All Episodes
June 12, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:32:47
Candace Owens AND Michael Knowles SUSPENDED On Youtube Over Trans Debate, Woke Left PANICKING

Candace Owens AND Michael Knowles SUSPENDED On Youtube Over Trans Debate, Woke Left PANICKING BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:29:19
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:31
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
Candace Owens has been suspended from YouTube over videos about trans issues.
Did you think it was going to be easy?
With all the culture war victories we've had over the past couple of months, I see cause for hope and optimism.
In fact...
It looks like the tide's turning rather dramatically.
If you've not been following the Call of Duty scandal involving Nick Merckx, TimTheTatMan, and DrDisRespect, well then you may not be aware that tremendous victory lies ahead, and it's happening right now.
Those individuals I mentioned, they're video game streamers, so they're reaching a younger audience, they're very famous with millions and millions of followers, and they're upset over, let's just keep it simple, they're pushing back on a lot of this stuff that targets kids.
But of course.
We have an election coming up.
And do you think the powers that be will sit idly by as regular people say no?
They're not going to.
So, of course, Candace Owens has been suspended.
Of course, we know that other Daily Wire hosts have been targeted.
Jordan Peterson had a video removed.
And co-CEO Jeremy Boring has issued a statement about YouTube putting their fingers on the scales.
Of course they are!
YouTube suspending channels like Candace Owens, demonetizing any commentator over this issue, is specifically intended to help sway the election.
End of story.
I've got photos that I can show you from Pride that would make you very, very angry.
You may have seen many of them.
There was one viral video where two adult men perform a sex act on each other in public in front of children.
Now look, you know, I'm a traditionally liberal guy, not that it means much these days, and what that means is, look man, people love each other, they want to live their lives, I'm always more just like, do your thing, just leave the kids out of it, right?
And now we're at this point where they're not leaving kids out of it, they're explicitly targeting kids.
And I think there's a good portion of the powers that be at YouTube that are into children, that have that disgusting predilection, And they're seeking to protect it by all means, at any cost, and many of them just know that it's a major weakness for the left in the culture war, and they're going to have to do whatever they can to silence anyone who would expose them.
I'd like to mention one simple thing to all the naysayers as we begin this segment discussing the work of Candace Owens.
You know, it's funny.
There were these people who believed that powerful individuals around the world were trafficking minors for nefarious reasons.
And they were into them, if you know what I mean.
I'm trying to keep it family friendly a little bit.
But there was a conspiracy that powerful global elites were trafficking kids and stuff.
Wow!
And the media said you were fake news over and over and over again.
You're a liar.
You're fake news.
You made it up.
And then Epstein got arrested and Ghislaine Maxwell is currently in jail.
Why?
Because they have a powerful client list of wealthy global individuals, international powerful elites, who were trafficking minors.
If you know what I mean.
So that conspiracy theory, huh?
How about that?
They lied about it.
The media lied about it.
Here's what I think.
I think there's a lot of people who are aligned with the left, who absolutely are groomers and pedos.
And we can see that with the Epstein stuff, right?
And those aren't so much the left, as they are prominent global individuals, but the left aligns with the neoliberal, neoconservative, corporate hegemony.
Lockheed Martin marching around with pride flags.
We get it.
I think for many of the political elites, they're just thinking, we will take whatever we can get.
So when it comes to someone like Candace Owens saying, hey, it's a bad thing, they're like, look, we don't care about it.
We just want to win.
And that's where we're heading right now.
I do see cause for optimism, especially with the Call of Duty Activision scandal.
More boycotts, Bud Light tanking.
I went to a local liquor store this past weekend.
We had a little bonfire.
And I asked, I was like, how's Bud Light doing?
The guy was like, we can't sell any of it.
And he was laughing.
And I was like, do that many people know about what's going on?
And it's like, they don't know too much, but they know enough.
And, uh, I find it very fascinating.
Here's the news in the Daily Wire.
Candace Owens reveals globally sanctioned lie that led to YouTube suspension.
They say Daily Wire podcast host Candace Owens announced on Sunday that YouTube suspended her account because of her commentary about transgender issues.
In an Instagram video, Owens said YouTube imposed a temporary ban on her channel and said the lockdown was a result of a review of videos in which she refers to trans-identifying people by their biological sex and showcases people who have expressed remorse over undergoing transgender surgeries.
Owens blamed YouTube's very opaque policies for multiple strikes against her account and noted a suspension could last a week or more.
Owens added.
A post Owens made to Twitter summarized what she talked about on Instagram.
lie centered on gender ideology," Owens said.
Previous cases of narrative-driving falsehoods centered on Black Lives Matter movement and
COVID, but gender ideology is particularly insidious because it targets children, Owens
added.
A post Owens made to Twitter summarized what she talked about on Instagram.
So I will pull this one up.
Interesting.
Let's read this long Twitter post from Candace Owens to break down what it is she's arguing.
She says, It's true, my YouTube account has been suspended, and here is what I have to say.
We don't know exactly who or what is the driving force behind globally sanctioned lies.
But what we do know is that over the past five years, the prevailing lies of the day have shifted dramatically.
It was Black Lives Matter in 2020 when corporations, governments, and Hollywood were in lockstep flying black fist flags and encouraging people to donate their money as a penance for the sin of being born white.
Then the lies switched rather dramatically to COVID.
People were encouraged to mask up, avoid their family members, roll up their sleeves, and submit to a safe and effective vaccine via a globally sponsored lie that it would protect them from getting the virus.
Of course, both of these tremendous lies fell apart with time.
The corporation of Black Lives Matter was revealed to be fraudulent, siphoning money away from well-meaning citizens in order to enrich not black Americans, of course, but various transgendered causes, as well as the BLM founder's close circle of family and friends.
Today, the new and perhaps most insidious globally agreed upon lie is that individuals can choose or magically switch their genders.
Why is this lie the most insidious other than its frightful illumination of Western idiocy?
It's the most insidious because it targets children specifically.
If it needs reminding, there exists no world and certainly no cultural moment in which I become a buck that can be broken.
Just as with the previous globally sanctioned lies, I will in no way submit to it.
Like in previous globally perpetuated circumstances, me and those who stand against it will be maimed and caricatured in the media.
And then, just like in those previous circumstances, the few of us with the courage to stand against the tides of pop fiction will be vindicated.
Because in the end, truth wins.
Until then.
Of course, she then links to a thread from Jeremy Boring, who says,
Over the last few months, Real Daily Wire has received around 200 violations from YouTube
across our accounts. For Matt Walsh Blog, Ben Shapiro, Real Candace Owens, Michael J. Knowles,
Jordan B. Peterson, Andrew Clavin, and I'm Brett Cooper.
Almost all over coverage of the trans debate.
Now, we did, here at TimCast, also get one takedown.
Just one!
And the email we received said that we will not apply a strike to your account, but we are letting you know that we are removing... It was actually, no, it was two videos.
It was a clip and a full episode.
I think it was the clip from the full episode.
So, an episode of TimCastIRL, two hours long, they said, because of this section, we're nuking the whole episode.
And then the clip we made, they said, we're nuking that clip.
I find it strange.
Because we could have just... Not that I would want to, but instead of taking the video down, they could have said, this portion of the two hour long full podcast episode needs to be trimmed out.
Or they could manually do it and say, we've removed it.
Instead they're like, your whole episode is gone.
And that seems... It's completely unreasonable how YouTube handles all of this.
Not that I would want to take the clip out, mind you, but what can you really do?
The clip exists on Rumble.
I'm not sure if we have the archive up, but the full episode does still exist on various podcast platforms.
Nothing in the video that we did was in any way hate speech or targeting people based on being trans, because, as most of you know, I am not as, um...
Like, while I certainly agree with the Daily Wire on, like, leave kids out of it, and I don't believe that child sex changes are appropriate, nor effective, and we can see this from all of the data coming out of Europe, as well as just general research that we have here in the United States, it is... I'll put it simply, we do not have the long-term data to support what it is they're doing, at all.
But I don't consider myself to have as a hard a stance on the trans issue as the individuals of the Daily Wire, or even many other people we've had on the show, such as James Lindsay, for instance.
My position, as I've often mentioned, is, you know, you'll get conservatives who will say something like, there's no such thing as a trans kid, and I'm like, I'm not quite sure what that means.
I mean, you're saying that children can't actually be transgender, or you're saying they're not suffering gender dysphoria.
Because when I hear there's a kid who's trans, I take that to assume a child who's suffering from gender dysphoria.
I suppose the argument then is that these kids are socially indoctrinated, and that they're not actually experiencing any kind of internal or physical effect, more so that their parents and the world around them is driving that into them.
I don't completely agree with that.
Well, I certainly agree with it to an extent.
I think endocrine disruptors play a major role in why we may be seeing a massive influx in trans youth.
And I think it is something that should be brought up.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
See you on the tour!
tim pool
So what we have is a glass bottled water.
We do have bottled water, don't get me wrong, but I try to cut up the plastics.
You can't do it completely.
Look, we've got tons of food here, it's all wrapped in plastic.
But there are chemicals that leach from plastics into food, and they're endocrine-disrupting chemicals that will negatively impact children.
I think that may be a big reason why we're seeing so many trans kids.
And when I say so many, I think we're looking at 50 or so thousand in the past few years, and that is alarming to see this massive uptick.
I think a component of it probably is socially driven.
And I believe a component probably is endocrine disruptor driven.
So I don't know if that, where that puts me in terms of where the Real Daily, I'm sorry, where the Real, at Real Daily Wire, that's how I said it, because it's their Twitter account.
I don't know where that puts me in terms of their arguments or whatever, but I wonder if that has to do with why they're not hard striking us, or maybe it's because I'm a stickler for the academic approach as opposed to the impassioned or invective approach.
Not that I'm saying the Daily Wire is pushing any, you know, personal invective.
I think they tend to be fairly academic.
I wonder if, well I'll put it simply, The reason the Daily Wire is getting hit so hard, I think, is not necessarily even about this.
It has to do with the election coming up and the efforts to silence anyone who might support someone outside the Democrats.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
The Daily Wire seems to be heavy in the bag for Ron DeSantis.
I mean, all of these personalities are like, look, Trump is crude, crass, and DeSantis works.
I can respect it.
I think dissent is great, except for that whole deepfake fiasco.
I think they need to disavow that, and they haven't, and so I am mildly perturbed over that, but I will not support a candidate who produces fake images and campaign ads to create a fake perception of their opponent.
And then, you know, they come out and they complain and they're like, Donald Trump, you know, put Ron on a rhinoceros.
And I'm like, dude, you're not convincing me.
I just literally don't care if you're saying that.
You come to me and you say, but what about Trump using deepfakes?
And I'm like, a gag with the devil and Hitler and Ron on a rhinoceros doesn't faze me at all.
I don't care.
Sorry.
That's my position.
You can say there's a double standard.
Not literally don't care.
They made a video where they put three fake images of Trump hugging and kissing Fauci in it.
And it said real life Trump.
Above the pictures.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Not playing that game.
But anyway, I digress.
If the establishment really did want... You know, I can break this down.
I think I might... I don't know.
Let me just say this.
I think they do want Trump.
I mean it.
And I think this is evidence.
The Daily Wire, very, very heavily pushing Ron DeSantis.
I mean, their personalities.
They're all big fans of DeSantis.
Not so much me.
I'm a fan of Trump.
And it's the deepfake thing from DeSantis that really knocked him off my potential candidate list.
I'm like, that's a zero for me, dawg.
You put out a deepfake, you trick people, you try to lie, cheat, and steal.
I ain't playing that.
Donald Trump also has his faults.
And that's why I'm like, I only lean slightly towards him.
But look at it this way.
They've not taken our videos down.
We've talked quite heavily about this.
Maybe they will.
Maybe I'm speaking too soon.
Or maybe it's that they're thinking, if Trump is the candidate, we win.
Because we can beat Trump, but we can't beat DeSantis.
Maybe they're right.
Maybe that's really the play.
I don't care.
I mean, it's not gonna make me change my support for Donald Trump.
I really do think he's the guy who needs to get in to fire all these people.
And the deepfake thing from DeSantis, I think, is horrifying.
But perhaps.
My friends, the real issue is, the Daily Wire is massive, it's powerful, it's influential, and uh-oh, they're pushing really hard for Ron DeSantis, who does better among independent voters.
Maybe the machine really does want Trump.
The View host said it, I think it was Whoopi Goldberg, she was like, we want Trump, we don't want DeSantis, we can beat Trump.
That's creepy.
It's creepy that they live in that world.
This is what Jeremy Boring has to say.
He says, last month, Matt Walsh's blog was demonetized.
On Friday, Candace Owens and Michael J. Knowles were suspended for seven days after receiving their second strike.
And Jordan Peterson was given his first strike three in 90 days and your account is terminated.
In the last 90 days, our accounts have received 104 violations for hateful and derogatory content, earning them limited monetization.
Again, nearly every one of these violations comes from our coverage of the trans debate.
It's unsurprising.
Unsurprising.
Over 25% of the U.S.
population gets its news from YouTube, and the Daily Wire is one of the largest news brands in the space.
Last week, our accounts had over 157 million views on YouTube.
That's over 20 million views a day, yet we are on the verge of losing access to the platform.
That may be the bigger reason, Sir Jeremy, why it is they're coming after you.
You're too big, dawg.
You're too big!
You're influencing people.
You're making friends!
They don't like that.
Yo, the Bud Light thing is scary.
Activision.
This is interesting.
I gotta cover this later.
Activision.
Call of Duty.
They're, like, putting out the Pride stuff.
They're doubling down over and over again.
This is the craziest thing.
They're doubling down.
They got prominent streamers boycotting them, and they're doubling down.
They do not want to back off from this.
They don't want to see their agenda being harmed.
And Jeremy, we're talking 157 million views in a week!
unidentified
Wow!
tim pool
And the Daily Wire.
Like the biggest game in town, I guess.
157 per week.
You gotta understand, the media establishments are like, we've lost control of the narrative.
The Bud Light thing, all of this stuff, it's probably the result of prominent individuals like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro.
Matt Walsh, really hitting out of the park with the documentary, What Is A Woman?
And sure enough, YouTube comes for you.
Unsurprising.
Even Twitter tried to stop.
What is a woman?
And Elon Musk personally intervened.
We saw then the resignation of two individuals.
And I have to wonder, as many people have stated, did Elon Musk go to these women and say, either you resign or you're fired?
I wonder.
Really don't know.
But I think this is more than just the trans debate or the trans issue.
It is the easy path for them to shut down the daily wire to hinder them.
It won't work.
YouTube is losing market share to Rumble.
Every day, I see Rumble videos getting more and more traffic.
And you can try and shut down videos from the Daily Wire, or in our instance, we had a full episode of IRL and one video removed, but we don't... we don't rely on you for monetization anymore.
You had that power and you gave it away.
I'll give some advice to YouTube.
Yeah, really.
I'll give them some advice.
You see, When you offer up monetization to the average person, and they're able to make a living and run a business off of your platform, your best approach is the soft, guiding force, redirecting, instead of hard-hitting.
Let me explain.
If they went to the Daily Wire crew and said, guys, these videos violate the rules, we don't want to demonetize you, we don't want to take these videos down, Moving forward, approach the issue in this way, and we're totally cool.
Guess what?
Daily Wire would have been like, alright, fine.
We can make our arguments, but it has to be delivered in a more academic approach or something to that effect.
Then, the power and the soft power would hold.
This is what we saw with Patreon and other platforms when they started banning people.
I told these CEOs, you realize when you control the flow of revenue to these individuals, you have power over them.
And if you want a desired outcome, you utilize that power.
The threat of the removal is more powerful than the removal itself.
If you ban them, they will find another way to maximize their voice.
If you negotiate with them, you will diminish the arguments you don't like, and you'll keep them in your reins.
I know a lot of people listening are probably saying, no, it's good that they got banned.
Now they'll go to Rumble, now they're already on Twitter.
And Twitter is a massive political platform anyway.
It's where a lot of people get their news from, it's their news feeds.
And perhaps, YouTube made the biggest mistake they could have made.
The money that the Daily Wire makes is from memberships.
They make a lot of money off YouTube, don't get me wrong, but the bulk of it is memberships.
I'm willing to bet the YouTube stuff is...
I don't know.
15-20% of their revenue.
Because their website, their podcasts... I gotta tell you, their podcasts probably make substantially more.
Yo, the returns from the podcasts that I get?
Yo, YouTube doesn't compare.
This is the crazy thing.
The podcasts versions of our shows get a fraction, around 20% of the views, but they make comparable revenue.
It's crazy.
Because for podcasts, revenue is just so much better.
So much better.
So YouTube is destroying itself.
And so be it, let them do it.
They're not smart enough to understand.
That's what I'm saying.
You go to the Daily Wire and you say, hey guys.
You know, these videos break our rules.
We're not gonna take them down.
Instead of saying it this way or this way, say it this way and this way.
And then, you know what would happen?
You're gonna have a co-CEO of Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring, and the hosts being like, we're gonna lose 10 million dollars, or we can just lighten the way we say exactly the same thing.
You see what I'm saying?
Let me try to explain it this way.
I always tell the people who come on TimCast IRL, YouTube has rules, we don't have rules.
We seriously don't.
If you say something awful, I'll argue with you.
Like, this is the point of the debate.
My recommendation, however, is to make your arguments academic, and not invective.
Don't call someone a name, explain.
And so, the best example of this was when we had Milo Yiannopoulos on, and he made what may be one of the greatest, and it's fairly insulting, but well put, Instead of just calling Ron DeSantis a name, which I think would be rather ineffective, but it feels good, especially to people who aren't fans.
He said, when I told him, like, you know, try and keep it academic.
He said that Ron DeSantis has the charisma of something off-putting, like when you're trying to reach for something and you accidentally touch something moist, like a wet sponge.
And it was one of the funniest ways to describe how he felt about Ron DeSantis in a way that was funny and less Insulting, as it were.
That's the point I'm trying to make about YouTube.
Not that I'm saying that anyone at the Daily Wire should, or that I know for sure they would or should, change the way they deliver their message.
It turns out, as they've said, one of the reasons that they've had their videos removed is because they refer to males as men and females as women.
They've done it enough times.
In that instance, it does seem like this is more so about silencing a prominent conservative network as an election begins to approach, and I have to wonder if it's because they're big for Ron DeSantis.
Not as a company or anything like that, but many of the personalities very much favor the guy.
Maybe Ron DeSantis really is the path forward and the machine is terrified of it.
Or maybe Ron DeSantis is backed by a bunch of the same establishment neocon people and a Trojan horse.
I don't know.
Those are like the prevailing thoughts, though.
Me?
I'm just some dude complaining on the internet and I got no idea.
I can just tell you how we do things and what I see, and it looks like they're coming for the Daily Wire.
They're coming for Tucker Carlson.
Fox News sent him a cease and desist.
It's not gonna be easy.
With Activision, with Bud Light, with Target, with Kohl's, with North Face, with all these big boycotts, and the stock dropping.
Yeah, victory is right before us.
The culture is shifting and people are getting fed up, but they will thrash and they will do whatever they can to try and stop it.
And perhaps that's the real issue.
The real issue is that the Daily Wire have been big proponents of these boycotts.
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
And they need to start with the big target.
With 157 million views per week.
Yeah, that makes Timcast look like chump change.
We don't get anywhere near that.
Um, let me, let me, let me, let me think real quick about where we're at.
I think we're at, um... I think we're at, like, 6-7 million per week.
Just us.
Uh, to be fair, I should probably incorporate... Uh, it's, it's probably, like, 8 or so.
It could be more than that, actually.
I gotta check.
It could be around 10, but I think it's probably like 6 to 8 across all of our videos per week.
And we got nothing on the Daily Wire.
And maybe that's why YouTube doesn't care.
They're like, eh, 8 million a week.
What's he?
Daily Wire's 157 million per week.
Maybe after the Daily Wire gets knocked down, they come for us.
They already came for Steven Crowder.
He was a big dog.
So it could just be that they're starting with the biggest targets first.
We'll see, man.
The election cycle has begun.
The campaigning has begun.
The primaries are coming up.
2024.
It's a year away, but still, it's ramping up.
I hope you're ready.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Activision has removed another streamer's skin from Call of Duty.
Activision has complied with TimTheTatman's request to have his skin removed from the game in solidarity with streamer Nick Merx.
I have to imagine people who don't play games are a bit confused.
What do you mean?
They removed his skin!
Ah!
Okay, this is a skin that goes over your character in Call of Duty, which is basically, like, it makes the character look like the guy.
I'm assuming most of you know that, but I just thought maybe I should clarify.
Now let's slow down there a minute, because I know for you young folks, you completely understand the significance of this and what it means.
For those that may be a bit older and not in this culture, this is a tremendous Culture war victory once again for the sane, the rational, the good people of this country.
And it's not so much a right-wing thing.
As we've often said, left and right are rather meaningless in the culture war.
In terms of a reference to the culture war left and right, it doesn't necessarily mean conservative or liberal.
But what we're seeing now...
A prominent streamer with millions of followers, I think like nearly 10 million followers, said, leave the little children alone.
Something, I'm paraphrasing, not an exact quote, it may be that.
And they called this homophobic and anti-LGBTQ.
Why?
What about leaving kids alone is inherently anti-LGBTQ?
Perhaps Activision and Call of Duty have other predilections, and they're well aware of what it means when they say LGBTQ.
You see, this is the problem.
I've pointed this out before, that there are many individuals who have attraction to children who are exploiting the LGBTQ community in order to normalize their disgusting and illegal behaviors.
But now, if you say that there are people targeting kids, they say you're homophobic.
You're anti-LGBTQ.
That's the shield they're using.
You know what's really funny is they've been trying to do this for some time.
There was something online called LGBTP.
Where they tried putting pedo in the LGBT acronym.
And a lot of people thought it was a joke.
They thought it was a troll to insult people.
No, they're actually doing it.
So you get this video game streamer, very famous, as I mentioned, like 10 million followers.
And he says, leave the kids alone.
They remove his skin from the game.
They say, no, we support pride.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Is that what pride means?
Because when someone says, leave kids alone, and you say, no, because we celebrate pride, it's like, are you referring to your attraction to children?
That's the only explanation.
They're grooming kids.
But here's the latest update.
TimTheTatMan is another very prominent streamer, and he tweeted out, it doesn't feel right for him to have a skin in the game, like a character in the game, if his friend has been axed.
And so he said, remove me as well, and they did.
And now, Activision on Twitter is getting absolutely roasted.
I'll pull that up in a second.
People are commenting on all of their Pride posts saying like, nope, this ain't it.
And the crazy thing is, they keep doubling down.
So I'll jump to the Activision posts, and we'll get a beauty, strength, resilience, Activision celebrates Pride.
First, let's talk about where it all started very quickly for those that don't know the context.
The Verge reports Call of Duty removes streamer skin after homophobic comments.
We are focused on celebrating pride with our employees and our community.
Activision tweeted.
Now hold on there a minute.
What did Nick Merckx actually say?
Okay, here you go.
Someone tweeted, Americans are in a sad place right now.
Let people love who they love and live your own life.
Nick Merckx responded, saying, They should leave little children alone, that's the real issue.
Though Nick Merck's comments might seem innocuous, he is actually repeating a right-wing homophobic talking point that erroneously and dangerously equates any kind of LGBTQ plus acceptance or acknowledgement as an existential threat to children.
Homophobes, as a part of a reactionary backlash to the greater visibility of queer and trans people, are returning to an age-old tactic by which they try to reframe any kind of queer expression as grooming children.
Making them vulnerable to conversion or sexual assault.
Nice try, The Verge.
Y'all are on the wrong side of history.
You love to say it.
The left loves to say they're on the right side of history.
Dude, Nick Merckx is not a right-winger.
He's not a big conservative.
He's a video game guy!
He's an entity.
He plays video games.
He is a mainstream, modern celebrity.
Just saying.
Leave kids alone, man.
You can't come out and try to tell all of these people who follow this guy he's right-wing.
This is what they don't understand.
These streamers have a general audience.
People who often don't care about politics, aren't paying attention all that much.
You're not going to convince them the guy they like is far-right.
The same thing went for PewDiePie.
Dude, you take a swing at the king, you better not miss.
The point is, The Verge and these other corporate outlets trying to tell a general population that this guy is bad when they know who he is.
Like, you have a celebrity with more fans than The Verge has readers.
So when they write this, the readers are like, dude, you're lying.
I know this guy.
He's a good dude.
Now here's the latest update.
Activision removes another streamer's skin from Call of Duty.
Activision has complied with TinTheTatMan's request to have his skin removed.
I love that, to have his skin removed.
It does sound kind of funny, right?
He, like, goes to the doctor and he's like, please remove my skin.
unidentified
He had a tattoo.
tim pool
It's funny because he's TinTheTatMan.
unidentified
Does he have tattoos?
tim pool
Activision has removed another streamer's skin from a game, not their body.
Alright, that was a good one, The Virgin.
TimTheTatman, a prominent Call of Duty streamer, asked to have his Operator Bundle removed from Call of Duty in support of his friend Nick Merx, whose skin was pulled last week after he made homophobic comments.
It's just such a lie.
At Tim's request, we have removed the Tim the Tetman Operator Bundle from the Modern Warfare 2 and the Warzone store, wrote Activision spokesperson Neil Wood in an email to The Verge.
Of course, there's also another component of the story, and that is Dr. Disrespect, who is another prominent streamer, deleting Call of Duty live to his audience, saying, Yo.
The culture wars are fierce.
Bud Light's tanking, Target's tanking, and now this?
This is huge.
Because it's younger people playing these video games.
Not completely, but many.
TimTheTatMan, who named Nick Merckx as a longtime friend, tweeted that it felt wrong for him to have a skin in the game when Nick Merckx didn't, and requested that Activision remove his skin too.
In support of my friend, please remove the TimTheTetman bundle, he tweeted.
Another FPS streamer, DrDisRespect, also expressed his solidarity with Nick Murk's uninstalling Call of Duty during a recent stream.
It is notable that Dr. Disrespect, who was once temporarily banned from Twitch for streaming from a public bathroom, okay, that's hilarious though, before being permanently banned for mysterious reasons, is developing his own extraction shooter that would likely be in competition with Call of Duty Warzone, but come on.
How many FPS shooter games are there?
How many team-up shooter games are there?
Just because one exists doesn't mean... Like, they're trying to imply he's doing this for financial reasons.
All of this has happened after Nick Merckx made a comment that invoked a homophobic dog whistle that bigoted people have repeated for a very long time that anything LGBTQ plus related is harmful to and should be kept from children.
There's a video of two adult men at Pride performing a sex act on each other in front of children.
There's a video from a couple years ago of a nude man jumping up and down in front of children.
Come on.
These are public events and people are saying, we don't care if you love who you love.
We don't care if you if Lockheed Martin waves a rainbow flag.
But why are there two adult men performing a sex act on each other in public in front of kids?
And they're defending it.
Another video is going viral photo showing a man.
I would I would say exposing himself to a woman holding her child laughing and smiling.
It's like, yeah, that's bad for kids, dude.
But what they try and do is they try and claim that if you go to a kid and you say, these two men love each other, they're like, that's what you're saying.
You're a homophobe.
So I'll say it right now.
The example I often give being Dave Rubin, sorry Dave for being the go-to talking point in this regard, but Dave is a gay married man who has kids and I think he'll be one of the best dads and give those kids one of the best lives they could possibly have.
I have literally no issue whatsoever.
Conservatives, many of them do.
Don't get me wrong.
Conservatives oppose surrogacy in many circumstances, not all, but many.
And many of them don't want children to grow up having two dads.
I am a traditional liberal, not a conservative.
I am not concerned about that.
I am concerned about these people who clearly have an illegal, a desire for children that is illegal.
I shouldn't say the desire, but like the action they would take is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.
These people coming into the LGBTQ community and then pushing these things, and if you point it out, they lie and claim you're a homophobe.
No, I think Dave Rubin's kids are going to grow up knowing exactly what it means to be LGBT, or LGB, lesbian, gay, or bi, and understand the ideas of gay marriage and people loving each other and things like that.
And I don't think that will have a negative impact on these kids.
I think what has a negative impact on these kids is gender ideology, the manipulation of their perspectives as they're growing, rapid onset gender dysphoria, is that what it's called, I think?
Which I don't believe is all of gender dysphoric children, but is a component to it.
I think going to kids and confusing them is bad.
I think showing them overt sex acts is extremely bad.
I think explaining to kids as they grow up, and they get to a certain age, like the birds and the bees and all that stuff, I think that's totally normal, and it's up to the parents to decide.
But you see how they're lying, cheating, and stealing?
This is what they do.
Nick Merx is like, dude, they're showing nasty stuff to kids in these schools.
Nikki Freed, Democrat in Florida, referred to it as butt plug porn.
Okay?
That's in schools.
That should not be for children.
Leave the children alone.
But it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
When they come out and they say, oh, you want to leave the children alone, that's anti-LGBTQ.
Okay, well, it's the Verge outright calling LGBTQ people pedophiles.
I'm not trying to be cute.
If you say, hey, pedos, leave kids alone, And then they go, hey, why are you, why are you telling the LGBTQ people they're bad?
It's like, I wasn't.
I'm talking about the pedophiles.
Who are you talking about?
The perception from companies like The Verge and major corporations is that the LGBTQ plus community is, is, at least to some degree, pedophiles.
That's the message they push when I say something like, I have no problem with gay marriage.
I have no problem with a gay married couple having kids.
I have no problem if children at the right age start learning about gay married couples.
Me?
That's me.
You can disagree.
Feel free to do so and comment below.
But I say that, and then I say, I just don't think you should be putting overly sexualized books and stuff in front of these kids.
I don't think you should be showing kids what Nikki Freed would describe as butt plug porn.
And then they say, you're a homophobe.
And I'm like, uh... Are you talking about pedophiles?
Like, are you criticizing me because I'm like, pedophiles are bad?
Yo, you're basically saying you are a pedophile when you do that.
The Verge coming out, they're showing that they have those predilections.
Again, not being cute, I'm saying, what other reason would they do that?
That makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Well, TimTheTatMan, he tweeted this.
Nick Merckx has been my friend for years.
We went in getting our COD operators together.
It feels wrong for me to have mine and for him to no longer have his.
In support of my friend, please remove the TimTheTatMan bundle.
That's amazing.
Nick Merckx and TimTheTatMan, DrDisRespect, believe it or not, these video game streamers, y'all are making the world a better place because you're just speaking up for yourselves.
That's it.
None of these guys said anything about the LGBT community.
None of them said anything like they're bad or they're wrong.
They just said, hey man, keep kids out of it.
And in fact, I was only just Nick Merckx.
And they came after him.
Because it's culty and it's insane.
Activision doubled down.
So let me make sure I have this all correctly.
I want to make sure I have the Nick Merckx timeline correct.
So here's Nick Merckx.
He said, on June 9th, friends are created in good times, but families are built through adversity.
Appreciate all of you that have had my back.
Understand my position as a new father and recognize the love I have for all.
Ain't no hate in this heart.
I want to pull up his replies, and I want to show you the timestamps on this one.
So, let's see.
We'll go back to, because it was a while ago.
It was a couple days ago when he said, leave the little children alone.
And we're at June 7th.
Where are we at?
Where are we at?
Let me try and find it.
Here we go.
So he tweeted this June 7th, 12 32 p.m.
He said, they should leave little children alone.
That's the real issue.
Activision on June 8th tweeted their support for Pride.
And they have been ratioed into oblivion.
Now, for those that aren't familiar with the ratioing, it means that people are responding to the tweet, but not sharing the tweet.
Typically, it's a bad thing.
It's not always a bad thing.
If I tweet something like, what's your favorite pizza topping or something, then I'll get a thousand replies and like ten retweets.
But usually a ratio is like, you'll say an opinion, and most people will not share your opinion because they disagree.
They will criticize you for having such opinion.
Activision embraces the beauty and strength of diversity, equality, and unity.
We aim to foster an inclusive, supportive, and judgment-free environment.
Now here's the thing.
Make it ratio.
June 8th.
390 retweets, 5,943 responses.
They then double down a day later.
Join us in celebrating the power of pride.
Activision is excellent to be part of this of the Los Angeles Pride Parade on June 11th.
If you see our float during the parade route, be sure to say hello and share your own stories of pride and acceptance.
See you there.
I have a question.
I have friends who are at LA Pride posting photos and videos of their participation in it.
And I have to wonder, why don't you speak out about, in West Hollywood, the two men performing a sex act on each other?
Why don't you speak out about the man exposing himself to the woman and her child?
I just don't get it.
Do they say stuff like, oh, that's not really happening?
Look, there's photos of it!
And I'm not saying it's everyone.
You watch a lot of these videos and it's like Lockheed Martin, they're just in a parade.
So why allow it in any capacity?
And why criticize those who are upset about it?
Unless you actively seek to protect pedophiles.
I am not trying to be cute.
I am not trying... I am saying this literally.
The only logical reason, in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
If someone comes out and speaks up in defense of a pedophile, I'm like, you must have this same predilection.
I don't know what else to say.
Now, of course, to be fair, there's a difference.
The left will try and say, like, if you defend the free speech of a fascist, you must be a fascist.
We're not talking about the same thing.
If I believe in free speech, and someone you claim is a fascist believes in free speech, what that shows is I literally do defend free speech, even for people I disagree with.
If there's one person who is outright talking about how they're targeting kids, and then you speak in defense of them, it seems like you are in favor of targeting kids.
You see the point?
Like, yes, I am in favor of free speech.
So, here's the thing.
When Activision tweeted the next one, they disabled replies so that you couldn't comment.
And here's what people had to say in response to Activision celebrating Pride.
More Pride posts than good games in the last three years.
I think we would all celebrate if you made the game better.
Leave kids alone.
Leave our kids alone.
One person says, leave children alone.
Happy pride to you guys.
Hey, there's someone who's actually into it.
Leave children alone, and this person actually has a pride flag in their bio.
Yeah, amazing.
Fix your game.
Ah yes, the company that lets eight-year-olds scream racial and sexual slurs in its lobbies is now lecturing us on diversity and inclusion.
unidentified
Yeah, what do you got to say about that?
tim pool
Man, there's a lot going on.
Target down $15 billion?
It's wild times, huh?
Wild times indeed.
These boycotts, they're effective.
Forbes, I love this one.
Nick Merckx, Tin the Tat Man, how about no more celebrity influencer operator bundles in Call of Duty from now on?
You see what's happening?
When they begin to lose, and they lose control of the narrative, censorship is their only opportunity.
Remove them!
Take their influence away!
Don't let them be involved anymore!
Well, they're choosing to step back.
I want to give a shout-out to our good friend, Hasan Piker.
I love this.
Hasan criticizes Dr. Disrespect for uninstalling Call of Duty and supporting Nick Merckx.
Hasan Abhi criticizes Dr. Disrespect after he installs it, blah blah blah.
So, uh, I just... Look, when it comes to Hasan, my assumption is he defends these things not because he himself is a pedophile, but because it's perceivably culturally popular among the cult.
So, if he sees someone say, leave kids alone, they pull his skin, it is Hasan who must be in defense of corporations, in defense of the establishment narrative, whatever that narrative may be.
That's my perception of Hasan.
Because you gotta wonder about, like, he criticized, uh, what did he, he criticized Nick Merckx over, um, no vaccine, what did they have, yeah, okay.
Hassan later points out some of Nick Merckx's other controversial stances, such as no vaccine required meet-and-greet.
I wanna ask a genuine question about Hassan.
We've shared some opinions, we probably share many opinions, on, uh, on the world, on imperialism, war, uh, racism and all that stuff.
My question is, though, You've got like me, where I am anti-authoritarian and fairly libertarian, but then you have Hassan, who is pro-corporate establishment, but makes anti-authoritarian arguments.
That's my- I don't understand how that makes sense, right?
Like, when the government mandates a medical procedure for an individual that benefits a massive multinational corporation, several of them, How are you the resistance, the anti-establishment, when you're like, it is wrong to tell people they should have their body their choice?
Okay, I'll tell you my position.
I am pro-choice and I oppose vaccine mandates for basically the same reason.
I am not pro-choice in the sense of the left, where they're like, abortions for any reason up to any point.
I'm like, if the baby is viable, meaning it can survive on its own, don't kill it.
That makes no sense.
And there are very, very, very difficult challenges and questions when it comes to abortion in earlier stages, but I do lean towards the, the government should not mandate medical procedures or mandate what a person can or cannot do in these regards when it comes to abortion.
There are big questions in that that I don't have all the answers to, because I am not the smartest person in the world.
That means typically I oppose sex changes for children, but there are questions about when parents have a right to decide what is right for their families and not.
It's tough.
Should the government intervene and stop certain things and others?
Well, the reality is, we have moral perspectives.
It's not so much about whether parents have absolute rights, it's about what we think we know to be good and better for people.
In that regard, I say, in my view, a woman has a right to choose, and there are even exceptions later on in the pregnancy, but I don't agree with the left on their, like, limitless abortion thing.
And when it comes to sex changes for children, I am opposed to these things, and it's mostly based on the scientific research and data that we've seen coming out of Europe, and a lack of long-term data as it pertains to the United States, and the fact that many of these kids, they really don't know what they'd be going through if they did.
That being said, all that aside, when it comes to people like Hassan, I have to wonder why he often takes the capitalist, corporate, establishment position.
I just It is strange to me that I am more left wing than Hassan Piker while he claims to be on the left and that I am on the right or I'm conservative.
I will say this with utmost confidence.
My economic policy views are to the left of Hassan Piker.
And what I mean to say is while he may espouse Some of these positions.
I really do not believe he actually holds them.
Actions speak louder than words.
You can say, I hereby think that we should redistribute wealth.
However, massive multinational corporations should be given no-bid, no-liability contracts from the government, and everyone should be forced to participate.
And I'm like, mmmmmmm.
I don't know about all that, dude!
That seems like fairly authoritarian... It's not an authoritarian left position.
You're supporting the massive... Well, I guess technically you could call it left, but it's more fascistic than anything.
But this is the point, ultimately, about the culture war.
Hassan's a prominent streamer, the most prominent left-wing streamer, and his positions are predictable and generic.
He will absolutely just come out on the side of the corporation every single time.
Not always, okay, that's not fair.
I'm speaking, I'm being hyperbolic.
But he typically comes out in defense of the massive multinational corporation.
I find that interesting.
I typically oppose massive multinational corporations, the homogenization of power, the coalescing of power around centralized authorities.
I think the government and corporations are both very, very bad and should not have that much power and it should be decentralized.
I think war is bad.
I think we should be responsible for ourselves.
We should intervene a whole lot less.
The U.S.
shouldn't be involved in Ukraine, but oh, there we go.
Hasan Piker, prominent voice of the left, is in favor of the war in Ukraine, has mocked me for it, supports the massive, publicly traded, multinational corporation in this regard.
Just answer me how that makes sense.
You don't have to agree with me, you can agree with Hasan, that's absolutely fine.
I just think the culture war, a large component of it is, the marching in lockstep with the machine, and those outside the machine.
Yeah, but I'll leave it there.
I'll end by saying, it's victory.
It's major victory.
Shout out to Nick Merckx, TimTheTatMan, DrDisRespect.
You are making the world a better place because you're just standing up for yourselves and each other.
It's not about harsh ideology.
It's about saying, hey, look, man, I believe this.
So be it.
Take, you know, the fact that TimTheTatMan said, remove my operator bundle from this game At a detriment to himself, but because it's what he believes in and it's loyalty.
And his loyalty.
That is what makes a man a good person.
We're not going to be sexist here.
Strong character.
That's what we need to show kids.
That's inspiration.
Standing up for those you care about and what you believe in.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
A violation of U.S.
flag code.
That's the accusation because the Biden administration placed the Progress Pride flag center next to two American flags and flag code says the flag must be above or preeminent centered above all else.
Now, what the left is arguing is that it's not actually a violation of flag code because there is a much larger American flag on top of the White House.
I think it's a silly argument.
It really is going to come down to whether or not you want to justify your position to your side.
I don't think the left's argument about the American flag being on top of the White House in any way justifies centering the pride flag.
But here's the story.
White House accused of US flag code violation over Pride Month display.
President Biden spoke in front of Pride Month display Saturday.
I want to pull up.
Let me see if I can find this.
This image here is a tweet from End Wokeness.
He says the West has fallen and you can see Joe Biden speaking in front of a rainbow.
It's the Progress Pride rainbow.
It has many, many colors.
You can see Rockefeller Center with pride flags.
You can see this was, I believe, in the UK.
It's the... This is the... I don't know.
This one's called something else.
The advanced progress pride flag, I guess.
It's got the purple circle in it and the yellow triangle or whatever.
And then, of course, you have this.
The White House pride display with the progress pride colors and balloons.
The progress pride flag centered.
And then, of course, you can see the American flag is above the White House.
I'm going to say something that will trigger the left, and I hope they hear it.
The pride flag, the progress pride flag, is the same thing as the swastika.
Now, it does not represent the same ideology, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, people, you don't understand, people tend not to understand the history of the swastika as a symbol, and how it was appropriated by evil people to do evil things, to justify their evil.
It made perfect sense.
The swastika for a long time was a, and is, a religious symbol, and is all over the United States, even to this day.
The Nazis appropriated that symbol for that reason, and now, that symbol is associated with the utmost evil.
And I think, yes, absolutely.
There are a lot of people I know who try to make that argument about restoring the symbol or whatever, and it's like, look, words have meanings.
Symbols have meanings.
They convey ideas.
Memes convey ideas.
If the overwhelming amount of people decide a symbol means a thing to them, it does.
Just because to you the symbol might mean something good, does not mean that it is a good symbol to the majority of the people.
What I'm trying to say is, you can argue that what I mean to say when I show something is a good thing, but if you know the idea conveyed is a bad thing, you basically should just, you're basically just cussing at people.
You know what I mean?
Like, you know, you might think a word is fine, someone else might not, and the question is, Do you mean to convey a negative or positive thing to these people?
That's my point.
I guess my point ultimately comes down to this.
Humans are the deciding factor and winning the culture war is what matters.
Let me show you this story.
We'll get the argument about the pride flag and the flag code violation.
And then I want to show you some images and a news report out of Chicago to make my point.
And to clarify, my point is this.
The rainbow.
It's pretty.
We like it.
The progress pride flag.
It's supposed to represent something good.
But what happens when those people use it for evil?
Yes.
There will come a time, in my opinion, where the pride flag will be seen, maybe not in the exact same way, but it will be seen in a very, very, very dark and negative way.
I mean, you can take a look at the Soviet flag.
I was at a protest in Boston and there were lefties saying, you know, we're here to protest or whatever.
And then I said, but are you communist?
And they're like, no, no, no, we don't, we oppose that stuff.
And I said, then why is your guy flying a communist flag?
They pointed to the right and said the right was bad because they had a confederate flag.
I said, yeah, it's one guy.
It's, you know, one guy waving a confederate flag does not represent the entirety of the group.
It's probably some guy who showed up and they said, yeah, but why would they allow it?
And I said, well, you guys have a Soviet flag, not even a communist one, literal Soviet Union.
And he said, no, we don't.
And I was like, bro, look, and he turns around, he's like, oh, he's not with us.
And I'm like, you see my point?
You see my point?
But flags, when they're used by bad people, ultimately represent bad things later on.
Here's the story from Fox News. Joe Biden's administration is receiving backlash online
over its Pride Month display at the White House on Sunday, as many Twitter users are saying it
violates US flag code. Twitter users argue the display violates section of the flag that mandates
the American flag be in the center of any display featuring multiple national flags or pennants.
To advance revolutionary transgender agenda targeting children,
Biden violates basic tenant of US.
flag code and disrespects every American service member buried under its colors, wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Now here's why I think the left's counter defense on this is incorrect.
Ari Drennan says, And of course, it is the American flag centered right above all else.
However, flag code is a reference to the event.
over this scandal. Which flag is at the center and the highest point in this
photo from the event? And of course it is the American flag centered right above
all else. However, flag code is a reference to the event.
The flag above the White House is always above the White House. The flag
above the White House was not placed there for an event.
The pride flag and these two American flags were.
That's the argument.
Now, personally, I'm not saying Biden should resign because they placed a progress pride flag in the middle.
One could even argue, yes, it does violate flag code, but they put two American flags and only one pride flag.
So, I don't know, in that case, it's like, oh well, you know, you can argue that the American flag is more prominently displayed, and it is above the White House.
I honestly don't care all that much about the placement of the flag.
I care about the placing of the flag in its entirety.
The ideological capture of a nation.
Why is a flag that represents a political ideology being flown?
Serious question.
When do we ever fly any other flags like this?
Now, there are historical flags to American history that symbolize the ideals of America.
That is the Gadsden flag, the Gonzalez flag, and things like that.
Maybe they fly those at the White House as well.
The Gadsden flag, I think, would be welcomed, but typically you don't see it.
Just the American flag.
In fact, when people fly the Gadsden flag, the left attacks them over it.
Oh, okay, so be it.
Flags representing political ideologies divide the nation.
Why are they flying these flags?
Why do we have all of these photos of... I mean, look at this.
This is Rockefeller Center.
Why did they replace the flags of the world with pride flags?
These are flags of ideology.
Well...
Here's undwokeness.
The death of a nation summed up in two photos.
Far-left extremists tearing down a statue.
And the White House proudly displaying an ideological flag.
This is the ideological capture of a nation.
I'd like to show you this report.
Swastikas on public buildings and homes in Chicago, so that you can understand what it means with ideological capture.
The Gazzan flag may come to mean negative things to people in the future, as I mentioned with the symbol of the swastika.
That does not mean people should outright abandon all symbols, but my point is simply this.
The swastika, overwhelmingly, to people in the West, is derogatory.
It's an insult.
It is conveying a very dark and negative message to those people.
My question is, what idea are you trying to present to people when you communicate and do you communicate effectively?
That is to say, it's hard to know exactly when or when not to say certain words, use certain ideas or symbols, depending on the group you're talking to.
If you go to, I think like, India or China, I don't think they view the swastika in the same way at all as the West.
So are you conveying a good idea?
I am not saying this as like, be scared politically.
Look, I got a Gadsden flag hanging in my skate park.
Okay?
I'm gonna hang Gadsden flags wherever.
And it may convey a negative idea to some people, but overwhelmingly, the Gadsden flag represents something good, and it has not been taken away.
The people who claim it means something else don't actually believe that.
They're lying.
The reason they don't like the Gadsden flag is because it represents American freedom and independence.
Meritocracy, personal responsibility, etc.
It defies communist tendencies.
The Swastika, on the other hand, we were all raised, and it's an inversion, by the way.
But it is complicated.
I'm not going to pretend like it's simple and easy.
What I'm trying to say is, you're never going to see me supporting anyone wanting to use this and making some argument.
There's a group called Raelians.
They want to use the symbol.
There are churches that want to use the symbol.
I disagree.
I'm like, we don't live in that world anymore.
Now, I get it.
They want to take it back or whatever, and they want to strip the negative from it.
Well, I think you kind of lost that one.
I'm not an absolutist.
I think you can lose things.
You know, it is what it is.
But here's the story.
Swastikas on public buildings and homes in Chicago.
unidentified
And in this video, I'll play a little bit for you.
It is, Ron Cathy.
Even with a recent focus on Confederate flags, this weekend it was the swastika symbol that attracted attention in the skies over Chicago, flown by a group hoping to rehabilitate the Nazis' hateful logo back to where it began, as a symbol of peace and well-being, a symbol the I-team found across Chicagoland.
peer and at one of Columbia College's South Loop buildings embedded here in marble floors
at University of Chicago on the lower west side, an embellishment on this city monument
to Jacques Marquette.
The design is on what is now the Bridgeview Bank and the former Continental Illinois Bank,
along with countless pre-war war two Chicago homes and apartment buildings.
It's one of the most frequently asked questions asked here at the Baha'i Temple where it's.
tim pool
So the reason I bring this up, I'm from Chicago.
There was a house in my neighborhood that had what was obviously a swastika on the top
of the building.
of the building.
And they nailed wooden blocks in between the gaps to turn it into a square.
But we all knew what it was, because you could tell.
They wanted to get rid of that symbol.
They were no longer proud to have it embedded in brick in a building.
But as you can see across Chicago, people were flying that symbol.
No one cares to take those symbols down, destroy them.
They acknowledge the negative around it, but it's all embedded in the architecture and ain't nobody gonna pay to get rid of it.
This is what I think when I see the pride flag.
When I see this rainbow symbol of ideology being flown everywhere.
I see something simple.
If the woke win, this flag will be the new flag.
That's it.
These people hate America.
They don't like the American flag.
They don't like what the American flag represents.
And I firmly believe, I mean, look, they fly that flag before the American flag.
That's the flag they will choose to represent themselves in whatever it is they're doing.
If, I'm sorry, when they lose, and I say that because they're losing, This symbol will go down in infamy.
The symbol of the rainbow will be something dark and negative.
The progress pride flag will be viewed very, very negatively.
The abuse of children.
The violation of civil rights.
The psychotic ideologies that have been espoused.
The deranged violence that we've seen.
The Summer of Love 2020 riots.
The 529 insurrection at the White House, where people tore down the barricades, set fire to St.
John's Church, torched a guard post, forced the president into a bunker.
I don't believe that symbol will reflect anything positive.
It's unfortunate for Christians who may want to reclaim the idea of the rainbow, because while their rainbow is slightly different with different colors, it is still a symbol of God's covenant to the earth never to flood the planet again.
And the woke leftists have taken that symbol and used it in their ideological push.
You see where I'm going with this?
While they don't represent the same thing, the idea that a nation would fly the flag of ideology is no different than what the Nazis were doing.
Replacing Germany with their cult, psychotic ideology.
The murderous rampage, the pure evil that came along with it.
I'm not saying all woke people, all pride flag stuff is pure evil.
I think the ideology is evil and figuratively demonic.
It is a malevolent force.
But a lot of people in Germany were going along with the machine.
There's that one famous photo where everyone's doing the salute, but that one guy who's all angry and, like, refusing to do it.
I feel for that guy.
To watch your country be captured by a psychotic and deranged ideology.
And we see that happening now all around us.
But I don't believe that we will lose this one.
I really don't.
You see, there's something stronger than ideology, and that is...
Cultural tradition, which doesn't always win, but there is a genetic component, I believe, to what makes America.
Uh-oh, trigger all the lefties.
No, this is not to say anything related to race.
I think the people who come to this country, the immigrants, the various racial backgrounds, share a propensity towards freedom.
And here's what I think.
You take a look at what makes America.
People who didn't want to be a part of the establishment, wanted to be free, were willing to die to do it.
They immigrate to this land.
And a lot of bad things came along with it.
I mean, the Native Americans and the colonists were fighting, but it was people who immigrated to this country.
Something about them, within them.
Not completely a genetic component.
I believe nature and nurture have a balance within them.
But a lot of people in Europe were like, I'm leaving this place, it's bad.
For a variety of reasons.
I'd rather go live in the woods in the middle of nowhere in a new country and just find something new.
And the colonists came.
But I don't believe that those colonists are unique in that respect.
Throughout the past several centuries, many people from all over the world chose to emigrate to the United States.
People of all different racial backgrounds.
But within them was something that drove them to adventure, to find something new, to take the risk and responsibility among themselves to better succeed.
And this includes the illegal immigrants who are walking to this country through the southern border.
There is something that America represents that people from all over the world are willing to chase after with all of the risks included.
And I think that makes it very, very difficult to defeat.
The people who are coming to the United States illegally.
unidentified
Illegally!
tim pool
They should come legally!
But they come illegally.
I respect these people.
Yo.
All of them.
Every single one.
I do not respect them committing crimes to enter the country.
Criminally.
They should come in legally.
I know it's not easy.
But I respect it.
You know why?
These are people who see economic opportunity and see a dream of a great place in the United States.
And they're willing to risk everything to be here.
You have people who will travel thousands of miles for the American dream.
And that is what drives people here.
People from Africa, from Brazil, from Central America.
People from Honduras, people from Asia.
It doesn't matter where you are, there is something within these people that drives them to be here.
And you can't defeat it.
You can't.
Now, the left, the Democrats certainly want these people coming in the border.
They didn't do anything about it.
And there is a net economic negativity to uncontrolled migration.
I'm not saying I support any of the actual illegal acts, criminal immigration.
But these people, at the very least, look, Take your pick.
Ideologically captured lazy lefties or hard-working and driven migrants?
I would choose the hard-working and driven migrants any day.
However, illegal immigration crosses the line.
We can't have a functioning system if there's no controls.
And so, I personally want all of the immigrants, every single one who wants to come here to come here.
But you gotta do it legally, so that we can have an effective placement, so that the economy can function properly.
And part of that is, you understand what makes this country great.
So that's what I see when I see those pride flags.
I see an attempt I see people who are maladjusted, developmentally disabled, incapable of rational thought, and unwilling to do work.
And that's what that flag represents.
It represents exploitation, gluttony, in fact they call it the pride flag and I think it's the great name for it because to me it represents all of the seven deadly sins.
I mean all of them.
Gluttony.
Obviously.
This is the body positivity movement.
Envy?
Oh, come on.
Wealth redistribution?
Your hard work be mine?
Pride?
That one's obvious.
It's the name of the flag and these people display around in the streets in lewd behavior and sexually inappropriate behavior.
That's pride.
And also lust.
Greed.
Greed and envy go hand in hand.
Sloth.
You name it.
They don't want to do any work.
Wrath.
The violence of the far left.
The firebombing of buildings.
You get all of it.
I think that was all of them.
Did I miss any of the seven deadly sins?
Pride, Gluttony, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Greed, and what did I just miss?
I missed one.
I had six.
Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Wrath, Nah, I can't.
Greed.
And then what's the last one I'm forgetting?
Pride.
Wait, did I say pride twice?
Whatever.
You get the point.
Going through them on the fly.
But you get my point, you get my point.
I think the flag represents all of the seven deadly sins.
And so, here we are.
These are people who want from you, don't want work, they want more, they want power, they're angry, they're violent.
Not every single one.
Many of these people are just marching in lockstep out of fear.
And then what?
The system collapses around, everyone suffers because of it.
But I don't know if it's possible in the U.S.
When we see stuff like the Bud Light boycott, the Target boycott, when we see stuff like the Call of Duty boycott, and these prominent personalities and celebrities like Nick Merckx, Tim the Tatman, Dr. Disrespect, and these are modern era celebrities, they call them influencers and I'm like, dude, they got more followers than quote-unquote celebrities.
No, these are the real celebrities.
When you see them stand up, you just show the indomitable character of the American spirit!
You can't do it.
So in the long run, what do I see?
I see victory.
And there's nothing they can do to stop it.
That's it.
Try as they might, put any symbol you want, it will be looked back upon with disgrace.
Much like the swastika is.
And there are many people, like the Raelians, who are upset.
It's a religious group.
They want that symbol back.
I don't think you're getting it back.
Symbols can be destroyed.
They absolutely can.
The Gadsden flag is a symbol.
It will only be destroyed if we allow it to be.
I believe that symbol represents freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, meritocracy, individuality.
And we're not letting it go.
But, if people give up on it, then you do lose it.
I don't think we will.
I think we're going to succeed in this regard.
But we'll see.
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.
They have to do it.
They have no choice.
Taking down Tucker Carlson, they must, if they're going to win in 2024.
This guy, Tucker, gets 100 million hits, then 80 million hits on his second episode.
He's maintaining viewership on his show tremendously.
I do believe, once he gets the show fully up and running on Twitter with consistent daily episodes, he'll probably sit around, let's say 8 million.
I think it's up, I was saying 7 million before.
The fact that his second video got 80 million, I think he's going to keep getting big numbers.
And they can't allow that.
The question is, why is James O'Keefe being jammed up?
Why is Tucker Carlson being jammed up?
Why is the Daily Wire being jammed up?
They're jamming them up because they're prominent figures who are pushing anti-democratic party narratives.
Can't allow it.
James O'Keefe, it's funny, they call him conservative and I'm like, I actually don't even know if that's true.
Like he targets big corporations.
And they say he's far right!
And I'm like, Google?
I don't know, he's gonna have to corporatize fairly lefty as far as I'm concerned, but none of it really makes sense or matters anymore.
James O'Keefe gets suspended from Veritas.
They then say, you can't work.
He starts his own company, they sue him.
Tucker Carlson gets his show taken off the air.
He starts his own, he makes some posts on Twitter.
And they send him a cease and desist letter.
Here's the story from Axios.
Fox News has sent a cease and desist letter to Tucker Carlson as he rams up a competing
series on Twitter that drew a combined 169 million views.
Oh, what have you done, Fox, for its first two episodes?
Axios has learned.
The contract battle between Fox and its former top host, who was taken off the air in April at the network's historic Dominion settlement, has mighty repercussions for the conservative media ecosystem.
With Tucker on Twitter, Carlson and his growing production team are working to elevate Elon Musk's social media site as a news platform.
The cease and desist letter has not for publication in bold at the top.
Oh boy!
Here we go.
Fox is continuing to pay Carlson and maintains that his contract keeps his content exclusive to Fox through December 31st, 2024.
Carlson is making a First Amendment argument for posting on Twitter and asserts that Fox has committed material breaches of his contract.
Carlson's first two Twitter episodes were straight-to-camera monologues.
He plans to keep iterating with longer, more varied episodes, and the addition of guests, Axios is told.
We hear some big names have been lined up.
Justin Wells, Carlson's executive producer, tweeted yesterday, Next episode of Tucker on Twitter coming Tuesday, Tucker's response to the indictment of President Donald Trump.
Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer who represents Carlson along with Brian Friedman, said in a statement to Axios, Fox News continues to ignore the interests of its viewers, not to mention its shareholder obligations.
Doubling down on the most catastrophic programming decision in the history of cable news industry, Fox is now demanding that Tucker Carlson be silent until after the 2024 election.
Tucker will not be silenced by anyone.
He is a singularly important voice on matters of public interest in our country and will remain so.
Fox didn't comment.
They say he's out.
That's the narrative.
But I think the real issue is they cannot allow a prominent voice such as Tucker Carlson to speak out right now.
I don't know if it's a coincidence.
I don't know if it's a conspiracy.
I don't know what you want to call it.
Maybe it's a standalone complex.
Which you've heard me mention before.
A bunch of people doing similar things that makes it look like a conspiracy, but it's not.
That is, people at Veritas, at Project Veritas, who know James O'Keefe is a very big threat to the machine.
How did they succeed in 2020?
Ballot harvesting.
It has now become the principal cause espoused by many high-profile politicians and political activists.
That if we don't get to ballot harvesting, we don't win.
And that's what they were doing.
James O'Keefe helped to expose a lot of the chasing and harvesting that was going on.
Surprise, surprise.
They're shutting him down, or at least trying to.
I doubt they'll be successful.
Tucker Carlson.
Oh, come on.
This is the guy who went on his show and said the CIA took out JFK!
Then, of course, Ron Paul came on my show and said much the same thing.
It's now basically, colloquially, uh, that's not the right word, the right word, it's now, um, materially accepted by many people in this country, and has been for a long time, but what was deemed a crazy conspiracy theory is now, for the most part, to a lot of people, just a fact.
And that's where we're heading.
They're losing control of the narrative.
And so they must shut down anyone who challenges the narrative.
Think about how easy it was back in the day to have a singular narrative.
With only a few television channels and a few radio stations, you controlled what people thought.
And it was all lies.
Norm Macdonald has a fantastic joke where he says, I was looking through history and the good guys won every war!
What are the odds?
It's brilliant.
I mean, we know that history is written by the victors, but that was a really great way to put it, Norm.
Rest in peace.
Brilliant guy.
The good guys win every battle.
What that really says is those who can control the narrative will just say they're the good guys.
That'll always be the case.
Villainize anybody else.
And now you have a challenge here.
The narrative is broken.
It's not working anymore.
You've got gamers rising up.
People refusing to buy Bud Light because of memes.
People refusing to shop at Target, and the media doing everything in its power to try and lie, cheat, and steal, and claim none of it's true.
My favorite is when CNN said that the stock drop-off for Target has nothing to do with the boycott, and it's all, it's market factors, it's the economy.
No big deal.
Interesting.
When you compare the stock of Target to Walmart, hmm, something seems off.
Target being down double digits, and Walmart being down only like a point or two.
Why would Walmart be improving, and it started improving, and Target be declining?
Could it be that people are stopping their patronage to Target and they are going to Walmart?
That's what many honest news reports are actually saying.
Now, this narrative wouldn't exist if we were back in the day of broadcast television.
The fads could go to any paper or media publication and say, this story's not allowed.
You can't do it.
And they would say, okay.
And it's kind of sad, really.
It is.
The deep state, the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, they'd go to a reporter and say, look, we don't want to tell you not to run the story.
Just know that if you do, people will die and it will be your fault.
And they'll go, oh jeez, what do I do?
There's real questions there, man.
I do think, you know, I was going to tweet a joke out.
Mark Zuckerberg was talking about, you know, the censorship requests and all that stuff.
And I'm like, Zuckerberg must have it very hard.
And, uh, half-kidding.
But in reality, I do think that he, Dorsey, and many of these people actually do have challenges.
That doesn't mean I think they should give in to intelligence agencies and the government when it comes to censoring information.
It just means that it's not easy to deal with this stuff.
Now, of course, if you're just ideologically aligned with the establishment, you'll march in lockstep, no question.
But if you're just like a regular person and someone comes to you and says, look, you've got 300 million posts per day that are telling people to, let's say, you know, I don't know, do something like drink a poisonous substance of some sort.
People are going to die because they're going to see this.
There was a kid.
Who heard about the Tide Pod Challenge, and he put a Tide Pod in his mouth as a gag.
Well, the material that bonds the Tide Pod easily breaks down in moisture, and so it popped and ruptured in his mouth, and then he aspirated, and it went into his lungs, and it caused serious chemical burns and damage in his lungs.
He couldn't get it out.
Crazy.
What do you do?
Flush your lungs?
Man.
The reason he did it was because he saw it on the internet.
There's a little girl.
She did the, uh, the, what is it, like, the, the, the pass-out challenge or whatever?
Where she, like, grabbed, like, I'm not gonna explain how to do it.
But she cut, cuts off the blood flow to her head, and then she died.
So you go to someone like Zuckerberg and you say, look at this man!
This stuff is spreading!
They're, they're people who are dumb!
And Zuckerberg says, you got it.
And he censors it.
And it turns out Zuckerberg was wrong.
The reason why I say it's hard is because if you are someone who doesn't pay attention to the stuff and you have no idea what's going on, you think you're doing the right thing, when you're doing the wrong thing.
And sometimes we all make the wrong decision.
It's not easy.
And that's what the deep state longs for.
A world where they can just say, we will tell you what to think, how to think, and when to think, and you won't have to worry your pretty little face about it.
But I think the reality is, life is not safe.
And some people win Darwin Awards.
You can't play that game.
You have to just say people are allowed to share and say what they want to say so long as it's legal.
Legally!
Otherwise, no.
No illegal stuff that we agree upon, right?
Within certain reason.
The government can't just make the sharing of opinion illegal.
They'd love to if they could.
But we're talking about threats of violence.
Direct calls to action and things like that that violate the law.
That I understand.
For the time being, what we must contend with is, over the next year or two, the next year and a half, they will do everything in their power to silence anyone who opposes them.
Because they're evil.
Not because they're good.
But they'll go to stupid people and they'll trick them into doing their bidding.
So we must... We have to do the work.
We have to read, we have to research to the best of our abilities.
Fact-check things.
And it's not easy.
That's why they're trying to silence people like Tucker, James O'Keefe, The Daily Wire.
Because they know they'll lose, unless they do.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
I'm a liberal.
It's hard to find masculine men to date who aren't conservative.
And here is the great article from the New York Post.
A woman who wants a manly man who can take care of her, but who isn't a conservative.
Yo, you're... I just don't even know where to begin with this.
You're asking for... You're like, I would like a chocolate cake that's not chocolate.
What?
Why would a liberal man be... Like, the things you're describing are conservatism!
Okay.
Let's, uh, let's read.
A single woman has made waves for lamenting on TikTok that all the chivalrous masculine men in her dating orbit are conservative.
Yes, because chivalrous masculinity are literally conservative positions today.
They say masculinity is bad all the time.
And a liberal guy who might be ripped or tall or chiseled If he opens the door for you, he's called conservative.
It's these little things, and you'll try and argue it's not true, but spare me, dude.
I've seen the Gillette commercials.
We all have.
And it may be that you don't agree with those commercials, and the narrative's coming from the machine, but, uh, the general idea is traditional masculinity, the things you're asking for, don't exist in liberals because they're contradictory.
As I was saying.
Quote, as a liberal woman, it is really hard to find a man who is willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship, in today's day and age, who is not conservative.
A man who wants to pan the first date, who wants to open your door, who has that wanted desire to take care of you and provide, who is not a conservative.
You are saying like, I want a guy who's conservative, but not conservative.
That doesn't make sense.
The LA woman said that men she's dated, who do have those quality traits, don't align with her political ideologies.
And she clarified that just because she wants an old-fashioned gentleman, doesn't mean she plans to subscribe to a traditional housewife role.
So what are you saying?
You want a guy that's gonna pay for you?
You want a guy that's gonna do heavy lifting for you, and then you will do nothing for him?
I just, I absolutely love the entitlement and the broken brains, but I don't blame this woman.
I blame her parents.
I blame society.
For not teaching people.
Look, she has in her an innate desire, a longing for a strong man who's gonna roll up his sleeves and shatter wood.
He's gonna pick up an axe with one hand and just boom!
And then the whole oak tree explodes into a million splinters and goes flying.
unidentified
And then he catches a piece of wood and he goes, time for a fire.
tim pool
That's what she's looking for.
A manly man who's out there, you know, sweating with his sleeves rolled up when a grizzly bear comes up and he goes, stay back, honey.
unidentified
And then he goes, boom, and he hits the grizzly bear so hard, the grizzly bear's skull just turns to liquid.
And then he's like, no one threatens my family.
And then he turns around and goes, vote Trump.
tim pool
And she screams and she wakes up from her nightmare.
Anyway, she says, and obviously I want, as a liberal woman, I do want to be respected for my independence and I do want to have my own autonomy in the relationship and not to be combined or confirmed to the traditional female homemaker childbearing role.
So you want a guy who is old-fashioned and traditional and will pay for you, but you don't want to be a mom to his kids.
Like, dude, have a polycule, man.
Get a bunch of small effeminate men who don't want things from you.
Listen, The kind of guy who's going to do these things for you likely wants something in return.
And it's not that, like, everyone's entitled to everything.
It's quite literally a guy being like, listen, I will pay for you.
I will take care of you.
I will provide.
I will be strong.
And in exchange for the things I give, I expect.
What are you offering him?
You're gonna date him?
You're gonna, you know, give him pleasure and stuff like that?
Yeah, it's probably okay.
But understand, most of the guys who work hard to improve themselves, they want a life.
They want something.
Now, don't get me wrong, lady, you can find this guy.
Maybe a unicorn, maybe hard to find, but they exist.
Just, you know, good luck.
I really do mean it.
I hope everybody finds the person they're looking for.
But look, you're talking about somebody who has wants and desires of their own.
So you're saying you want to find the one guy who's strong, conservative, not conservative, obviously, she's saying not conservative, but a guy who's strong, masculine, traditional, and progressive.
How do you be traditional and progressive?
But you want to find this guy, and then you also expect him not to want you to do things for him.
It may exist.
You know, there may be guys like, look, I just don't want kids.
I don't care what you do.
But what you're typically going to find is a guy who doesn't want to be in a relationship with you.
The kind of guy you're describing, who is more traditional, will pay.
He's going to find you on a dating app.
He's going to say, look, I'll hold the door for you.
I'll pay for the, for lunch.
We'll go back to my place, have a good time.
And then you can get the F out.
I'll call an Uber for you.
That is basically what you will find.
A guy who's going to be more traditional is going to say, the reason I want marriage is because I want a family.
Maybe you find a guy who says, I want a wife, and I want kids.
He's still going to expect something in exchange.
She said, I don't want to compromise my morals and values just to find a man.
But am I asking to have my cake and eat it too?
Yes.
Now, hold on there a minute.
I know there's more to the picture than just whether or not they have kids and a family.
There's also the, does the guy agree with BLM and gender ideology?
And still, there's going to be an overlap saying no.
I'm sorry, there's going to be a paradox.
Or I'm screwing up my thoughts.
It is a contradiction.
The likelihood that a man overlaps with agreeing with gender ideology, liberalism, and leftism, and is traditional and masculine, it's just, they're two separate.
There's no overlap is what I meant to say.
None.
You may find this rare individual, but extremely, extremely unlikely.
And if you do find him, he's probably just lying to you because he wants to get laid.
That's like saying I want to invest in something without having to do anything but get all the benefits from it.
Another chimed in.
All I heard is I want someone to take care of me, but I don't want to take care of them.
Others had a bipartisan solution.
Your morals and beliefs don't have to be in sync with your husband.
What matters is you're able to both compromise and work together.
Guys.
Run.
Full speed from this woman.
Because if you think you can be in a relationship with a liberal woman who wants a traditional man, she will take your children to California or Washington for a sex change before you know it.
I'm not trying to be cute here.
I'm telling you straight up.
This is what happens.
These guys date these liberal... Look.
Liberal lefty women love strong conservative men.
No question.
I'm not saying every single one.
I'm not saying the majority.
I'm saying there are many, many, many Liberal lefty women who just love strong, defiant men.
Now, socially, they may not want to admit it, but come on, girls love a bad boy!
Not a dick, not an evil person.
They like someone who's confident in themselves and willing to buck the system.
But what happens if you have a child with this person?
And then one day she's like, I'm running away to Washington for affirmation for the child.
What are you gonna do?
No.
When you marry someone, you gotta make sure your values are aligned.
So, lady, I'm sorry to tell you, But your politics are bad, and you're not going to find family and happiness.
But I wonder the bigger picture here.
In a follow-up video, she says she proved naysayers wrong.
She dished on a recent date with a man who seemed to share her similar progressive values and wants to help his wife with household duties and childcare.
That's exactly what I've been looking for, so I hope it works out.
I don't believe her.
I think she is just trying to justify socially because she was embarrassed and people were ragging on her.
But I wonder if this is the inherent challenge.
How do you start a family with someone who holds insane and deranged views?
unidentified
Hmm.
tim pool
I don't know.
Maybe that's the purpose.
You won't be able to.
I like how she's now saying that, oh, I found a guy who, you know, is gonna help with the house.
Huh?
unidentified
What?
tim pool
You want it?
Hold on.
A man who wants to pay on the first date, to open your door, Yeah.
I don't believe it.
Now I know, I know it's entirely possible she finds a guy like this, but I doubt she will respect a man who she walks all over.
help? How much you want to bet it's a wham bam thank you ma'am?
Now I know I know it's entirely possible she finds a guy like this but I
doubt she will respect a man who she walks all over. You know I think
there's a lot of male perspective in dating and that women espouse male
perspective dating tropes because that's what's in the media.
Men want beautiful women.
They want women who will help them have a family and take care of that family and who are beautiful because it is related to good genetics.
Women want men who are strong and able to protect a family.
Traditionally, not every woman, not every man, people have different tastes.
But here's what I see.
Women, they likely are not going to respect a guy or be attracted to a guy who they walk all over because that is a sign he will not be able to protect you.
And that's just, that's just it.
Now there's like the dating manosphere stuff and they say like, don't cry in front of women and things like that.
Well yeah, women are not attracted to that.
At all.
It's not the same as how men operate.
Men see women cry and they're like, oh now what?
But it's not going to negatively impact their attraction to a very, very beautiful woman.
A lot of guys date crazy, as they call it.
But if women are not as attracted to appearance and are more attracted to status, power, capability, and they see a man crying or serving on them, it's not attractive to them.
This is not my opinion.
I was reading about why female strip clubs are not as prominent as male strip clubs.
Why is it that almost every single strip club is women dancing for men and not men dancing for women?
Yes, Chippendales, those things exist.
It's because women are not attracted to men in submissive roles.
Women go to strip clubs with other women to watch women dance.
Yes, you probably know many women who may have done that.
And women go to Chippendales not because they're, you know, it's the lusty men.
It's because they're like, they're, you know, it's entertainment.
Men go to strip clubs to watch women dance because it gets them off.
Women and men are different in their attraction.
So lady, I wish you the best of luck.
Hope this guy works out.
But man, you're asking for a unicorn.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Export Selection