by Letitia James.
They're not going to stop.
This will keep happening.
And Donald Trump at some point is going to have to just say no.
Here's the latest news.
Donald Trump is set to make a quick return to New York to give a deposition in a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
This will be the second time he will give a deposition in the case.
The first one was in August last year when he refused to answer any questions citing the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
At the time, Trump said the investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt against him.
This will be the former president's first trip to New York since his arraignment last week on 34 counts of falsification of business records in a Manhattan criminal case related to hush money payments made before the 2016 election.
unidentified
Ms.
tim pool
James has sued the former president, his three eldest adult children, and a host of companies, organizations, and persons associated with his real estate and licensing business following a three-year civil investigation into allegations of fraud.
Civil investigation?
My, my.
Acts across more than 200 pages following interviews with 65 witnesses and reviews of millions of documents, the Attorney General alleges the former president and his business empire falsely inflated the value of his net worth by billions of dollars in an effort to gain tax benefits and other benefits from insurers and financial institutions.
unidentified
Ms.
tim pool
James said the twice-impeached president cheated all of us by inflating his net worth to unjustly enrich himself and to cheat the system.
Now hold on.
It's the most ridiculous thing ever.
You lose money if you claim you have more.
Now, I get it.
There are certain things you can do by inflating the value of an asset or deflating it.
Sure.
Arthur N. Garan, the judge in the case said last month, this case is complex, but it's not complicated.
Essentially, it all boils down to whether Trump's statements of financial interest are true or false.
The civil case is scheduled to go on trial October 2nd.
The judge has rejected repeated attempts by Trump's attorneys to push that date back.
There is one thing happening here.
One.
They are targeting Donald Trump in an effort to jam him up and make it impossible for him to run for office.
They are going to require him to go to New York on October 2nd to testify to be in this case.
They're going to bring him back in December for a criminal case.
And now we have this from Yahoo News.
Trump aide Stephen Miller appears before Washington grand jury.
This will not stop.
This is why I think the polls are fake.
They're putting out these polls that show that Donald Trump is actually down.
And if an election were held today, Biden would probably win in several key states.
I don't believe it.
I mean, Biden will probably win in certain states for sure, like New York, Illinois, California.
But I think Trump's actually doing better than they want to admit.
I think a lot of these polls are bunk BS.
And the reality is, people are fed up.
Now, I think it is fair to say that maybe Ron DeSantis would do better than Trump.
That's true.
In terms of voting and the polls.
But I'm not so sure that's what we need as a country right now.
So perhaps we do just need a Donald Trump.
But back to the story at hand.
What we are seeing is a massive effort to jam up Donald Trump, his campaign, and stop him from winning.
The fact they're going after Stephen Miller.
The fact that a second grand jury, and there's probably more, You've got Georgia as well.
They're going to keep smacking him with charges to make him fly around the country to stop him from rallying.
He's got to go to New York twice.
He's going to have to answer grand jury indictments in Washington, D.C.
I'll make it simple for you.
Do you think a grand jury in D.C.
is going to side with Trump?
You'd have to be insane to think that.
D.C.
is absolutely, for no reason, for any reason, they're gonna come out and they're gonna be like, yeah, Trump should be indicted.
You could come out and say, did Donald Trump make a ham sandwich with mustard instead of mayo?
Indict.
They'll make up any reason to go after him.
Then he's going to have to go to Georgia, and it's going to keep happening.
Here's what Yahoo News reports.
They say, Stephen Miller, a top White House aide to former President Donald Trump, appeared
before a federal grand jury in D.C. on Tuesday.
They say, Miller's appearance came after federal appeals court on April 4th rebuffed Trump's
request to block grand jury testimony by several former top administration advisors, a group
that reportedly included Miller.
Trump had unsuccessfully raised a challenge on executive privilege grounds before a district judge, which he absolutely has!
Amazing.
But why would D.C.
agree with Trump?
Miller, accompanied by two attorneys, did not speak with reporters as he entered the courthouse and walked into the grand jury suite.
The grand jury has been hearing evidence in Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.
Miller was a close advisor to Trump during the post-election period and featured prominently in the final report of the Special Congressional Committee probing the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
Smith is also overseeing an investigation into mishandling classified documents recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
Well, I'll be!
You've got multiple cases in Washington, D.C.
How about that?
Miller previously appeared before a federal grand jury in D.C.
in November and December.
And they say, you know, read more Bloomberg, blah, blah, blah.
Well, Yahoo is just rehosting the Bloomberg story.
Welcome to modern politics.
This is it.
We saw a Democrat in North Carolina That quit the Democratic Party and became a Republican.
Giving the Republicans a super majority.
Now that's a victory that I think needs to be pointed out when we're talking about these stories.
Because I think it's fair to say, the Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes, no matter how wrong, no matter how evil, to push what they want to push.
I mean, take a look at this.
From Reason.com, let's zoom in on this one right here.
Trump commuted his sentence, now the Justice Department is going to prosecute him again.
Philip, as foreign as his case, is a story about what happens when the government violates some of its most basic promises.
Yeah, they're basically saying Trump was illegitimate, that's their claim, they've always claimed it, and they want to erase anything he's done.
They're going to do everything in their power to make sure he can't run, and here we are.
When Philip Esformas walked out of prison in December 2020, he'd spent four and a half years behind bars, the majority of which were in solitary confinement.
He reportedly weighed about 130 pounds.
He was, in many ways, a broken man.
But Esformas' luck was changing.
He had recently received clemency from Donald Trump, giving him the chance to rebuild his life after paying a debt to the country.
That fortune is quickly soured.
In a move that defies historical precedent, the Department of Justice under Joe Biden is using a legal loophole to re-prosecute as far as his case, raising grave questions about double jeopardy, the absolute power of the clemency process, and the weaponization of the criminal legal system against politically expedient targets.
A former executive overseeing a network of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, Ms.
Formez was arrested in 2016.
The prosecutors, who were found to have committed substantial misconduct throughout the case, alleged he paid doctors under the table to send patients his way, and subsequently charged Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary treatments.
The government held him without bond in the years leading up to his trial, placing him in solitary.
He was ultimately found guilty of money laundering and related charges, as well as bribing regulators to give him notice of upcoming inspections so he could attempt to obscure shoddy conditions at those facilities.
But Esformas was not convicted of the most serious charges leveled against him.
The government failed to convince a jury, for example, that he committed conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud.
So his 20-year sentence, handed down by U.S.
District Judge Robert Anscola, may appear grossly disproportionate to his convictions, until you realize the judge explicitly punished his formist for charges on which the jury hung.
That is not an error, quote.
When somebody gets sentenced at the federal level, they get sentenced on all charges, even the ones they're acquitted on.
As long as they get convicted on one count, says Brett Tolman, the former U.S.
Attorney for the District of Utah, who is now the Executive Director of Right on Crime.
The defendant, as much as you might not like him, do you think he should be punished two or three times for the same conduct?
I don't find anybody who thinks that's fair.
As far as it's just one person, and he's perhaps a convenient bullseye, at which the Biden admin and Attorney General Merrick Garland can aim.
As many on the left have a particular sort of ire for white-collar crime, but it is difficult to overstate the implications of his case for the broader public, regardless of partisan affiliation.
While there are a lot of people who disagree with how Donald Trump handled his clemencies, it's his absolute right as president to issue commutations and pardons, and I think that's an important right to protect.
Simply put, they will do anything to stop Donald Trump, to undo the things he's done, to retry people defying historical precedent.
This is what you're up against.
Don't forget it.
A lot of people are saying, why didn't Trump part in the January 6th defendants?
I'll say this.
Many of them should not be pardoned.
Now certainly some of them should be treated more fairly, but the people who are violent and attacking cops I think should be criminally charged.
Some of these people should have been pardoned absolutely because they wandered into a building confused.
For sure.
Donald Trump's team said, It had just happened.
They didn't even know it was going on.
How could they pardon people before they even knew what people were being accused of?
Fair point.
It takes time and it's difficult.
But I'll tell you this.
If Trump did pardon them, they would just recharge them for something else.
Trump would have to issue this absurd massive blanket pardon on all federal accounts, but you can't even do that.
Because then what?
Someone commits a crime and they're like, I pardoned him in advance.
This is the point.
If Trump does not win, I don't think DeSantis is going to do enough.
Trump needs to win to solidify the things he did change.
And there are many good things that he did, particularly with foreign policy.
And they seek to jam him up and prevent it from happening.
Well, here you go.
This is the point I was making.
I made before.
Trump giving in is a surrender which just emboldens them and they will not stop.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
In a move that in no way surprises me, Democrats have turned the story of a mass shooter in Nashville into a fundraising opportunity for what they call the Nashville Three.
But there's a better hashtag, and that's Nashville Six, the innocent people who were killed by a deranged mass shooter in Nashville.
Kamala Harris flew down to Nashville, but not to visit the families of the victims.
To visit and help Democrats bring back expelled lawmakers into the House.
Here's a story from Reuters.
Tennessee Democrats push to bring second expelled lawmaker back to House.
Amazing.
What's that?
That's right.
Next day, we'll press for a reinstatement of a second state rep who was expelled for
leading a gun policy protest on the floor of the statehouse after the first was reinstated
Monday.
What's that?
That's right.
One of the Democrats who was already expelled has already been reinstated.
That's it.
These people waged insurrection in their capital.
When there was a legislative session, protesters stormed the Capitol, fighting with police, and lawmakers joined them.
They were expelled because of this.
The Democrats have immediately moved to reinstate them, bringing one back already.
Now, the guy who was brought back, it's my understanding, actually assaulted, or was arrested, I should say, for assaulting members of the legislature previously.
He was banned from the Capitol for life, and then he won an election.
This is happening.
Democrats are embracing this.
They don't care.
It's a remarkable narrative building, to be completely honest.
Six people dead, three children, and the only thing Democrats will talk about is how the GOP are fascists for expelling them.
Justin Jones pumped his fist and declared power to the people as he returned to the State House of Representatives on Monday after being restored by the Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County.
I hereby call on the legislature to once again expel him.
Do it again.
Just keep doing it.
His colleague Justin Pearson, the other young black legislator who was expelled last week, could get a similar vote for reinstatement on Wednesday when the Shelby County Board of Commissioners will consider reappointing him to his Memphis district.
You might try and silence it.
You might try and expel it.
But the people's power will not be stopped.
Pearson told supporters outside the council chamber in Nashville following Jones' reinstatement.
This is what democracy looks like.
No, it doesn't.
Democracy is when you engage in insurrection, you get expelled.
And then having your faction just reinstate you is not democracy, you're defying what the council actually voted on.
But here we are.
In a joint statement, after Jones's reinstatement, William Lamberth and Jeremy Fison, who lead Tennessee's House Republicans, noted that the state's constitution provides a pathway back for expulsion.
Should any expelled member be reappointed, we will welcome them.
Like everyone else, they are expected to follow the rules of the House as well as state law.
Pathetic.
The GOP is pathetic.
How many of you agree?
They expel the guy.
They reinstate him.
They go, OK, well, no, there you go.
Welcome back there, everybody.
Are you kidding me?
Man, they need to fight back.
They need to say, no, we will expel you again.
They don't do it.
The Democrats have found a way to make money and fundraise off of the death of six individuals.
This is what they're doing.
These people are evil.
I'm sorry.
It's a combination of the banality of evil and malicious evil.
An individual went to a school, a Christian, a Catholic school, I think it was Presbyterian.
Sorry, a Christian, not Catholic, Presbyterian.
Killed three children.
Why?
Where's the manifesto?
According to several sources, sources that we've not verified, and I'll make sure it's very clear, but also many others who have heard similar, police sources state the manifesto makes it clear this individual hated Christians and was targeting people they thought were anti-trans or transphobic or, you know, helping contribute to genocide.
That's how they describe it because they're insane.
This person then killed children.
And many on the left, not everybody, I'm just saying, we saw the sentiment on Twitter from some people saying, well, those kids were future fascists.
And this is where we are.
How the Tennessee 3 backlash fits into Dems 2024 plan.
The Tennessee 3 fiasco has been a boon for Democrat fundraising and recruiting.
Because they're evil.
No honest, objective person sees what happens and then says, yes, let's reinstate these people and give them money.
Let's talk about January 6th.
Let's say you are a leftist who claimed January 6th was an insurrection.
I humbly disagree.
Okay, when you say we should expel the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and fought with cops, that's your standard?
Okay, well that's what these people did.
These people engaged in a violent protest storming the Capitol, but now your position changes.
Oh, I get it.
Your position is actually, give me power.
That's it.
That's consistent.
I get it.
You will lie to get power.
So you'll claim Republicans should be expelled because it empowers you, but then when it's Democrats you'll say, bring them back, don't expel them, you're a fascist.
Got it.
Me?
I don't think January 6th was an insurrection.
I think there was a violent riot on the steps of the Capitol and into the front of the building.
And I think on the other side of the building, cops let people in and they wandered around.
And then eventually, people who had no weapons... There were some weapons, don't get me wrong.
But for the most part, people did not come prepared for an insurrection.
Many of these people just left.
Many weren't arrested.
Only the Trump supporters actually died.
And then Congress carried on its duties.
You can call it bad.
I'd say it was particularly bad considering it targeted the Capitol.
But I think these people should be charged for the violent actions they engaged in, and the peaceful protesters should probably just be let go.
The people who walked in confused on the side of the building.
As for these individuals, I would be absolutely fine with that standard as well, but that's not the standard they apply to the January Sixers.
If the standard they're applying is that joining a violent protest, call it whatever you want, joining the storming of a Capitol is an expulsion-worthy event, then these people should not be welcome back in.
But I guess y'all get it already.
They're using it.
They're making money off of it.
They're pretending to be the victims.
They're smiling.
She's smiling as she hugs these two men.
As they shift the narrative away from the murder of children into them as the victims.
The protesters that were joined by these men held up seven fingers, signifying that the trans mass murderer was a victim themself.
Herself.
Because they don't care.
They don't care about gun violence.
If they did, they'd actually propose some real alternatives for how we can actually end these things.
No, they need racism.
They need gun violence.
They campaign on it.
It is a major issue that scares people that they weaponize.
That's the reality.
If there was any truth to the fact that they wanted to actually deal with these problems, they'd propose real problems.
They'd research the issue.
They'd say, teach me about guns and let's try and figure out how to limit gun violence.
They'd say, I went to the NRA and asked them what they would be willing to do in terms of advocacy for something that could stop gun violence.
And ultimately they'd come out and they'd say, The issue with these schools is that they have no armed guards.
You don't gotta come out as a Democrat and say, unban all guns, or repeal the NFA and ban the ATF.
You can simply say, we got security guards at banks, let's have security guards at schools.
They don't propose that.
They simply say, ban more guns.
And then what they do, is they ban some obscure item, claim they did something, and actually do nothing.
Case in point.
You take a look at a Ruger 10-22.
This is one of the most famous examples.
A Ruger 10-22 with a wood rifle stock is a hunting rifle to Democrats, but you take the exact same weapon and give it a pistol grip, and now it's an assault rifle.
How does that make sense?
First of all, it's not an assault rifle, because assault rifle is legally defined.
And historically defined.
But they call it an assault weapon because it has a pistol grip?
The rifle grip doesn't change that much.
I mean, I guess a pistol grip is better, but that's the standard?
Right.
Because Democrats know they're not going to get through legislation that outright bans guns because they'll have to go to the Supreme Court, and that can open up the door to repealing the NFA, depending on where the court stands today.
Although I'm pretty sure Brett Kavanaugh is for gun control, not a fan.
No, they know that they have to tread lightly.
So when they feign anger and outrage, make themselves the victims instead of the children who were killed, they will then come out and propose some nonsensical policy about, like, next thing it's gonna be, well, Iron Sight's making an assault weapon because now you can see things without needing a scope and it's gonna...
You can aim without, you know, it makes it easier.
Whatever garbage nonsense they can make up, that will be, like bump stocks, for instance.
That was Trump's fault.
Banning bump stocks.
Nobody really cares about bump stocks for the most part, but they're just banning an accessory because it can simulate automatic fire.
Simulate in the sense that you still have to know how to properly fire.
The bump stock just makes the recoil of the gun hit your finger faster.
But they call that simulating automatic fire.
It makes no sense.
Bum stocks don't do much.
Not going to change things.
And in all honesty, I believe that if fully automatic rifles were legal, you'd actually see less death in these shootings because these people would spray and pray and miss.
And bum stocks are no different.
Instead, what happens is they just ban something for the sake of saying they did something to empower themselves.
They don't actually care.
The most disgusting thing, this photo right here fills me with absolute revulsion.
And it makes me just desperately hate these people.
That's a hard thing to do, because I don't hate very easily.
But seeing this evil, this is malicious evil.
This woman I see as, and they didn't expel her, and they should have.
Turning themselves into the victims.
Making the narrative about them after three children were killed shows they are unscrupulous.
That they will do whatever it takes to strip power from the bones of the dead.
It's disgusting.
What are you gonna do?
Hey, not like I think Republicans are all that great.
They're feckless.
Many of them are evil too.
But the focus is here.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
I saw this story about dating and a woman who's from the Philippines who married a man who is not that attractive by the internet standards, and I couldn't help but think there's an interesting double standard here as it pertains to men and women and dating.
That is, quote, she thinks I'm cute.
Man hits back at trolls who claim his attractive wife is only with him for the money.
Well, here's the image of the two.
They say that she is too attractive, and this guy is not attractive enough.
Okay, well, I think based on an objective standard of what we would call beauty in media and movies, the guy on the left is average looking, maybe on the slightly below average side, and the woman on the right is probably more attractive.
The argument is, they met in the Philippines, or they met online, she's from the Philippines, she gets married, and they're saying she's only with him for his green card.
And that got me thinking.
It got me thinking.
So what?
So what?
So what if she is?
She's allowed to be.
Here's what I find fascinating.
If a man is only with a woman for her looks, guys, for the most part, don't care.
A guy might say something like, yeah, Jim's wife is smoking, but she's dumb as a box of rocks, but hey, she's smoking.
Like, it's not a bad thing that a dude is with a woman who is incapable, so long as she is physically attractive.
Now, there is some criticism if someone's got a dumb wife or something like that.
But if a woman is attracted to a man who can provide for her, she's insulted for it.
And that, I think, is actually really important.
If we want people to be people, men to be men, women to be women, and we recognize that women are more likely to be attracted to charisma and status and wealth, and I'm not saying those are bad things.
I don't think it's negative that women may be attracted to those.
I think that's perfectly fine for women to be attracted to.
And men are attracted to appearance.
That's all totally fine.
I don't think it should be absolute.
But why are we then insulting women because they're with a guy who can provide for them?
If anything, I'm like, this looks absolutely normal and perfect to me.
Let me read you the story and we'll talk about it.
Here's what they say.
A couple have hit back at trolls who claim they can't be in love because the wife is much more attractive than her husband.
Scott from Houston, Texas and his wife Divine, originally from the Philippines, have been together for more than five years.
Their relationship began from a mistaken message on Facebook in 2017 when Divine thought he was someone else.
This sparked a long-distance relationship which then turned into a marriage after Scott visited the Philippines for the first time in 2017 and later proposed to her.
They continued their long-distance relationship for four years until Divine moved to the U.S.
and the couple wed.
And immediately, what do people say?
Here's the story.
She didn't mistakenly message the guy.
She knew what she was doing.
She was fishing for an American she could marry to get a green card and a better life.
And my response is, so what?
So what?
This guy, being slightly below average and having money, finally sees an attractive woman who's into him, so he goes to the Philippines, starts a relationship with her, they've been together for five years, and they get married.
She gets a green card, she gets access to a better life.
I would be willing to bet People look at this and they say she's a gold digger and she's just trying to get that green card.
Notice the comments?
And I'm like, I'd actually be willing to bet she feels a tremendous sense of warmth and love within her heart for this man who gave her something better and who she needs.
And that is, to her, she feels tremendous love for this man.
I think of it this way.
She's from the Philippines and they're trying to argue that, like, it's not real and she's exploiting him.
And I'm like, Imagine you're homeless.
I don't care if you're a man or a woman.
And you're struggling.
Let's say you're a dude.
And you lose your job.
And you run out of money.
And you smell like you're trying as hard as you can.
You're staying with friends.
And then eventually your friends tell you, bro, you can't stay here anymore.
And then one day you meet a woman.
And she's like, let me give you a place to stay.
I'll take care of you.
I will help you get back on your feet.
Would that man not love that woman for doing that for her?
Would he not be like, You have saved my life.
I owe... I'm eternally grateful to you.
They say... It started on TikTok.
They started this... I'm sorry.
They started their TikTok together in 2021, but trolls refused to believe they could ever be together.
The couple recently made a TikTok video responding to a comment which said, Wow, he isn't cute at all.
Come on, be real with us.
Divine, wearing black sunglasses, looks to her husband and says, Babe, they say you're not cute.
Scott then responds by saying, I guess it really doesn't matter.
She thinks I'm cute.
So... Here's another photo.
They say that this guy had scleroderma, which caused him to, you know, what do they say?
It morphed his appearance, but it's not expected to get worse.
So let's break it down.
We look at her and we're like, wow, look how attractive she is, and she's from the Philippines?
So if you live in the Philippines, and your standard of living is lower, and an American guy who has wealth and money responds to a message from you and says, if you are there for me, and you give me the love and the companionship I seek, I will, in turn for you, provide for you.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be?
Now the question is, will she leave him?
And that would suck.
Maybe eventually she finds someone who's better, but I don't know.
I'm not going to immediately assume that's the case.
I see a story like this.
There's this old documentary called The Science of Sex.
It was a show on HBO, I think.
And they did this thing where they took... He is not cute.
The wallet and green card must be cute.
They did this thing where they took a hundred pictures of men and they had women rate the men on a computer on a scale of 1 to 10.
They then averaged out all the scores.
Sure enough, it's what you expect.
The guy who was a 9 was tall, chiseled, strong jaw, kind of fit.
They said he was a 9 out of 10.
No one ever got 10 because 10's a perfect score, so it was like 9.37 or something like that.
And then they got another guy.
He was short, he was pudgy, he was balding, and he got a 4 out of 10.
Poor guy.
Well, they then went to the streets, and they asked average women.
They said, how would you rate this guy on a scale of 1 to 10?
And sure enough, the guy who was on average rated a 9, was rated on average around a 9, and the guy who was a 4 was rated on average around a 4.
But why would they see anything different?
They literally did this in the lab already, with women coming in and answering questions on a computer.
In the real world, women stated the same thing.
Then they did something really, really interesting.
They added a bio, a status, of the individuals on the piece of paper they were showing women, and then things changed.
The man who was rated a 9, they said was a theater manager, a cinema manager, who made $35,000 a year.
All of a sudden, they said he was a 7.
The guy who was a 4, they said he was a software engineer who made $500,000 a year, and he went from 4 to 6.
I'm not mad about that.
At all.
There are guys who are like, women only want you for their money and stuff like that, and I'm like, and?
Look, to a certain degree, you expect actual love and emotional attachment.
You actually expect the person who's there with you to actually care about you for who you are and want to help you succeed, be it male or female.
But men, biologically, Want a partner who is attractive, symmetrical, and can bear children, which is why men like younger, attractive women.
It's why they don't care if a woman has a job or makes money, for the most part.
Women need to know that the man will be there for them, provide for them, and protect them.
And that's the story we have right here.
An American man of wealth and means goes to the Philippines and says, you will be an American.
You will be wealthy.
You will have what you've always dreamed of.
And she says, I can't believe it.
My dreams are coming true.
She doesn't look at this guy and think he's not attractive enough.
That's why you can very often see, like, a middle-aged, overweight guy with a beautiful wife.
That's why that trope exists.
Because to women, attractiveness is not so much about how they look, it's about their capabilities and what's inside.
And to men, it tends to be about how the women look.
Of course.
Let's call it 60-40.
Not absolute.
Men obviously don't want to be with a woman who's dumb as a box of rocks because she's hot.
I know a ton of guys who have dated a bunch of really awful, stupid, or dumb women, but they were attractive and they came to regret it and said, well, you know, it was fun for a while, but...
You don't want a mother of your kids who's stupid.
You want someone capable.
But attraction is really boiling down to how someone looks.
And for women, of course, looks matter.
But in the end, you can have a chiseled guy who's super attractive and six foot tall, and he plays guitar in the streets making seven to ten bucks an hour, and you're like, I need someone who's gonna be there for my children.
And it's like, even though I might feel something for you, it's not viable.
And then you get this story.
I think it's a perfectly fine love story.
I hope they last forever.
A woman from the Philippines.
Lower standard of living.
The Filipinos actually do really, really well in the United States.
And she messages this guy and says it was an accident.
Well, I don't know if I believe that.
But here's a guy who says, you are exactly what I'm looking for.
You are the most attractive woman and you're kind to me and you give me what I need.
And then she says, I would love to meet a man who can provide for me.
And guess what?
This guy, he probably provides for her better than people in the Philippines may have been able to do.
There's a lot of questions around this and a lot of other complicated ideas, but simply put, isn't it strange that there is a negative connotation?
I believe that negative connotation is, in essence, modern feminism or wokeness.
The idea that the woman should get everything she's ever wanted, the most handsome and attractive guy in the world who loves her for who she is, she can do whatever she wants, and then he provides for her.
In reality, This is what it looks like.
I will not condemn a woman as a gold digger simply because she is attracted to a man who can provide for her.
That, it's what men do.
That's a funny thing.
People are like, she's a gold digger.
I'm like, and?
It's the craziest thing.
She's only with you because you're rich.
unidentified
Uh-huh.
tim pool
I don't care.
If women find wealth and power attractive and men find beauty attractive in their partners, welcome to reality.
I think to be healthy, there needs to be a balance.
I think these people are probably doing alright.
I question whether or not she actually mistakenly messaged him, as I said, but you know what?
If he's providing for her, good for him.
I think this message is important because there are a lot of guys who don't realize this.
You don't need to be Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt to get a relationship.
And I've seen these videos of incels.
There's like an involuntary celibate guy.
Gave an interview and the weird thing was everyone commented like, he looks like a normal guy.
He's like of average attractiveness and average income.
What's he complaining about?
Well, the reality is what women find attractive in men isn't just wealth, isn't just status, but it's character and confidence.
Men don't care as much about that in women.
They do care, obviously, to a great degree, but the scales are different.
Women care less about appearance, more about status, power, character, wealth, etc.
Men care more about appearance but still do care about, you know, status, ability, intelligence, competency, and things like that because we want people we can team up with who are going to do a good job of when we work together.
So that's what I see.
My message to all of you is, you can find love.
To a lot of these incels, the issue is you gotta work on yourself.
Some of these people are overweight.
Start going for walks and get fit.
Stop eating the sugar.
Don't drink beer.
Exercise.
You can be better.
Read books.
Go to parks.
Start skateboarding.
Be safe though.
Skate within your means.
And meet people who are there to encourage you because other people will.
Improve yourself inside, and you will find that there are many women who would love to be with you.
Like this guy did.
I just saw this and I was like, why are they ragging on a woman for wanting to be with a guy who can provide for her?
Like, I'm gonna put it very, very simply once again.
This guy provides for her, and you know what I'm gonna say it?
I bet he made her dreams come true.
She's growing up in, say, Manila or wherever she's from, and she dreams of living in New York City or whatever big American city, and getting to see that shining city on the hill, And then one day, a man disembarks from a plane, and he smiles, and he says, I will give you everything you have ever dreamed of.
And she probably cries.
And then she, and I'm making it more heartwarming than it probably is, flies back with him to the United States, and then it's five years they're together, they get married, I don't know if it was, they got married after five years, but she gets married, and now she's probably got a feeling of deep love in her heart for this man who gave her what she always wanted.
Stop making it so bitter.
Everybody's so bitter.
Let them be happy.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Export Selection